For the record can I state my own personal view? Not in my back yard (NIMBY) thank you. My wife and I did not decide to live in the countryside/agricultural area and have it spoiled by the influx of an industrial waste recycling facility, no matter how large of small.

Furthermore the applicant makes several claims that it is on 'a very good road, a very straight and safe road', with good access to Morpeth and Ponteland, which is where our business is.

In response, the proposed site is located on a 'C' class road, that is in a poor state of repair, not dissimilar to the rest of the country roads. For the majority of its length it is a twisty road with only one long straight section adjacent to Tranwell airfield. The remainder has bends and dips and bridges.

With regard to it being a safe road, in the past 12 months alone there have been at least five road traffic accidents on the C151 road between Morpeth and Ponteland. This can no doubt be confirmed by the attendance of Northumbria Police at all of the incidents.

May I respectfully suggest that if the work for the business is in Morpeth or Ponteland then set the business up in these places where there are existing industrial estates, coupled with the benefit of reduced transport costs and possibly some grants to boost.

You also report in the article the claim that "he will never be noticed." Again I take issue with this statement. An eight wheeled rigid body lorry is something you can hardly miss hearing or seeing. The photograph in the 'Herald' proves this point far more eloquently than my written objection.

The report states: 'Mr Pugh stressed that no contaminated waste would be handled at the site as it is removed from buildings before his company begins work' and 'There is absolutely no question of any asbestos, or any other contaminated materials, being taken to Broadlaw.
Frequently inspections by the Environment Agency will ensure this.'

I work in the construction industry as a professional and can assure your readers that within the reclaimed materials that Mr Pugh is talking about there are often pieces of corrugated asbestos sheet and other contaminants. Indeed, it is highly likely that the smaller customers who Mr Pugh aims to serve are a lot less careful than the major construction companies when dealing with the proper disposal of hazardous waste materials.

I do hope that Mr Pugh requests the correct documentation and asks his clients for the Hazardous Waste Registration Numbers of the sites where he is taking the waste from and applies the correct SIC codes! Sorry for the jargon but this is just to demonstrate that I know something of what I talk about.

Furthermore, recent changes in Government legislation require contractors and developers to avoid, reuse and recycle waste via Site Waste Management Plans for all construction projects over £300K. Mr Pugh's proposals certainly fits in regards recycling but with the caveats highlighted above. What has not been answered is, where is the crushed recycled material to be taken to and what is to be done with it then? I would suggest that this will require additional lorry journeys.
For what it is worth it would be better to recycle on the development sites at source. Then people keep their own waste and realise how expensive and how much of a liability waste is in terms of nuisance, and the cost of dealing with it.

I trust that the County Council planners and prospective and elected councillors see the folly of these proposals and are minded of local objections on the following grounds:

• Existing commercial recycling capacity is sufficient to meet current demands and future needs.

• Affects of environmental pollution and impacts on the local community and loss of amenity (noise, dust, etc)

• Environmental impact in a rural/agricultural landscape

• Road safety issues and poor access routes to the site.

STEWART TODD
Twizell
Ponteland