Thank You for supporting our campaign to try to stop the Swadlincote Incinerator.
I wanted to write to keep you up to date with our third-party listening session that happened on Thursday evening. This was a session with the Planning Inspector, who is considering the Applicant's appeal, and who has the power to overrule the County Council's decision to reject this proposal.
Summary of the evening
There was an extraordinary show of public opposition at Swadlincote Town Hall, as more than 150 residents packed into the Session on the proposed 60-metre-tall Swadlincote incinerator, with extra seating rushed in and dozens still left standing or unable to gain entry.
The session, part of the ongoing planning appeal inquiry, heard powerful and emotional testimony from local residents, experts, councillors, and business owners, presenting a strong and united front against the proposal. The plant was unanimously rejected by Derbyshire County Council’s planning committee but now faces appeal.
Representatives from the UK Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) spoke to defend the credibility of their waste evidence submitted to the inquiry, challenging contested assumptions about waste volumes, sources, and future need. Their intervention corrected key misunderstandings in the appellant’s presentation of waste analysis.
Residents living near the existing Cadley Hill waste site spoke of the constant dust pollution affecting their lives since the existing, smaller recycling site opened, with many describing how they could no longer open their windows or use their gardens.
One speaker from a neighbouring farm shared how his application for a modest goat shed had been refused years earlier – a decision he is now thankful for, as it led him to plant over 800 trees across his land, creating a flourishing nature haven. He reflected with some irony that while a small, low-impact goat shed had been deemed unacceptable, a towering incinerator capable of dominating the landscape was now under serious consideration. Residents warned that the incinerator itself would decimate woodland and destroy the thriving wildlife site that has developed on and around the application land.
The hall also heard from a resident who had made a five-hour journey back from work in Scotland just to speak. He described the personal fear of living beneath the looming chimney stack and the heartbreak of watching 20 years of natural rewilding at Cadley Hill begin to be undone.
Further concern came from a former primary school headteacher, who raised issues about the long-term health impacts on children attending the many schools close to busy roads and close to the proposed incinerator. Her words were poignantly followed by a 10-year-old boy from Stanton, who told the inquiry how frightening it already feels to walk near heavy lorry traffic along the A444 to school – and how the countryside walks are all the more important since his village has no play park or playing field.
A representative from Swad in Bloom spoke about Lollipop’s Patch – the much-loved “pick your own” flower field that borders the proposed site – proudly showing a beautiful bunch of tulips grown at the farm. They described the current beauty of the location, with views across open, rolling fields – a view that would be lost forever under the shadow of the facility.
Stanton Village Hall raised concerns about the visual impact the incinerator would have, highlighting how the proposed structure would be large and clearly visible from the hall’s frontage.
Many other residents also stood to speak. Several referenced the way the wider area has been transformed over the past two decades through the National Forest’s Black to Green regeneration vision – a long-term effort to rewild former industrial and mining land into flourishing green spaces. There was a clear fear that this hard-won environmental progress would be reversed by the re-industrialisation of Cadley Hill.
Councillor Swann, Councillor Haynes, and Overseal Parish Council each spoke in opposition to the proposal, raising strong concerns about the traffic pressures, infrastructure impacts, and risks to safety that the incinerator would bring.
Councillor Amy Wheelton provided further evidence by sharing communications from the operators of the nearby Drakelow incinerator, confirming it is functioning well – directly contradicting the applicant’s earlier attempts to undermine the credibility of existing local incinerators.
Local businesses, including the award-winning National Forest E-Bike Holidays, warned that the proposal threatens to damage the district’s growing place-based tourism economy, which increasingly depends on the National Forest’s appeal to visitors and investment in sustainable recreation.
Dr Tracey Wond, speaking on behalf of the Community Against the Swadlincote Incinerator (CASI), delivered a detailed case explaining why the proposal should be rejected. She showed how the incinerator would go against national and local planning rules, damage the landscape, destroy important wildlife habitats, and make life worse for people already affected by dust, noise, and heavy traffic. She highlighted contradictions in the appellant’s claims about need, and raised doubts about whether the facility would meet DEFRA’s emerging requirements for carbon capture and local heat supply. Dr Wond also raised fears that waste is already being brought in from other areas, meaning local people would suffer the impacts with great detriment.
She reminded the Inquiry that there was no grouped community opposition to the Drakelow incinerator, which was handled more sensitively and built on a more suitable brownfield site. This, she explained, shows the community is not anti-development – but expects development to be genuinely sustainable, and in the right place.
Her speech received a standing ovation from the crowd.
Throughout the evening, no one stood up to speak in favour of the incinerator proposal.
As residents stepped out of the Town Hall – ironically, next door to the South Derbyshire Tourist Information Centre – there was a clear recognition that the proposal threatens real and lasting harm: to the enjoyment of residents, to the environment restored from past industry, and to the growing tourism economy that is increasingly being prioritised in the district.
The Planning Inspector will continue to hear evidence over the coming days, with a decision expected in June or July 2025.
Here is the speech that was made to the inspector at the session
Here is the speech that I gave on behalf of the Community Against the Swadlincote Incinerator (typos and all):
"
𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
I am Dr Tracey Wond and I lead the Community Against the Swadlincote Incinerator, supported today by over 5,200 residents as signatories .
Inspector, we recognise that your task is to apply national policy to the specific context of this proposal - ensuring decisions reflect both the letter and the spirit of the planning framework.
Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF sets a clear test: permission should only be granted if the benefits significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harms. With respect, we do not believe that test is met in this case.
The Waste Management Plan for England sets a clear expectation: that new infrastructure must be of the right type, in the right place, and at the right time. This proposal falls short on all three.
This community is not opposed to infrastructure or waste treatment. We are opposed to infrastructure that is demonstrably unnecessary, inappropriately located, and misaligned with our district’s adopted vision and plans - which say they exist to provide us with certainty. We did not group to oppose Drakelow’s incinerator. We accepted the need, sympathetic location and the applicants robust and transparent submission . A far cry from the smoke and mirrors we see here today.
𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞, 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐕𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐦
The Council’s reasons for refusal centre on landscape and visual harm - and with good reason. This site sits in the National Forest, a landscape regeneration area designed not only for environmental restoration but for public benefit: wellbeing, connection to nature, access, and visual relief. The D2N2s start profile for Swadlincote states it’s a ‘centre for learning, leisure and governance. Much of the town centre is a Conservation Area with a celebrated history.’
South Derbyshire District Council described the proposal as “totally alien” to the landscape character of this area. It is a fundamental disruption to the area’s sense of place at a time when plans, infrastructure and funding for vast tourism growth is at its highest.
Public Rights of Way run close to this site, with 1804km of PROW across the greenbelt (as CD9.15 outlines), and we can see the damage from the montages provided. These are daily walking routes for families, dog walkers, and children. They link new housing to green space and woodland. Many of these routes are part of Swadlincote’s only west-facing green outlook - offering open views, big skies and sunsets, and quiet natural relief from the more urban and industrial landscape that sits to the east.
This site also sits adjacent to the strategic Green Belt between Swadlincote and Burton, which is described in Core Document 9.15 as:
• “Highly accessible, containing the highest density of the National Cycle Network,
• Comprising predominantly agricultural land, with half of it under Natural England support for environmentally sensitive farming,
• And being in very good condition - with 67% of the area classified as “enhancing” or “strengthening” its established character.”
These are not marginal landscapes. They are high-functioning, high-value green corridors with established plans to enhance National Forest walking and cycling connections between Swadlincote and Burton. The Forest itself is not just a landscape designation - it is a regional asset. According to the National Forest company, it draws over 9 million visits each year, supporting a thriving green economy across the district. This development would compromise that function - introducing a large industrial presence into an area where the character, condition, and connectivity of the landscape are being actively protected and enhanced.
While the application site may sit just outside the Green Belt boundary, it lies within a corridor that clearly performs Green Belt functions: promoting access, restricting urban sprawl, safeguarding the countryside, and supporting strategic biodiversity and active travel plans. In that context, this proposal represents inappropriate development - not by designation, but by effect. And under the NPPF, harm to Green Belt purpose is itself a material planning concern, regardless of precise boundary lines.
The site is identified in both local and regional character assessments as having low built density, open field patterns, and strong woodland structure - especially along ridgelines.
This development would introduce a 60-metre chimney and permanent industrial buildings into an area defined by openness. Its stack would be visible from PROWs, new housing, and key approach routes - including those leading to the Rosliston Forestry Centre and the National Memorial Arboretum. The impact cannot be mitigated, and the application has not done enough to try. We are told by the appellant this is a functional and utilitarian design.
Why place no fewer than nine benches including several on carefully landscaped mounds facing this viewpoint at Coronation Park if this were not the case? How ironic is it that, Stanton can boast a huge sign welcoming people to the National Forest, but then can see the chimney and plumes of not one but two incinerators when they look West and South-West?
The applicant’s own LVIA identifies multiple viewpoints as experiencing “major to moderate adverse” permanent harm. And those impacts fall not on remote footpaths or theoretical receptors, but on the doorsteps and gardens of thousands of new homes.
The National Forest Strategy calls for land uses that enhance landscape character, biodiversity, and access. This proposal does the opposite. It creates a permanent, dominant industrial presence where the Local Plan - and local residents - expected visual openness.
The South Derbyshire Local Plan explicitly promotes the district as a tourism destination linked to the National Forest and the emerging plan bolsters this more than ever before - envisioning expanded woodland, cycling infrastructure, and high-quality visitor experiences. The visual harm and landscape impacts directly contradict that vision.
The visual harm directly undermines sustainable development. It deters tourism by degrading the very landscapes visitors come to experience - rendering the 30-something jobs offered by this proposal trivial in comparison to the wider economic contribution of nature-based tourism. It also undermines the social objective by diminishing public access to visual quality and tranquillity, especially along routes designed for recreation and wellbeing. And it conflicts with the environmental objective by permanently altering a protected and carefully stewarded landscape.
𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬
The appellant presents this facility as contributing to residual waste management capacity for the region. But the evidence shows there is no demonstrable local need - and that this facility is far more likely to function as an importer of commercial waste, not a gap-filler for household collections.
Willshee’s already holds Staffordshire County Council and East Staffordshire household waste contracts. That means household waste is routinely brought into South Derbyshire from the West Midlands. Just this year, Willshee’s collected a 15-metre-long, 27 ton, fly-tip from the West Midlands and transported it here to be processed .
This alone should raise concern under the Polluter Pays Principle: that those responsible for generating waste should bear the cost of managing it. Instead, we see a pattern where this community is expected to absorb the environmental and infrastructure burden of other areas’ waste.
The company has also acquired Stanton Recycling in Nottinghamshire, giving it access to further commercial waste streams far beyond Derbyshire’s borders. A local HGV driver and concerned resident told us how he delivered empty bins to Hobbycraft HQ in Bournemouth, only to return to Burton with full bins - branded Willshee’s.
This is long-distance collection and cross-boundary movement. It is not about managing local arisings. It is about securing throughput.
The proposal is being justified not by technical need, but by commercial interest. Mr. Adam Hinds, the person providing the key submission on need, is not a waste expert - he is a commercial investor, whose website states his company, Redbourn Capital, is building a portfolio of Energy-from-Waste facilities. This is not expert evidence - it is advocacy from someone who stands to profit.
Can the appellant really instruct one of the UK’s top planning KCs, but not provide a single independent waste expert? With respect, that omission speaks volumes.
By contrast, the Waste Planning Authority has made clear: there is no local or regional need for this scale of new capacity. That is supported by DEFRA’s December 2024 Residual Waste Infrastructure Capacity Note, which concludes:
“England has sufficient residual waste treatment capacity through to 2035.”
The same document forecasts an 18% drop in residual municipal waste - driven by Extended Producer Responsibility, mandatory food waste separation, and business recycling reforms. In that context, the need case collapses.
Mr. Alan Potter, the County Council’s expert, is a long-standing advisor and member of DEFRA’s advisory group. His evidence is detailed, current, and policy-aligned. He raised concerns yesterdat that waste figures may be double counted where operators like Willshee’s straddle county lines - exporting and then re-importing material across borders, inflating the appearance of need.
And the appellant’s attempt to cast doubt on Drakelow and Sinfin does not stand up to scrutiny. Both are permitted and physically built. Drakelow is operational - and, as we heard during this Inquiry, already running beyond 84,000 tonnes in 2024. Sinfin is recommissioning under a public-sector contract.
This is not a proposal responding to demonstrable need. It is a business model built on the economics of incineration.
Because once built, these facilities must be kept burning. Gate fees and energy export make them profitable - but only if the feedstock keeps flowing. This pressure creates a perverse incentive to attract, import, and incinerate as much material as possible.
The reality of this logic was confirmed in the Appeal documents, CD8.09.
Vital Energi, an existing EfW operator, stated:
“𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 3 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘉𝘦𝘢𝘶𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘤 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘳.”
This is “feed the beast” logic. Once operational, the facility’s commercial survival depends on staying full. Contracts must be found, distances stretched, and waste constantly sourced. This is why we hear about waste being transported to incinerators across the country - feedstock becomes a commodity, traded and moved to keep facilities running.
Willshee’s publicly promote a zero-to-landfill model, where waste is turned into RDF and exported to power communal heating systems. In their own words, this is a cleaner, greener alternative to landfill. So, when we’re told this facility is needed to divert waste from landfill, the logic doesn’t hold. This plant isn’t solving a landfill problem - it’s redirecting commercial material into South Derbyshire, rather than exporting it elsewhere.
But the contradiction deepens. Willshee’s proudly state on their website that RDF is valuable because it powers communal heating systems. Yet this proposal has no heat customers. No district heating plan. No local homes, businesses, or public services signed up to benefit from the energy produced. And no binding condition to deliver one.
So not only are we being asked to host an incinerator that burns waste we didn’t produce - but we’re being asked to host one that delivers no local benefit.
This is not sustainable development. It’s market efficiency. It offloads the costs of waste onto a town that neither created the problem nor benefits from the solution.
𝐎𝐧 𝐓𝐲𝐩𝐞
And even if there were need, the type of development proposed here fails to meet modern expectations for heat use, carbon readiness, and location.
National planning guidance, including the Waste Management Plan for England, sets a clear expectation: new waste infrastructure should be of the right type, in the right place, and at the right time.
There are no secured heat customers, There is no district heat plan. The proposal is out of step with DEFRA’s 2024 Residual Waste Capacity Note, which now expects new Energy-from-Waste facilities to provide both heat utilisation and carbon capture readiness.
The applicant has only recently introduced the idea that the site could support carbon capture - by transporting captured carbon via rail. But that claim directly contradicts evidence Willshee’s submitted in 2021, during the MRF application. At that time, the applicant’s own rail feasibility study concluded that rail was not viable at this site. That conclusion was used to justify the removal of a 10 year time limit for their operations at the site. Now, the same site is being presented as rail-compatible - with no new rail infrastructure and no planning permissions in place. If the study was sufficient to lift policy INF2 which saved this site for future rail freight, it must also be sufficient to conclude that exporting carbon by rail from this site is not a credible option. You can’t have it both ways.
If carbon capture is to be viable, the method of transport and the space to retrofit equipment both need to be clear. Here, neither is.
The site itself is spatially constrained - bounded by housing on one side and Green Belt on the other. There is no clear decarbonisation pathway, despite recent frantic efforts to plug this gap in light of the DEFRA capacity note.
𝐇𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭
We’re aware that biodiversity and habitat loss have not been a primary focus in planning meetings or committee discussions leading up to this inquiry. But we raise it now because the impacts are serious, the precedent is significant, and the evidence of harm has not received the attention it warrants.
This proposal would result in the destruction of a designated Local Wildlife Site, including priority woodland mapped since the 1800s and identified as part of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. In ecological assessments submitted for the MRF - by the same operator - this site was identified as habitat for protected species, including great crested newts, bats, grass snakes, and badgers.
Yet the surveys submitted then repeated with this application and then appeal show those species as either absent or downgraded - without credible explanation. That change coincides with a series of unresolved planning breaches outlined in Willshee’s outstanding regularisation application . Traffic movements are far more than approved - 1,250 HGVs per week instead of the permitted 500. Construction has happened beyond approved boundaries with sections of woodland removed that shouldn’t have been. The lighting scheme is not what was approved. Is it any wonder that protected species now show decline?
When Derbyshire Wildlife Trust commented on the previous MRF application on this same land, they concluded:
“𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵… 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘭.”
The MRF was approved, despite concerns raised by ecological consultees. That decision allowed development to proceed on a sensitive site - one which had already been identified as habitat for protected species.
This proposal now goes further. It extends development across even more of the Local Wildlife Site, with fewer species recorded, a weaker baseline, and an even less robust compensation strategy.
The applicant’s own Breeding Bird Report states that the SRRP development would result in:
“𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘙𝘙𝘗 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺.”
What we are seeing is not just new harm - it is deliberate and systematic erosion of habitat and species protected by law.
And that presents a broader concern: whether, through the accumulation of applications, we are allowing standards to be lowered incrementally, in ways that would not have been accepted had they been proposed all at once. These incremental approvals and retrospective applications are allowing cumulative losses to go unchallenged.
If an operator is allowed to degrade a protected wildlife site - through unauthorised activity or failure to follow conditions - and then use the resulting absence of species to justify easier development, we are setting a dangerous planning precedent.
One where those who damage nature are rewarded.
Under NPPF Paragraphs 174 and 180, developments must avoid significant harm and deliver measurable biodiversity net gain.
This proposal does neither.
Section 3.5 of the applicant’s own Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment confirms the ‘poor’ starting condition of the proposed Bretby offset site
- land controlled by Willshee’s
The plan is to turn that land into woodland and scrub over the next 30 years, with only “moderate” habitat quality expected once achieved.
There is no mitigation on the development site itself. And the proposed offset land isn’t even next to the development - it’s somewhere else entirely. There’s no ecological link between what’s being lost and what’s being created. That breaks the idea of continuity that good habitat relies on.
Once again, the approach benefits Willshee’s - using low-value land they control to offset the destruction of our protected Local Wildlife Site.
𝐎𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐭
This proposal would result in long-term, cumulative harm to community amenity - arising from increased HGV traffic, operational noise, light spill, and odour - all within a highly sensitive, residential context.
At the opening of this Inquiry, Mr. David Elvin KC suggested that noise concerns were not a matter for planning, and should instead be dealt with at the permitting stage. With respect, this is not supported by policy. Appendix B of the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) clearly lists noise, odour, visual intrusion, and air quality under locational criterion (j) - explicitly as planning considerations. These impacts must be assessed when determining whether a site is appropriate - not deferred.
The impacts here are substantial:
• Noise: The Environmental Statement confirms the ERF is predicted to generate 50–60dB of operational noise, day and night, from a 24/7 facility, just 150–250 metres from homes. For context, this is like carrying an electrical toothbrush buzzing constantly 24/7. Noise modelling admits a “medium to large” uncertainty margin. Existing MRF operations have already triggered noise complaints, unresolved by enforcement.
• Odour: The application acknowledges that refuse-derived fuel (RDF) poses a significant odour risk. Facilities like Runcorn and Stoke have seen compensation paid to residents due to sustained odour issues. The proximity of properties to this site must be taken into account.
• Light pollution: 24-hour lighting from the MRF already affects local amenity compounded by issues such as the building being taller than it was meant to be, and a non-compliant lighting scheme as the regularisation application outlines. The ERF would introduce taller stacks, flaring, and more lighting - further degrading conditions. Representations powerfully demonstrate images of this light for those at Cadley Hill Farm.
• Traffic and HGV pressure: This proposal would add 196 HGVs per day to the A444. This is the road that connects homes to schools, hospitals, and workplaces, that lacks safe crossings in key places. Just last year, a girl in my son’s class and her father were nearly hit when a car mounted the pavement outside Stanton Primary School. Weeks later, a car collided with a lorry in the same spot. Months before that, the school’s railings were destroyed in a crash. A few months ago, another pupil in my son’s class was struck while walking home. And just last night, a serious three-car collision outside the school required an air ambulance.
This is not normal.
The Burton Town Investment Plan identifies the A444 as a barrier to economic regeneration, citing congestion, journey time unreliability, and air quality risks. How is it that, more often than not, I can drive 30 miles to work in Birmingham quicker than I can drive the 3 miles to Burton upon Trent’s train station? This might sound indulgent but the Burton Town Regeneration Strategy Stage 1 report cites traffic master data which demonstrates AM Peak journey times on the A444 Stanton Road are unreliable 52-60% of the time.
South Derbyshire is the fastest-growing district outside London, with at least 12 new housing developments within 1.5 km of the site, including Kiln Meadows, Castleton Park, Manorfields, Cadley Village, and Eaton Grange. These homes were marketed for their family-oriented setting - with cycle routes, parks, and access to the National Forest. The ERF would violate those expectations and permanently alter the lived character of these communities. I cannot find two incinerators so close to one another and in a residential area in the whole of the UK.
These are not minor nuisances. They are planning-level land use conflicts. They compromise walking safety, family life, and the health and wellbeing of residents. The Local Plan expects compatible land uses and strategic buffers. This proposal offers neither.
As the NPPW makes clear, planning authorities must protect amenity and health when siting waste facilities. Here, the harm is foreseeable, cumulative, and incompatible with both current and emerging land uses.
𝐎𝐧 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 & 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬
Public confidence in the planning system depends on two things: rules being followed, and communities being heard.
There are serious concerns in both areas here.
The land owner, Willshee’s is currently seeking retrospective permission for a number of planning breaches linked to the existing Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) on this site. We are told in this regularisation that surfacewater runs into streams as the drainage plan wasn’t put in place, it’s a flood zone but flood mitigations weren’t put in place, the building is taller, with an incorrect lighting scheme than approved.
These are not minor oversights - they are fundamental breaches of planning control. When this application was initially heard by members of South Derbyshire District Council , it was described this as a “flagrant abuse of planning procedure rules”, with one councillor stating:
“𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘦’𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺... 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘢𝘸. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴? 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘵.”
We do not cite this to attack the company. We cite it to raise a legitimate planning concern: track record matters. If an operator has not complied with existing conditions under a smaller consent, it raises serious doubts about their ability to join the consortium for this much larger and complex facility in accordance with any future conditions. R & P Clean Power have no history of operating such a plant.
The concerns extend to consultation. The applicant’s Statement of Community Involvement claims over 1,000 letters were sent to local homes. Yet when we polled those households, only one person recalled receiving one. That is not meaningful engagement - it is procedural box-ticking. More smoke and mirrors.
Meanwhile, the case presented by the applicant has shifted repeatedly. When they first submitted the traffic study it when the A444 was partially closed for a cycle lane to be built – something they failed to disclosed -we, the community had to prove it. And now – they’re fabricated carbon capture claims adding claims about possible rail movements just a few weeks ago. I do not see how you these evolving claims make it possible for you to decide on this proposal with confidence.
This application and the history I have just covered gives the community little reason for confidence.
𝐎𝐧 𝐒𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭
Before I conclude Inspector, I want to be explicit on the matter of sustainable development and the presumption of favour. I can see this has been a key factor for you in similar applications (know your audience!).
The NPPF defines sustainable development as having three interdependent objectives: economic, social, and environmental (Paragraph .
These are not standalone boxes to be ticked - they must be pursued in mutually supportive ways.
This proposal does not meet that test. It conflicts with each objective in turn.
We recognise that the Waste Local Plan is out of date, but we emphasise that Paragraph 12 of the NPPF refers to the development plan as a whole - not a single document. The South Derbyshire Local Plan is part of that statutory development plan, and it is up to date. Where a proposal conflicts with that plan, permission should not usually be granted.
Economically, this proposal undermines the South Derbyshire Local Plan’s [typo: Local Plan should be District Council's] existing and emerging local plan and vision of tourism-led, forest-linked green growth. It does not provide a community benefit agreement, a local heat plan, or any strategic advantage over existing capacity at Drakelow and Sinfin.
The applicant points to job creation as a benefit, estimating around 39 long-term roles. This economic case must be weighed against the district’s growing tourism-based economy.
The South Derbyshire Local Plan and the National Forest Strategy identify the Forest as core to the region’s sustainable future. It already attracts over 9 million visitors annually and contributes approximately £576 million to the local economy.
In 2017, the National Forest set a target to increase tourism employment by 15% over ten years - 700 new jobs. Building on previous trends, tourism employment in the forest had already grown by 12% between 2003 and 2008 . This is not small job creation – it’s significant – far more significant that the 30 odd in this proposal. For context, In the nearby North West Leicestershire district of the National Forest, in 2016, tourism supported 2,121 jobs .
This is not speculative. The recently launched, Tourism Accommodation Accelerator , is actively supporting new tourism accommodation development sites, strongly indicating that further job creation in tourism is likely and reinforcing local plan ambitions.
Approving the incinerator may jeopardise both the tourism and place-based employment we have - and the growth trajectory now being facilitated through public-private initiatives. In this context, the 39 jobs proposed by the applicant are marginal when weighed against the sector’s existing and emerging contribution to the regional economy.
The Burton Town Investment Plan outlines further fears for economic growth and regeneration due to the A444 congestion, compounded by two AQMAs.
Socially, it affects the health, wellbeing, amenity and enjoyment of the people of Swadlincote – a town serving over 66,000 people across its primary and secondary catchment – as well as visitors (such as 200,000 visitors a year to Rosliston Forestry centre ). It introduces noise, visual harm, and pollution next to new housing and walking routes. It will also be clearly visible from across the boundary in East Staffordshire, particularly from residential areas in Stapenhill, amplifying landscape harm for neighbouring communities.
Environmentally, it fails to protect designated habitats. It causes permanent landscape damage, locks in fossil-based emissions, and lacks carbon capture, district heat, or viable mitigation - despite the applicant’s eleventh-hour claims about liquid carbon by rail (CD8.09). These claims are neither embedded in the design nor secured through condition.
The proposal also raises significant amenity impacts - with residential properties directly adjoining the site, and several housing estates in close proximity. Under Appendix B of the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW), amenity, air quality, noise, and visual intrusion are all material considerations in determining site suitability. Here, those impacts fall disproportionately on existing communities.
These are not abstract harms. They are visible, cumulative, and long-term. And they cannot be dismissed as outweighed by speculative or unquantified benefits.
Under Paragraph 12 of the NPPF, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not override the statutory weight of an up-to-date development plan.
Where there is conflict, permission should not usually be granted, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. No such considerations have been evidenced here.
We also recognise that under Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF, where relevant policies are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the Framework as a whole.
These impacts are not theoretical - they are measurable, irreversible, and in direct conflict with national and local planning priorities. The proposal does not deliver sustainable development under Paragraph 8, and under Paragraph 11(d)(ii), the balance is clear: the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the claimed benefits.
This is not sustainable development. It is policy conflict presented as progress. And we respectfully submit that it does not pass the planning test.
𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧
Inspector,
Throughout the life of this application and here today, we have tried to present a clear and evidenced case: that this proposal is not needed, not appropriately located, and not of the right type to meet the expectations of national or local planning policy.
It would result in permanent harm to a designated Local Wildlife Site. It would introduce a dominant industrial presence into a carefully managed landscape, degrading the amenity and openess valued by thousands of nearby residents. It would exacerbate transport pressures on an already overstretched local road network. And it would do all of this in a district that has already hosted its share of waste infrastructure, including an existing operational Energy-from-Waste facility just five kilometres away.
This is not principled opposition to infrastructure. This is an informed objection to a proposal that is commercially driven, strategically misplaced, and environmentally damaging. Further, the proximity to Drakelow’s and substantial residential populatinos would be nationally unprecedented.
Our concerns are not speculative. We have simply highlighted evidence already contained within the applicant’s own documents - and set that evidence in the context of relevant local data and national planning policy.
The planning breaches associated with the existing development including conditions that remain undischarged at this site further undermine confidence. They raise real and reasonable doubts about whether future conditions would be respected - and whether the community’s health, amenity, and landscape would be protected in practice.
Under Paragraph 11 of the NPPF, the balance must weigh benefits against harms. But here, the harms are substantial, cumulative, and irreversible
The benefits, by contrast, are speculative, overstated, and already met by existing infrastructure.
We ask that you uphold the plan. Uphold policy. And uphold a simple planning principle: that no community should be expected to absorb lasting harm without clear and compelling justification.
We respectfully submit that this appeal should be dismissed.
"
Thank you so much once again for your support in signing and sharing our petition. There is no doubt that this helped increase public awareness, which in turn supported attendance at the event.
Best wishes
Tracey