Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think incinerators should not be built on GREEN BELT LAND

46 replies

WaferThinPaperSkin · 08/08/2012 22:50

A planning application has been submitted for permission to build a gasification incinerator in Elmbridge on green belt land.

The proposed site is right next to RHS Wisley and access will be from a road that already has real traffic problems.

Wtaf is the point of labelling land as green belt if you then allow, of all bloody things, an incinerator to be built on it?

Obviously, there are other (very significant and worrying) issues with incinerators in general and I would not want one built near me at all but I do understand they have to be built somewhere - but why pick a green belt site ffs?

Info and a petition is here if you're interested

OP posts:
ClaireRacing · 09/08/2012 07:55

Green belt land is to prevent urban sprawl. It is not about turning the area into parkland.

Where should Elmbridge's waste be dealt with, in your opinion?

Original poster
WaferThinPaperSkin · 09/08/2012 09:22

I agree that one of the purposes of designating land as green belt is to prevent urban sprawl. However, that's not its only purpose. Another of its stated purposes is to preserve natural habitats and ensure green land for the benefit of everyone.

I've said in my op that I know they have to go somewhere - I am a realist. Surely a brownfield site would be a better idea?

Don't you think that we should be preserving the areas that support our wildlife? Would it not be better idea to use, say, disused industrial area (of which there are plenty)?

OP posts:
Kladdkaka · 09/08/2012 09:33

Another of its stated purposes is to preserve natural habitats and ensure green land for the benefit of everyone.

Stated by whom? There are 5 stated purposed in the legislation and they don't include either of those.

tiggytape · 09/08/2012 09:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
WaferThinPaperSkin · 09/08/2012 09:51

My apologies for not having stated the specific wording of the Act. However, the guidance notes do state that one of the purposes is to protect the countryside from encroachment.

I know it's always very tempting to jump on the op for not being exact in the wording but surely you understand the reasoning behind my post? Would it not be more in the spirit of a discussion to give your views on the subject (I.e. whether I'm being unreasonable to think it would be better not to build an incinerator on green belt land) than to pull apart the wording of my posts?

OP posts:
griphook · 09/08/2012 09:55

Don't you think that we should be preserving the areas that support our wildlife? Would it not be better idea to use, say, disused industrial area (of which there are plenty)?

No yabu, I live near elmbridge, what we need is decent housing that is affordable to the people that have lived in the area all their lives but can not afford to live of rent in the area due to the cost. Rather than some butterflies

Original poster
WaferThinPaperSkin · 09/08/2012 09:55

tiggytape I do completely understand the point you're making. This particular site happens to be in green belt AND very close to residential areas (sorry to drip feed).

I haven't read any suggestions about alternate sites as yet but I do really worry about no preservation of green areas.

OP posts:
griphook · 09/08/2012 09:56

I know it's always very tempting to jump on the op for not being exact in the wording but surely you understand the reasoning behind my post? Would it not be more in the spirit of a discussion to give your views on the subject

Yanbu

Original poster
WaferThinPaperSkin · 09/08/2012 09:58

griphook they are not proposing housing, they are proposing an incinerator.

OP posts:
germyrabbit · 09/08/2012 09:58

i don't get the 'green belt' at all, england is fully of greeney and fields and yet we house our children in tiny schools and live in boxy houses.

it's crackers

germyrabbit · 09/08/2012 09:59

and having woken up to my entire town stinking today as it's near a refuse dump the green belt would surely be the best place for incinerators!

Original poster
WaferThinPaperSkin · 09/08/2012 10:05

germyrabbit in my understanding green belts are around towns and cities, not out in the countryside so putting things like this on green belt land is not the same as building them where they will not be anywhere near people's homes. It just means they will be on the green areas adjacent to people's homes

OP posts:
Kladdkaka · 09/08/2012 10:06

I'm not pulling apart the wording of your post. Your argument was that it goes against the stated principles of green belt land. You then state principles which aren't stated principles. That's a pretty crucial point.

Original poster
WaferThinPaperSkin · 09/08/2012 10:09

... But yet you still haven't comment on the actual subject of the post!

OP posts:
Kladdkaka · 09/08/2012 10:17

Eh? The subject of you post is that it shouldn't be built on green belt land. One your arguments in support of this is that it goes against the stated purposes of green belt land. Therefore commenting that the stated purposes you give are not stated purposes is commenting on the subject of the post. Confused

griphook · 09/08/2012 10:18

No I realise that but you seemed more worried about wildlife having a home.

But you didn't say in your op that it was near a residential area so because of that yadnb as I believe incinerator should be as far away from people as humanly possible.

Out of interest do you have an exact proposed alternative area?

Original poster
WaferThinPaperSkin · 09/08/2012 10:23

kladdkaka I have apologised for not citing the exact wording of the Act. I have also confirmed that the guidance notes state that one of the purposes of the Act is to protect the countryside from encroachment.

griphook I do not have an exact proposed alternative area, from what I have read there isn't one (but I'm pretty certain I haven't read everything there is to read on the subject)

OP posts:
BikeRaceRunningRaceNoSkiing · 09/08/2012 10:36

Have you started petitioning and establishing a well considered and properly researched case against the planning application? Start by reading your local authority's Unitary Development Plan. Consider why the developers want to use thi particular - consider why the sites you think are more suitable might not be. The reason why planning applications are advertised is so that people you object have an oppurtuntity to do so through the appropriate and influential channels. Have you contacted your Parish Council and Councillor? Local opposition party? Maybe contact the Environment Agency regarding the legality of the proposals (I work circa differerent part of the EA and we comment on planning applications near rivers). To have any credibility to your objections they must be fully up to speed on all legislation, and common interpretation of it, including local bye laws regarding land use, pollution, access to the site. You really have to be Devil's Advocate or you will be seen as NIMBY.

Kladdkaka · 09/08/2012 10:36

The guidance notes also state that necessary development is permitted.

OP, do you actively object to proposed developments of green belt in other areas or other waste disposal facilities? Or just this one?

tiggytape · 09/08/2012 10:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ClaireRacing · 09/08/2012 10:48

OP, do you have a better suggestion for siting an incinerator within Elmbridge?

Original poster
WaferThinPaperSkin · 09/08/2012 11:12

BikeRaceRunningRaceNoSkiing thank you for your advice. V helpful. I will start researching thoroughly and speaking to the appropriate people.

kladdkaka I have not done so previously. This one is near me so has brought the issue to my attention.

ClaireRacing I don't have a better suggestion within Elmbridge at the moment but will definitely research the area

OP posts:
Sallyingforth · 09/08/2012 11:51

I would not want one built near me at all but I do understand they have to be built somewhere
as long as it's somewhere else.

ClaireRacing · 09/08/2012 13:11

In the corner between the M25 and A3 doesn't sound bad at first site. It's not next to RHS Wisley, btw, but some distance away with the 8 carriages of the M25 in between.

I have actually driven up by the proposed site (DS had his prom at the nearby golf club so I did a bit of exploring). IIRC, it's currently a vast bit of concrete right on the edge of the motorway. The residential lots are all at least an acre, so relatively few families are affected.

Obviously, there are a lot of factors to be taken into account, both the weakness of reasons for as well as the strength of the reasons against.

I think reasons against are pretty easy to pick apart, tbh. It would be better to tackle the holes in the reasons for.

I have a bit of an issue with coming to a national website looking for petition signatures. The gentlefolk of Byfleet, Weybridge and Cobham may not want lorry noises while they are sunbathing on the edge of their swimming pools, or to breathe a particle or two of dioxin while they puff and pant on their home tennis courts, but you want the rest of us to support putting the incinerator in our back yards?

Original poster
WaferThinPaperSkin · 09/08/2012 13:42

Of course I don't want it put in ANYONE'S backyard. And to be honest, the complete generalisation that everyone living in this area sunbathes around their swimming pools is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

I am of course happy for you to think I am being unreasonable - that is what this section is for but you very much weaken your own argument by talking utter nonsense about an area you quite clearly know nothing about (despite having driven around it).

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread