Row over "grotesque" plans for Cannington

8:54am Sunday 26th August 2007

Comments (1)   Have your say »

"GROTESQUE" plans to "industrialise the countryside" have been criticised this week by residents aiming to block a major industrial development at Cannington.

Cannington Cold Stores, located in the village, has applied to Sedgemoor District Council for planning permission to build a big new refrigeration store and a biogas facility for generating its own power.

The authority is due to make a decision on the matter in September, but a number of residents have already made their feelings clear by submitting letters of objection.

Their reasons for opposing the application include the visual impact on the countryside, fears over increased traffic, noise pollution and air pollution - all concerns rejected by the company.

One such objector is Nicholas Beva, who lives in Cannington's Oatley Lane.

He said: "The cold storage depot like the one near us should not be located in a rural area - and thus, expansion of the facility to five times larger should definitely not happen.

"Storage depots should be located on industrial sites where there is infrastructure which was designed for such land use and adequate transport links."

A second Oatley Lane resident agreed. Peter Thomas said: "In essence, this plans is an attempt to further industrialise the countryside within a few miles of an area of outstanding natural beauty.

"The close-by residents and the environment will pay the price in pollution for cheap electricity for an ill-fated site."

And they were backed by a third objector, Chris Hewett. He added: "There are so many reasons why this application is totally unacceptable - (including the) grotesque visual impact."

However, town planning consultant Ian McDonald told the Mercury on behalf of Cannington Cold Stores that such concerns were unfounded.

He said: "I am surprised to hear that there are that number of residents who are annoyed about it.

"We have been going through a public consultation exercise, and we held a public meeting, quite well attended, and there were no great problems in terms of the views expressed.

"The public are entitled to make their views know, but I do think that some have got the wrong end of the stick - this is a non-noisy, non-smelly process."