Last Sunday night saw a packed meeting in Aberlady Village Hall when the latest position on the proposed Gas Works at Ballencrieff was outlined.
It was agreed by the vast majority of those present that, while not opposed to the principle of a proposed Plant, it was a case of a wrong development in the wrong location. Instead given the size and effect of such a plant, it should instead be on a brown field site as opposed to a green field one.
Commenting on the proposed development, local candidate Rachael Hamilton outlined:
"I have no doubt that green energy solutions are the way forward. We have an AD plant just a mile from our business which processes 30,000 tonnes and is sited on an industrial estate with the tallest tower being 14m high. There has been no public objection at the Charlesfield plant because the project has been carefully considered. The benefits to the community of this type of gas plant are that it provides resilience in the gas network particularly during cold snaps and importantly provides an essential income to the farming community in the local area. The odour itself is localised and if managed well undetectable.
“However, it seems that the proposal for the AD plant at Ballencrief has a number of glaring faults.
“The scale of production seems over the top at 100,000 tonnes particularly at the proposed location of the Ballencrief site which doesn’t lend itself to an industrial project of this magnitude. Similar plants in rural locations operate with at 30,000 tonnes of input. The building of such a plant requires proper traffic planning to accommodate the uplift in agricultural traffic transporting crops from the supplier farms in and around the plant. Also, the local roads used to transport the harvested crops must be routinely swept to mitigate any safety problems from muddy road surfaces. These essential considerations seem unachievable within the parameters of the current proposal."
Adding to Rachael's comments, Association Chairman Tim Jackson has written to East Lothian Council to object to the proposal on the following grounds:
- the application has been a rush job which lacks careful planning with no community engagement.
- the scale of production of over 100,000 tonnes is significantly more than similar plants in other rural locations which tend to operate at 30,000 tonnes of input.
- the size of the site and the scale of production will make it an industrial site as opposed to an agricultural site and is most unsuited to its proposed rural location.
- no Environmental Impact Assessment appears to have been required.
- no approval for change of use regarding a proposed industrial development in a rural location,appears to have been sought.
- the building of such a plant requires proper traffic planning to accommodate the huge uplift in agricultural traffic transporting crops from supplier farms. Also, the local roads used to transport the harvested crops must be routinely swept to mitigate any safety problems from wet and muddy surfaces. These essential considerations seem unachievable within the parameters of the current proposal.