COUNCIL chiefs at Warrington are now waiting for the almost inevitable appeal against the planners’ decision to refuse to allow a 12-year extension to the operational life of the giant Arpley landfill site.
As things stand, the tip must cease operating in October.
But site operators Waste Recycling Group are likely to appeal before then – particularly as they allege the borough council has failed to follow correct procedures in the run-up to the application.
More than 100 local people attended the special meeting at the Parr Hall, as reported by Warrington-Worldwide yesterday (Thursday) and heard members of the development management committee unanimously decide to refuse consent.
Afterwards, a number of councillors spoke out against the application.
Great Sankey North councillor Trudi Wood said: “I have been involved with this campaign right from the start. I support the officers when they say it would be an inappropriate development in the Green Belt and there are no special circumstances to justify it.
“The volume of traffic is completely unacceptable and has been a blight on local residents including those in my ward for far too long. The dust and smells from the tip have messed up the quality of life of people and we have to put an end to it.”
Whittle Hall councillor Keith Gleave said: “For Whittle Hall ward, my main objections relate to traffic on Whittle Avenue. Twice lorries have turned over and emptied their loads on the highway and grass verges. The remains were never cleared up and just left to bury themselves, causing a danger to wildlife. Residents on the Avenue have frequently complained about noise and vibration from lorries.”
Cllr Bob Barr, a member of the committee, expressed disbelief at the applicants’ apparent naivety.
He said: “They cannot have failed to realise that the people of Warrington would not tolerate any extension to the operation of the tip. When planning permission was originally granted for 25 years expiring in 2013, it meant precisely that – no extension.
Protests about the operation of the tip, the noise, the pollution, the traffic and the breaches of operating conditions must have been heard by the applicants who should have known that there were overwhelming planning reasons to refuse the application.
“Yet they came to the meeting putting up a last minute legal challenge to some minor aspects of the handling of the application, rather than explaining how they would satisfy residents. That was because they knew they couldn’t persuade the people of Warrington to tolerate this noxious site anymore. I am delighted that the committee voted unanimously to reject the application.”
The proposals united political parties with Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservatives lodging objections.
