OK.  I agree with you - the incinerator will be bad for us all.  Yet, surely, it is a waste of time to try to influence the inquiry?

This is not the case.

• We have a high degree of confidence in the system of "call in" inquiries.  An Inspector will hold an Inquiry, expected to start on 29th September. He or she will walk the site, listen to all the arguments and then make a judgement based upon what they have heard. This will be a thorough review of the issues (and is expected to last about three weeks).
• In favour of the proposal will be the developer, Gent Fairhead, and Essex County Council.  Against will be two main groups: Braintree District Council together with all neighbouring Parish Councils (The Local Council Group) and the Community Group - which is us! There may well be other representations too.
• When Essex County Council sought the views of local people and organisations late last year and again earlier this year they received 819 objections and only one letter was in favour.
• When the Development and Regulation Committee of Essex County Council met on 24th April this year, not one councillor spoke to say they would be supporting the application. The vote was at first 4-3 to reject the application, but this was overturned by the Chairman voting twice. It was the right decision when Go-East and the Secretary of State decided there should be an Inquiry.
• We know that there are serious weaknesses in the case for this major waste site and incinerator in the countryside.  Indeed, any decision on such a scheme will be decided on an assessment of the pros and cons.  Our job is to ensure that we bring our case to the Inspector in as effective a way as possible. This will require a good deal of work on our part and we believe that we will need legal representation to enable us to achieve our aim.

What is involved in the "call in" process?

Due to the significance of this proposal it was subject to being "called in" for inquiry if the Development and Regulatory Committee passed the plans in April.  This is quite unusual as the following excerpt from the Planning Inspectorate web-site explains:

Each year many thousands of applications are made, but the Secretary of State calls in only about 150. His policy is that normally he will only call in an application if he thinks that there are planning issues of more than local importance. Examples of these are-

• development that may conflict with national planning policy on important matters;
• development that could have wide effects beyond its immediate locality;
• development that raises significant architectural and urban design issues;
• development where the interests of national security are involved, or the interest of foreign Governments;
• development where there is significant regional or national controversy

In practice the inquiry process is very similar to an appeal.

About the Community Group.  Are you against incinerators per se?  

Our aim is to make the case that this proposal is entirely unsuitable for Rivenhall Airfield and that it will have a profoundly negative impact upon local residents and wildlife.  Clearly waste facilities are needed, but they need to be sustainable, of a suitable scale and well located. The proposed facility at Rivenhall Airfield would burn around 1,000 tonnes of waste per day and would be in the middle of the countryside, drawing trucks in from all over Eastern Region and even London. Our argument is against this facility in this place at this time!

If you have questions on any aspect of the Community Group or the proposal, please email Peter Holland (peter@peterhollandz.co.uk).