Decision on asphalt permit deferred

Three months of air quality monitoring is required before the committee is prepared to make a decision on asphalt plant permit.

asphalt-chimney-davidmcneary-640

The Isle of Wight council’s Regulatory Committee considered an application for an asphalt permit by Eurovia Roadstone Limited this morning.

East Cowes resident Julia Hill, who has been campaigning against the proposed asphalt plant, attended the meeting and was able to feedback the outcome to OnTheWight.

Readers will remember that the Environmental Health department had recommended the application be approved, however, Julia told us that all members of the committee were unhappy with a lack of information provided and have deferred any decision on the application.

High rates of childhood asthma
They stated their concern that “Asthma rates amongst East Cowes and Cowes 5-15 year olds are approximately 39% higher than the national average” and called for a minimum of three months of air quality monitoring in the Medina area.

Once those measurements have been returned, it’s possible that air quality monitoring would have to continue for a further three months, making any decision on the permit a possible six months off.

Image: David McNeary under CC BY 2.0

Location map
View the location of this story in London, England, United Kingdom.

Wightfibre sponsors the Isle of Wight News by OnTheWight

Monday, 25th February, 2013 2:09pm

By

ShortURL: http://wig.ht/2axr

Filed under: Cowes, East Cowes, Green Issues, Isle of Wight News, Top story

Print Friendly

.



9 Comments

  1. Retiredhack's comment is rated +4 Vote +1 Vote -1

    25.Feb.2013 2:29pm

    Three months takes us past the election. Not sure who that benefits.

    Reply
  2. James Luke's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    25.Feb.2013 2:41pm

    It was very reassuring to hear Councillors ask the very valid questions that need to be asked.

    It was disappointing to hear that Councillors were constrained by legislation. The Head of Planning kept re-iterating the very limited grounds on which the permit could be rejected.

    One example of this relates to the air quality measurement. Current legislation does not include the more harmful particles that the Applicant has admitted the plant will produce. The Environment Officers were asked directly if they acknowledged that the PM 1 and PM 2.5 particles constituted a risk to health. They confirmed that they did but said that they were not yet part of the EU regulations and could not therefore be considered.

    The proposed air quality monitoring will only assess a subset of the particles that constitute a risk to health.

    Reply
  3. bydaway's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    25.Feb.2013 4:04pm

    @James Luke… It is an absolute disgrace that The particles PM 1 and PM 2.5 actually are admitted by Eurovia,that their proposed plant will produce,as being harmful, and confirmed by “Environment Officers” as constituting a risk to public health! As for the Head of Planning saying there are limited grounds on which the permit could be rejected…how about rejecting it so as to not endanger public health! Is that not enough to scrap the whole ill thought out application by Eurovia? Eurovia are just proving they are a company that can,t be trusted and care not one jot for the health of local people…. As for the Environmental Health department pushing this on Eurovia’s behalf, [part of comment removed] And then go find jobs elsewhere…….

    Reply
    • James Luke's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

      25.Feb.2013 4:20pm

      Bydaway …. I couldn’t agree more! Myself and others speaking against the plant explained the dangers of these particles very clearly. To hear Council Officers acknowledge that they are considered a risk to human health but then instruct Councillors that they could not reject on that basis was quite shocking. Especially when followed up with the fact that the EU also considers them a risk and is therefore introducing legislation that comes into effect in ….. 2020!!!!! I myself made the point that Asbestos used to be legal and people are still dying as a result.

      Reply
      • wightywight's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

        25.Feb.2013 4:30pm

        Withoutmoving away from this important matter…let’s also not forget that without the PFI there would be no need for this application or development….
        Let’s also hope the matter is deferred until after May…since if there is a new administration there may be an entirely different perspective and ethos for this plant.
        Eurovia need not worry…. they have confirmed the plant is NOT necessary (along with the Council) to carry out the PFI contract.

        WW

        Reply
      • James Luke's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

        25.Feb.2013 10:47pm

        One aspect of Bydaway’s comment that I missed when posting above was the reference to [part of comment removed]. I don’t agree with that comment and ask that we don’t harm a serious discussion with such accusations.

        There is a very serious point here about legislation requiring Councillors to dis-regard emerging health risks. We need our concerns on this point to be taken seriously so should focus on that issue.

        Reply

Add comment

Login to your account.
If you do not have an account, reserve your own name and receive exclusive special offers - just sign up for an On The Wight account

.