Alton incinerator plan rejected
Campaigners had said it would ruin the landscape
Last updated 23rd Feb 2022
PLANS for a controversial new incinerator in Hampshire have been rejected.
Hampshire County Council met to discuss Veolia’s application for an incinerator near Alton, along the A31.
The facility, which would be operational 24 hours a day, would deal with 1.5 times more waste than the incinerator in Portsmouth.
Concerns about the visual and environmental impact, as well as whether the facility was truly needed, were raised by residents and campaigners alike.
Christopher Napier, vice-president of CPRE Hampshire, said:
‘We consider that this proposal is very much the wrong development in the wrong place.
‘The magnitude of change that would arise from the building would undoubtedly be large. Views over the River Wey to the national park would be seriously damaged.
‘The proposal cannot comply with the national planning policy framework, nor with the development plan as it would have an unacceptable visual impact.
‘The major adverse impact leads inevitably to the conclusion conclusion the proposal must be refused.’
The facility would stretch up to the railway line between Alton and Basingstoke, which connects Hampshire to London Waterloo.
But Veolia’s representatives insisted the incinerator wasn’t just beneficial to Hampshire, but essential for the future.
Southern UK planning manager, Simon McKee, said: ‘
The site is sized to meet the local need – 365,000 tonnes of waste is currently landfilled or exported out of Hampshire.
‘We appreciate there are local concerns that have been raised.
‘The plan is safe. It won’t cause traffic congestion and moves residual waste away from landfill. It will save carbon from day one and has a limited visual impact.’
Half of all waste would be recovered as heat and electrical energy, according to the plans.
Conservative representative for Bridgemary, Cllr Stephen Philpott, said:
‘I believe it’s difficult to argue that an enormous building with two 80m chimneys, on the edge of a national park, is in any way enhancing the landscape.
‘I also don’t think the building has an acceptable visual impact.
‘I have decided that the application isn’t consistent with parts of the national planning policy framework and therefore won’t be supporting the recommendation.’
At the vote, 3 councillors voted in favour of the plans, with 12 against.