Barton Renewable Energy Plant inquiry continues

AN expert witness has claimed the power plant Peel Energy hopes to build on land near Barton Bridge would have no major impact on air quality in the area.

Stephen Othen was speaking at the inquiry which will determine whether Trafford Council’s unanimous decision to refuse planning permission for Barton Renewable Energy Plant (BREP) last year will be overturned.

Mr Othen is a technical director at Fichtner Consulting Engineers and was responsible for the air quality assessment and environmental permit at the BREP site in Davyhulme, part of which is in an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

He told the inquiry at Old Trafford Football Stadium: “The plant will have an insignificant impact in terms of air quality.”

When Martin Kingston QC, representing Peel Energy, asked if Trafford Council had accepted this and Mr Othen replied that it had.

Alan Watson, Trafford Council’s expert witness and consultant on air quality and health, gave evidence at the inquiry last week.

Peel’s expert witness also dismissed Mr Watson’s earlier claim that the technology that would be used is unproven.

“We are satisfied that the technology is capable of achieving the low level nitrogen dioxide emission limit.”

In cross examination, Vincent Fraser QC, representing Trafford Council, asked Mr Othen if nitrogen dioxide emitted by the plant is harmful to health.

Mr Othen replied that any health impacts would likely to be very small and negligible.

When Mr Fraser asked Mr Othen if he agreed if, “anxiety in itself can be harmful to health,” Mr Othen said yes.

The inquiry continues.

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:21am Fri 23 Nov 12

Lumbylad says...

Oh so it will be belching out perfume then? Glad that's cleared that up, I was really starting to be worried.
Oh so it will be belching out perfume then? Glad that's cleared that up, I was really starting to be worried. Lumbylad

3:07pm Fri 23 Nov 12

bring back commonn sense says...

Given the importance of this inquiry and the strength of public feeling there seems to have been very little media coverage, despite the inspector refusing peels bid to block any media coverage. Cant help wondering why, the medica coverage there is, seems to be heavy on the peels side. Gives a bit of a misleading picture.
Given the importance of this inquiry and the strength of public feeling there seems to have been very little media coverage, despite the inspector refusing peels bid to block any media coverage. Cant help wondering why, the medica coverage there is, seems to be heavy on the peels side. Gives a bit of a misleading picture. bring back commonn sense

4:35pm Fri 23 Nov 12

stop BREP says...

Yet another one sided article from Peel newspaper, sorry the messenger. I take it the reporter could not be bothered to turn up and listen to the inquiry and what was said on BOTH sides, and the fact that it WILL have an impact on the already high pollution in the area.
Why not mention the fact that the chimney is much lower than it should be so Peel do not have to close down Barton airport, which they own. Or the
size of the incinerator, higher that the chill factor and as wide as the Trafford Centre. So much for a community paper to SUPPORT local people, or do Peel own you as well.
Yet another one sided article from Peel newspaper, sorry the messenger. I take it the reporter could not be bothered to turn up and listen to the inquiry and what was said on BOTH sides, and the fact that it WILL have an impact on the already high pollution in the area. Why not mention the fact that the chimney is much lower than it should be so Peel do not have to close down Barton airport, which they own. Or the size of the incinerator, higher that the chill factor and as wide as the Trafford Centre. So much for a community paper to SUPPORT local people, or do Peel own you as well. stop BREP

4:35pm Fri 23 Nov 12

stop BREP says...

Yet another one sided article from Peel newspaper, sorry the messenger. I take it the reporter could not be bothered to turn up and listen to the inquiry and what was said on BOTH sides, and the fact that it WILL have an impact on the already high pollution in the area.
Why not mention the fact that the chimney is much lower than it should be so Peel do not have to close down Barton airport, which they own. Or the
size of the incinerator, higher that the chill factor and as wide as the Trafford Centre. So much for a community paper to SUPPORT local people, or do Peel own you as well.
Yet another one sided article from Peel newspaper, sorry the messenger. I take it the reporter could not be bothered to turn up and listen to the inquiry and what was said on BOTH sides, and the fact that it WILL have an impact on the already high pollution in the area. Why not mention the fact that the chimney is much lower than it should be so Peel do not have to close down Barton airport, which they own. Or the size of the incinerator, higher that the chill factor and as wide as the Trafford Centre. So much for a community paper to SUPPORT local people, or do Peel own you as well. stop BREP

1:39pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Flabbergasted Reader says...

I am sure, thanks to this one-sided article that many readers have breathed a sigh of relief to hear that the proposed BREP is safe and will not be churning out harmful emissions as we all feared. However, as this small snippet of information from a public inquiry which has been going on for two weeks is biased and unfair I would appeal to the Messenger to actually print some more of the facts that we have gleaned from the inquiry. Trafford council and representatives from ALL political parties are against this monstrosity, together with thousands of local people. Why not tell us that the chimney is slightly higher than the motorway bridge over the Ship Canal? Why not tell us that residents are within the firing line of huge amunts of pollutants in an already designated Air Quality Management Area? Shameful biased journalism.
I am sure, thanks to this one-sided article that many readers have breathed a sigh of relief to hear that the proposed BREP is safe and will not be churning out harmful emissions as we all feared. However, as this small snippet of information from a public inquiry which has been going on for two weeks is biased and unfair I would appeal to the Messenger to actually print some more of the facts that we have gleaned from the inquiry. Trafford council and representatives from ALL political parties are against this monstrosity, together with thousands of local people. Why not tell us that the chimney is slightly higher than the motorway bridge over the Ship Canal? Why not tell us that residents are within the firing line of huge amunts of pollutants in an already designated Air Quality Management Area? Shameful biased journalism. Flabbergasted Reader

2:01pm Fri 30 Nov 12

Clair Lowther says...

I am totally appalled by the messenger, this one sided biased propaganda should not be allowed. "An expert witness claims.... no major impact on air quality" what the article doesn't mention is this is Peels' expert witness - no mention of the countless experts who claim otherwise, and can back this up with evidence. Having attended the inquiry regularly I've been shocked by errors and misinformation from both Peel and the Environment Agency. Local people need to know what is really going on and Messenger should be the first port of call, instead you are distributing imbalanced stories which lead people to think this incinerator is safe. BCAG have worked so hard to stop this dangerous plant, even in the face of accusations of scaremongering by the ignorant, and your article encourages this misinformed attitude. I would urge anyone who wants to know the truth, to access BCAGs website and watch the inquiry on Youtube (particularly Day 5 part 3 - this "expert" being cross examined) and see for yourselves just how dangerous this plant is.
I am totally appalled by the messenger, this one sided biased propaganda should not be allowed. "An expert witness claims.... no major impact on air quality" what the article doesn't mention is this is Peels' expert witness - no mention of the countless experts who claim otherwise, and can back this up with evidence. Having attended the inquiry regularly I've been shocked by errors and misinformation from both Peel and the Environment Agency. Local people need to know what is really going on and Messenger should be the first port of call, instead you are distributing imbalanced stories which lead people to think this incinerator is safe. BCAG have worked so hard to stop this dangerous plant, even in the face of accusations of scaremongering by the ignorant, and your article encourages this misinformed attitude. I would urge anyone who wants to know the truth, to access BCAGs website and watch the inquiry on Youtube (particularly Day 5 part 3 - this "expert" being cross examined) and see for yourselves just how dangerous this plant is. Clair Lowther

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree