Letter: Biomass decision is a dark day for Bishop’s Castle
Wednesday 20th October 2010, 6:01AM BST.
Letter: October 13 proved a dark day for Bishop’s Castle when Shropshire Cabinet refused to respond to overwhelming opposition to the proposed biomass plant.
About 150 people made the journey to Shirehall for the meeting but it soon became clear only blind optimism had allowed them to believe the cabinet would be swayed by such compelling public opinion.
Disappointment rather than surprise took hold on the journey home.
Maybe the members of the Shropshire Cabinet have no interest in life in Bishop’s Castle. Maybe they have no understanding of the depth of feeling the inhabitants of Bishop’s Castle have for their town.
We love it here and we appreciate thousands of visitors to the town love it too.
The mystery of it all to me is that the directors of Bishop’s Castle Biomass Power Ltd do not feel any obligation to listen to their fellow townsfolk.
How can they even think of proceeding with the project knowing that the vast majority of the local population is against it?
Have they no feeling of community spirit? How can they and their families walk down the High Street knowing that they are guilty of causing such distress and anxiety to so many?
Why do they live in an idyllic country area if they have no adoration for what surrounds them? How can financial gain come before thought for their neighbours?
In years to come Bishop’s Castle will suffer because of damage caused by a small group of businessmen
I will always remember those who put their community first; those who fought tooth and nail to halt this threat to our wellbeing.
Fellow lovers of all that is near perfect, I thank you.
But I will never again offer the hand of friendship to those few who try to destroy it in order to make their fortune.
Heather Ashton
Bishop’s Castle
Most Commented
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Shrewsbury’s broadband speed one of slowest in UK
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
No evidence of causing health issues , that can be the only objection to this project what else can there be . The Positive it will bring is employment to a rural area, OK not what many would like but what else is do you have in that area to keep the young there?? Bishops castle cant be the home of the retired and unemployed who like to live the hippy lifestyle but why should it be?? the young need work and as such why should they move away to get it . As for the 150 was that it? how many live in Bishops castle?? and have no objection to this project.
Report abuse
The current population of Bishops Castle is approximately 2000.
One would venture that the majority of habitants are rather indifferent to the proposed development regardless of what the vocal minority will have you believe.
Report abuse
Shaun. 400 letters of objection from 900 homes,350 turn out for a meeting, 140 go to Shirehall on a working day. These are unprecedented figures. Old, young indiginous and incomers.Next to school and hosuing and playing field. Not next to the developers farms or homes but next to someone elses.
Andrew The plant is innefficient at half the level considered acceptable in the states and a fifth of the CHP plant in Denmark. There is a predicted shortage of clean woodchip in the UK from 2011..ask Kronospan. Drax Hull not proceeding because they are not economic Port Talbot not proceeding and application for relaxation of emmission limits.
Report abuse
Andrew As far as employment is concerned a few facts. The developers themselves stated that there would be no jobs for local people at the plant. The inspector was unable to draw conclusions about actual numbers. If Ransfords cannot supply there are no jobs created there and forestry work is largly governed by maturity of crop.
Kronospan employ 600 in a sustaibale use of wood they consider that their raw materila supply is at risk from these highly subsidised generators.
Welsh assembly have identifieda shortage of fuel interfering with other sustainable industries.
Lastly on jobs do you think that large ugly smoke stack plant will attract tourist. Reports from a similar operation of smoke and smell dumped ash and noise are not encouraging.
Of course you attended the relavant meetings and the Inquiry so you know all this. You’ve done the research So why continue to attack people for trying to look after their environment. People who do not want to see it degraded to produce a tiny amount of subsidised electricty by inefficient means.
And if concerns for health were valid in Shrewsbury where the plant would be subject to much stricter control why are those concerns not valid in Bishop’s Castle. Too many Council seats at risk I suppose
Report abuse
What health concerns??? , and the rest of your comment of course I did not, if you say so. It is I assume easier to see the full picture when it is not in your back yard, I suppose you need to take that on board also miachel when you comment on another’s opinion.
Report abuse
The inpector recognised the capacity of the plant to harm health. He Thought that conditions were capable of controlling the potential harm. We know that conditions were not met by design at the regional demonstrator leading to removal of its EP permit. That plant is located well away from sensitive receptors with the exception of one house.
The developers said that they could remove most of the harmful PM10 emmisions but that it was uneconomic to do so. We await their proposals in detail to see if appropriate technogy emerges to meet the inspectors requirements. We think consent for a theoretical plant,it as yet undesigned, is a cause for concern and the sale of the land prior to the submission of full technical details is premature.
you should appreciate that there is new housing 140m to the west. a school and its playing feilds to the south and a vets surgery next door. When asked if his kids went to the school would he want testing for dioxin the developers air quality expert said “You bet I would” An honest answer.
Report abuse
Particulate matter alone is a major contributing factor to asthma and respiratory issues. Wood burning also releases NOx, SOx, Dioxin, and Mercury. All of these substances have been irrevocably shown to cause damage to health. Both dioxin and mercury have no safe levels. Find out more information on Biomass Energy
or download our Biomass Fact Sheet.
Report abuse
And what comes out of peoples chimneys when wood is burnt ????????????
Report abuse
NEVER FEAR they are building a health centre also.
Report abuse