South Dorset Liberal Democrats

SAY NO TO BIOFUEL FOR PORTLAND

I am the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for South Dorset. I have objected to this scheme in writing and have a number of concerns to draw to your attention today

Firstly I would like to draw your attention to elements of the Local Plan . Section 1.4.1 of the Local Plan (2005) gives an aim of meeting the economic, social & environmental needs of residents

"without compromising the overall resource of the local & global environment",

Page 4 of 'Your Place, Our Future: The Community Plan for Weymouth & Portland 2008-2016' refers to the aim of contributing to 'the achievement of sustainable development both locally and more widely, with local goals and priorities relating, where appropriate, to regional, national and even global aims'

Even global aims is the important phrase here.

In your local plan therefore, THIS council has made a commitment to taking into account issues of sustainability and the impact that choices made here in Weymouth and Portland have on sustainability issues within a worldwide context.

So is the local plan worth the paper it is written on ?

Or is it just a box ticking exercise fulfilling a requirement for community consultation imposed on councils by central government ?

I believe that YOUR response as a council in your community plan DOES matter.

If the planning process here today is to simply over-ride decisions taken as part of a local plan by elected members representing their communities - then this case is far more significant than whether to allow a bio-fuel plant in Portland or not.

Going against your local plan will set a precedent for future planning decisions and it gives a clear message both to applicants and the community that it is not worth the paper it is written on.

Page 5 of the same document refers to

'prudent use of natural resources' while on page 6 we are told that ' climate change featured so strongly in the consultation that it has been highlighted at the front as a 'strategic issue' that affects nearly all groups an actions within the community plan.'

Page 9 of the document emphasises that 'there is a pressing need to address climate change & its implications within the community plan…' , and that 'we can also contribute, as part of the worldwide community, to protecting the natural environment and species of the planet.'

The analysis that palm & soya oils are the among the most destructive derivatives which can be used in the biofuel process is unquestioned among climate change scientists. Other people here today will explain that to you in clearer scientific terms than I can, but this is not an area for denial - the scientific evidence is clear.

The kind of destruction involved causes major damage to ecosystems & the peat bogs that are left after forest clearance are drained and later burnt off, releasing masses of carbon to the atmosphere.

This release is neither measured nor taken into account in the carbon analysis offered by W4B who state that:

' Assuming a 20 year life for the project the assessment, indicate a saving of between approximately 500 and 800 thousand tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions could be achieved through the installation of the facility (if all assumptions remain constant).'

and that when plantations

'are grown sustainably an equilibrium is reached between carbon taken up from and that released to the atmosphere'.

I believe the latter to be particularly contentious.

Significantly, such a palm oil plantation has an economic life of only about twenty years or so. Equilibrium is therefore never reached, because of the continued need for more and more land to produce the same quantity of oil. Where this occurs, forest cleared potential agricultural land in undeveloped countries, is being used for energy production for the rich world, leading to rises in food prices in those countries, and ultimately for us all.

These are the issues that your local plan directly addresses & they are therefore material to determining this application.

The interpretation by planning officers of the statement in paragraph 43 of the technical annex to Planning Policy Statement 22 , that 'The remit of consideration for planners is around the power plant and associated impacts and not the production of the fuel source,' attempts to bar this committee from considering issues relating to production of the source fuel.

But this is a matter of interpretation in terms of applying the Local Plan. I would contest that interpretation and you are completely within your rights to do so.

PPS 23

I would also draw attention to Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control, which confirms that

'any considerations of the quality of land, air, water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to impacts on health are capable of being material considerations in the determination of planning applications.'

PPS23 does not limit the geographical scope of 'potential impacts'; therefore the wider environmental and social impacts of palm oil production, which include adverse impacts on the quality of land, air and water in producing countries as well as on the health of indigenous people, may be treated as material considerations for determining this application.

Indeed in terms of the clear reference to global scoping in the Local Plan, failure to address this guidance in its widest form would run counter to the intentions of the document.

May I say finally that I roundly condemn the tactics of the applicant, both in appealing your first decision before the second application has been determined, which shows scant regard for yourselves as a committee, but also attempts that I understand have been made by interested parties to deter two members of this committee from being involved in today's adjudication.

This undermines the legitimacy of the planning process itself and it makes me very angry.

Planning is a quasi judicial process, and you as committee members will make your decision on planning issues, such as those I have raised above, based on the evidence put before you today.

Deciding against something in a previous committee does not amount to predetermination - but tactics of bullying and intimidation COULD justly be accounted as attempts to meddle in the planning process - and as such they are to be deplored.