HUNDREDS of objections have been lodged against plans for a low carbon energy recovery facility which if approved could power 8,000 homes a year, developers claim.

Eco Sustainable Solutions LTD wants to install the facility for the generation of electricity and heat through a “low-emission thermal process using residual waste” at their site in Chapel Lane.

Developers say the energy generated would be enough to heat 6,000 homes a year and power 8,000 a year.

The development will also include the recycling of 10,000 tonnes per annum of non-hazardous residual waste.

But it has been described as an “incinerator project” and an “unacceptable development”.

Just what is planned and why are people so against it?


A statement from Eco Sustainable Solutions Ltd said: “The principal component of the planning application is the proposed construction and operation of a low carbon ERF.

“The proposed ERF will involve the treatment of up to 60,000 tonnes per annum of non-hazardous residual waste from the local area.

“Of this total, 50,000 tonnes will go through the thermal process within the ERF to generate heat and electricity, with 10,000 tonnes of recyclable materials pre-sorted within the ERF building.

“This proposal represents a major investment in sustainable development and renewable technologies within the area.

“The proposed development is supported by national and local policies promoting sustainable waste management, low carbon energy, and carbon reduction.”

Bournemouth Echo:

If approved, the facility would be built on the company’s site, Eco Sustainable Solutions Ltd, in Chapel Lane, Christchurch.

The company added: The administration building will also include a visitor and education facility for school tours and other community-based groups as an educational resource.

“In this regard, it is considered that improving education will form part of the solution to the local waste challenges, which may be partly addressed through improved awareness, education and action by residents and businesses to reduce waste, reuse and recycle more.”

The design and access statement said: “The location for the ERF has been carefully chosen to help break down the visual impact of the facility when seen from distant views and making best use of the screening provided by existing tree belts on the site’s northern and western boundaries.

“To further reduce its visual impact the building height has been kept as low as possible and other than the main stack and smaller vent, rooftop equipment has been avoided in order to maintain a visually clean roofscape.”

Finally, the environmental impact assessment said: “The proposed ERF will involve the importation of up to 60,000 tonnes per annum of non-hazardous residual waste.

“Of this total, 50,000 tonnes will go through the thermal process within the ERF to generate heat and electricity, with the remaining 10,000 tonnes of recyclable materials sorted within the ERF building.

“In order to protect sensitive ecological habitats located close to the proposed ERF, the applicant is applying for stack emission limits for oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, and ammonia which are lower than the maximum limits allowed by current legislation.

“To achieve these lower emission limits, measures known as ‘additional abatement’ have been designed into the ERF.”


At the time of writing, 615 objections have been submitted on BCP Council’s planning portal.

Autism Wessex, which operates Portfield School and provides care for up to 100 autistic children, expressed its concern.

A spokesperson said: “Many of these young people have additional health needs including asthma and respiratory conditions as well as heightened sensory reactions to sound or vibration etc.

“The education and care for the young people specifically requires extensive periods of time throughout the school day outside activity during morning and afternoon.

“The provision of this crucial element of the school day would be placed at risk of detrimental effect upon their health and well-being if emissions as noted in the report provided would be present.”

A statement from South Coast Boiler Services, bases in the Cobham Business Centre, said: “There is not enough supporting evidence and research into the long-term effects on people’s health in the immediate area surrounding the incinerator.

Bournemouth Echo:

“There are many local wildlife and heathland areas of national significance in close proximity to the incinerator and this would only have a detrimental effect on the local wildlife.

“We need to reduce dirty waste by-products by other means such as reducing waste to start with, not just burning it and sending it across the skies for people and wildlife to breathe in.”

Chris Edwards, airfield operations duty manager at Bournemouth Airport, said: “Emissions from the stack is a concern. Heat can cause radar issues, smoke can obscure visibility and the effects of exhaust gasses on aircraft overflying are all potential issues that must be considered.

“This requires further information to ascertain if there is likely to be any adverse effects.”

Loretta Hartnell, of Merley, said: “Unacceptable development, there are better ways of dealing with our waste that does not impact so much on the lives of the people that live nearby.”

Harry Ford, of West Parley, added: “How is it possible that in this time of reducing pollution and the recycling of plastic that this is even an option.

“The incinerator will produce levels of air pollution that although considered ‘acceptable’ industrially will harm both human and ecological health.”

Now consultation has come to an end, officials will discuss the proposals. Do you think the plans should be approved?