Suffolk County Council rejects Acorn Bionergy’s bid to build a controversial bioenergy plant in Withersfield, near Haverhill

Suffolk County Council has this morning rejected a contentious planning application for an anaerobic digestion (AD) plant, with one councillor calling it a ‘frivolous application’ and a ‘waste of public money’.

Acorn Bioenergy had sought to create the biogas plant across a 14-hectare site on Thurlow Estate-owned land at Spring Grove Farm in Withersfield, close to Haverhill and next to the A1307.

But the county’s development and regulation committee today voted unanimously against the scheme, which was first raised in 2022 and would have seen agricultural waste, such as rye, maize, slurry and poultry litter, taken onto the site by lorry and fed into five digestion tanks.

Solids and liquids would be separated and bio methane gas produced, which would then be taken off site and fed into the National Grid, helping to heat some 7,600 households.

Today’s meeting heard that Suffolk County Council’s (SCC) planning officer had recommended the plans be refused on the grounds of the site being in the open countryside and lack of information on the plans' impact on highway safety, as well as landscape and visual impact.

At the meeting, Peter Bradfield, a consultant for Suffolk Highways, explained that Acorn Bioenergy proposed a junction into the farm from the A1307 that was unsuitable given the volume of traffic that used the road.

He said the applicant based its proposed junction design on the A1307 having 1,300 vehicle movements per day, whereas the county council found that the figure is between 1,500 to 1,600 daily.

Mark Bowman, on behalf of local residents, businesses and the campaign group Muck Off Acorn, told the committee the plant would put nearby businesses at risk and be detrimental for residents.

He said: “This is the most consequential and far reaching application made in our area for decades. Please consider the safety and wellbeing of some 30,000 people. Please deny this application.”

Richard Haylock, whose family has farmed land next to Spring Grove Farm for just short of 100 years, said that had the AD plant been in place during flooding which took place in 1987 and 1991, there would have been ‘devastating pollution’ because the excess water would have mixed with chemicals from the plant.

He added: “The Thurlow Estate has some 16,000 acres of land at their disposal and they’ve chosen a flood plane. It is the worst location possible.”

Cllr Indy Wijenayaka, West Suffolk councillor for Withersfield, a resident of the area and spokesman for Muck off Acorn, said: “The application lacks in highways safety, it’s in the wrong place. This proposal has clear and deep negative impacts on the communities of Withersfield and Haverhill.”

He added: “I believe it will lead to an economic downturn in the area.”

Cllr Pat Hanlon, objected to the application on behalf of Haverhill Town Council. He said: “The size and scope of the proposal is industrial rather than a farming sideline.

“Nearly 90 per cent of the stock is being imported so by no means can this be described as a farm scheme.”

Councillors Bobby Bennett (Clare) and Joe Mason (Haverhill) - the latter sits on the committee - both objected to the application.

Cllr Bennett said a lack of public engagement carried out by Acorn Bioenergy had been ‘unacceptable’ and added that the AD plant would be ‘incompatible’ with the area.

Cllr Mason said: “It is completely out of keeping with the surrounding landscape and it threatens the important gateway area into Haverhill, so the planning officer is rightly recommending refusal.”

Daniel Lambert, director of Acorn Bioenergy, asked for the decision to be deferred on the grounds that the SCC planning officer’s report contained numerous ‘inaccuracies and omissions’.

These included, he said, that energy from the plant would heat 9,364 households, not 7,650 as stated in the officer’s report. The plant would also save 30,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually, said Mr Lambert.

He continued: “It has not been recognised, that the adopted Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan of 2020, is out of date,” and said: “The proposals would make an important contribution to addressing the climate crisis.”

Mr Lambert also said the proposed feedstock allocation cited in the report was incorrect: “The application proposes 92,000 tonnes per annum of feedstock not 115,000 as mentioned in the report.”

The traffic movements figure used by SCC was also wrong, he added, because it was based on an erroneous amount of feedstock being delivered to the plant each year.

The meeting was also told by a planning officer that flooding concerns were not one of the SCC objections because the Environment Agency said it had no opposition to the proposal as long as certain conditions were put in place.

Cllr David Roach, who represents Haverhill East and Kedington, said: “There is nothing in this that benefits Suffolk. This does not benefit any of the residents of Suffolk.

“It doesn’t give us cheap gas for our homes or any energy. This is a gas production facility, not an AD plant for farm use.”

Committee member, Cllr Richard Kemp, said: “I have never, ever, in 35 years (of sitting on planning committees) seen such a cast iron case for refusal of an application.

“That gives me every confidence in supporting this refusal.

“This represents, in my opinion, a frivolous application and it’s a pity there’s not a claim that can be made for public costs against the applicant.”