Waste treatment plant, near Haverhill, with more than 1,000 objections recommended by Suffolk County Council planners for refusal

Controversial plans for a waste treatment plant on the outskirts of a town have been recommended for refusal after more than 1,000 objections.

County councillors will decide the outcome of Acorn Bioenergy Ltd's bid for a new anaerobic digestion facility on land north of Spring Grove Farm, in Withersfield, near Haverhill, on Thursday next week.

Since being submitted to the authority in September 2022, the plans have received significant public backlash, with a total of 1,196 objections from residents, some by the same person.

Susie Norman, principal at Colourbox Montessori Nursery School, in Haverhill, said the plant would have an impact on the children's lives.

She said: "The children are currently allowed to play outside whenever they wish, but taking into account reports of foul smells from similar projects, it appears that we may have to restrict their outdoor time — this is unacceptable for young children.

"The children range in age from three months to four years, and some of them are asthmatic, which will only be exacerbated by a drop in surrounding air quality."

Another objector said: "My objection is very simple. I live very close to the plant, within 300 metres, and do not wish to spend my future not being able to enjoy my outdoor space due to the smell of poultry waste."

Further objections were submitted to the authority by local parish councils, Haverhill Town Council, Cllrs Bobby Bennett and Joe Mason, the ward members, a range of district and county council departments, as well as the West Suffolk MP, Nick Timothy.

Their concerns were varied, ranging from increased flooding in an already susceptible area, to landscape and visual impacts, to traffic and smell.

Acorn has said there would be numerous benefits from the plant, including the production of enough biomethane to heat 7,000 homes and fuel 270 HGVs.

The company said updates to the scheme had been aimed at minimising the impact on residents in the area.

A single comment is listed on the county council's website as being in support of the plans, citing a reduction in the dependency on fossil fuels.

The supporter said: "I have engaged with detractors over the past two years and believe that all the objections of my fellow residents, howsoever expressed, hide behind the NIMBY philosophy and a certain fear of change and the unknown."

The term NIMBY (not in my backyard) referred to residents objecting to projects being located too close to where they live while supporting similar bids elsewhere.

The plans include a new access road, a separate site of covered digestate lagoons, as well as a three-kilometre pipeline connecting the two sites.

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is the process through which agricultural waste is broken down to produce biogas and biofertiliser — this would then be purified on site and removed by HGVs into the national grid at an unknown location.

Meanwhile, the pipeline would carry liquid digestate, a by-product of the process, into the off-site lagoon area, which would then be directly used by local farmers as fertiliser.

In assessing the application, planning officers said there wasn't enough evidence the plant could not be built on a brownfield site or one already allocated for such uses and questioned the need for it when taking its potential impacts into consideration.

They said: "The commercial opportunity for additional treatment is not disputed. However, the potential need for the facility does not supersede the principal land use conflict associated with the proposed development."

Planners ultimately recommended the plans for refusal 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.

Cllr Mason, who is scheduled to speak as an objector during next week's meeting, said he was delighted to hear about the officers' recommendation.

He said: "For two and a half years, the community has had to suffer the threat of this industrial-scale facility, which offered no benefits and only downsides.

"It defies understanding why they thought this was an appropriate site to begin with — hopefully this will be the last of it."

Cllr Indy Wijenayaka, the ward member for Withersfield, said the community was pleased with the officer's recommendation and argued the application should never have come forward for the site.

He said: "We, the community, knew the detrimental impact the application would have on the area and that it was the wrong location.

"It is a gross waste of public time and effort as well as the stress they have brought to the local residents and business owners of Withersfield and Haverhill."

Mr Timothy added: "As I have argued in numerous submissions, this is the wrong proposal for our area.

“This is a victory for the community, but it is not complete yet. It is now up to councillors on the Development and Regulation Committee to make the right decision and stop this application in its tracks.”