DC Casebook: In depth - Incinerator refused at sawmill on basis of sustainable alternatives

Planning, 3 July 2009

The metal incinerator had a flue that extended above the eaves of the main mill building. It was close to the mill's flank wall, through which ran two pipes. These transferred hot air into the building when heating was required and discharged it outside in the summer. The inspector reasoned that because the incinerator was an artificial above-ground structure it fell under the definition of a building. It was inappropriate development that harmed the openness of the green belt, she decided.

The appellant argued that the incinerator allowed timber waste to be disposed of on-site in an efficient, environmentally-friendly way rather than sending it to landfill, reducing the firm's carbon footprint and saving money. Using the heat to warm the mill cut the business's running costs, he added. The inspector noted that the incinerator was used to burn wood offcuts, pallets and other waste timber. She accepted that this significantly reduced the amount of waste to be disposed off-site and appreciated the financial savings to the business.

However, she pointed out that PPS10 on planning for sustainable waste management seeks to move management of waste up a hierarchy where reduction is the most preferable option followed by reuse, recycling and composting and incineration for energy, with disposal a last resort. The appellant had not indicated that any alternatives to incineration had been considered, such as sale for use in wood-burning stoves or conversion into bark chippings. As a result, she was unconvinced that waste could not be disposed of more sustainably in a way that would bring financial remuneration and would not harm green belt openness.

DCS Number 100-062-629

Inspector Janice Chance; Written representations.