Share the details of biomass proposal

Last week, when driving into Bishop's Castle, I commented on the smog created in the bottom of the town by a combination of smoke and the smell given off by woodchip processing.

In the absence of a breeze, this brew of pollutants builds up in the bottom of the valley.

Since the valley is apparently prone to atmospheric inversion in still weather, this is a regular occurrence.

I thought how lucky the locals were to have avoided a further source of pollution in the form of the aborted biomass incinerator.

Then I read your article extolling the virtues of the proposed incinerator and realised that the project was still alive and well.

Furthermore the proposers, who have repeatedly failed to adequately address local concerns and questions in the past, now state that they have maybe put too much information in the public domain and some people have been confused by this.

How condescending.

If they genuinely have nothing to hide, then why are they so reluctant to answer all the questions which have been put to them?

However this project is dressed up, it will still be an incinerator burning vast amounts of low-grade fuel on a totally unsuitable site.

This is not to mention the additional pollution created by transporting biomass to the site.

Perhaps now is the time for the eco-friendly farmers to share all the available information with the people of Bishop's Castle.

Or do they believe that their investment entitles them to continue patronising the poor confused locals?

Barry Jones, Churchstoke