Controversial Calderdale skip incinerator planning enquiry gets back underway

The inquiry is being held into the council’s refusal of permission for the company to use a small waste incineration plant (SWIP) at its Belmont Industrial Estate, Rochdale Road, Triangle, site, and varying some of the site’s existing conditions of use.

Planning Inspector Ian Jenkins adjourned the inquiry in April to allow time for Calder Valley Skip Hire to submit a revised Environmental Statement, as requested by the Planning Inspector, and for the council to consider its response.

It resumed on Tuesday, November 26, when concerned residents continued giving evidence and is set to close tomorrow (Thurs, November 28) or on Friday, November 30, when Mr Jenkins will leave to consider his decision.

Reopening the inquiry, Mr Jenkins said the primary focus would be on the environmental statement addendum with new evidence potentially significant if it was justified and both parties had submitted more papers.

Although ground previously covered in the hearing in April might be revisited where relevant, it was not his intention to revisit everything, he told the inquiry.

Planning evidence would also be heard.

Air quality and noise were issues involved and planning evidence would also be presented, the inquiry heard.

Mr Jenkins said that on resumption the main issues as he saw them were air quality, noise and disturbance, and Mr John Barrett, for Calderdale Council, and Mr Satnam Choongh, for Calder Valley Skip Hire, agreed.

In December 2017, councillors decided to refuse the application with main issues including its impact on Air Quality and quality of life, but this is contested by the company.

The application has proved controversial, attracting opposition from all political parties, petitions and protests and generating more than 1,000 responses on the council’s planning portal, mainly objecting to the plans.

The company wants the inspector to over-turn the decision.

Mr Jenkins said planning conditions, should the appeal be allowed would be discussed at the hearing but he told those attending this was not in any way pre-judging the case.