Councillors voice strong objections to industrial development in rural area.
Topics covered
Introduction to the biomass plant controversy
A proposed biomass plant near Elgin has been denied by local councillors amid significant concerns regarding road safety and environmental impact. The developers, Acorn Bioenergy, sought permission to build an industrial facility on a greenfield site in Longmorn, aiming to process distillery waste into biomethane for fuel or gas grid injection.
However, the project faced intense scrutiny from both council members and local residents.
Concerns raised by local residents
During the council meeting, local objectors expressed their fears about the potential dangers posed by the plant. One resident, Peter Regan, articulated his worries about the shift from living near scenic landscapes to being adjacent to an industrial site.
He highlighted the proposed 12-hour operation, seven days a week, as a source of daily disruption for the community over the next 25 years. Regan’s concerns extended to the smell and operational hazards of the plant, particularly regarding increased heavy goods vehicle (HGV) traffic on the A941 Rothes road.
Developer’s defense and environmental claims
Despite the objections, Acorn Bioenergy’s director, Daniel Lambert, defended the project, claiming it would significantly reduce carbon emissions—equivalent to removing 18,000 cars from the road. Lambert insisted that their figures had been verified by a third party and emphasized the plant’s potential as a vital infrastructure for local distilleries. Legal advisor Colin Innes echoed this sentiment, arguing that the Longmorn site was the most suitable location for such a facility.
Road safety and community impact concerns
Opposition to the plant was not limited to environmental issues; road safety was a major concern. Former police officer David Duff warned that the proposed access junction would be hazardous, potentially leading to accidents and fatalities. He stressed that the nature of transport associated with the plant posed significant risks, urging that access standards should exceed minimum requirements to ensure public safety. Other objectors, including Neil Sneddon, dismissed developer assurances regarding road safety improvements, asserting that any junction accommodating slow-moving traffic would be dangerous.
Community response and council decision
In addition to local residents, representatives from competing businesses voiced their objections. David Olwell, from Grissan Riverside Ltd, criticized the proposal, stating it offered no local benefits and would set a negative precedent for the anaerobic digestion industry. Ultimately, councillors unanimously voted to refuse the application, citing concerns about the impact on designated countryside and the inadequacy of the developer’s community contributions.
The future of Acorn Bioenergy’s proposal
With the council’s decision, Acorn Bioenergy now faces the choice of whether to appeal. The outcome of this case highlights the ongoing tension between industrial development and community interests in rural areas. As the debate continues, local residents remain vigilant about protecting their environment and ensuring road safety in their community.
