don56

Anyone have any photos of Morton Aerodrom, particularly the ex married officers houses still on Lightwood Lane? Thanks

The land survey in 2008 when a proposal to build houses and Industrial units was considered reported significant petrochemical and other pollutants left over from the RAF and other uses. The clearance costs were in the £mil for full site clearance. I hear recent costs are less but this was not for a total site clearance. Clearing the site raises the issue of where to dump the contaminants when we have a European objective to reduce use of landfill. Comments were raised during the recent rejection of the Biowaste proposal how we can best use the Green Belt open space for greater public enjoyment. Opening up the site would allow better access between the Moss Valley and Gleedless Valley, completing the Green artery in to Sheffield. If you remember the Greenham Common Nuclear weapon site from the 80's it is now a widlife reserve. Keeping Sheffields green spaces green, free from industry and devolopment promotes Sheffields name as the Green city far better than bioeaste processing. Sheffields "Green" City branding comes from the fact we have a very lareg percentage of green field site in and around the city and have protected it.

The site has been Green Belt for many years, have a look at the Council Planning website or officers. Any land can be designated as Green Belt to stop cities and Towns from Spreading. Here the site is Green Belt to protect the Moss Valley. Green Belt land doesn't have to be green. Its an open space free from industrialisation and property. Fresh air and little disturbance from noise. The current application is to have heavy vehicles entering and exiting the site seven days a week. What peace and enjoyment of their homes will the residents have from vehicles and machinery operating every day. If the plant was there first then no one can complain if you move in to the area but at Norton there hasn't been heavy use of the land since the RAF left in the 60's. Many Green Belt sites have had previous development on. By designating land as Green Belt the aim is to stop further development or even clear the existing buildings. This composting proposal is an inductrial process with health risks hence the Environment Agency have guidelines to not operate these within 250m of residents and places of work. This is another example where planning has to take in to account other factors of the operation, not just the health risks. the Green Estate supporters want everyone to focus on the health risks so they can have the planning application approved and handed over to the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency are there to ensure the plant operates safely not how it interferes with those working and residing nearby. The EA are outside Council Planning authority. Reject the Norton Biowaste plant

Regarding the the rights of the Coucillors to reject the propsal is the whole idea of elected representatives listening to the views of the Community. Every process has its safe tolerencies we are saying the closness of the residents is too close for this composting process. Take a look at the Nuclear industry who have the highest safety standards. If we just listened to the Techniciens we'd have Nuclear facilities closer to populated areas than they are. They aren't because Human Error creates the risk something may go wrong, of which we know they have. Again the closeness of this processing plant is too close because risks of pollutants serious to health exist so lets play safe. If you reallly investigated the science of the process you may find the research by Cranford University that was used to define the 250m buffer zone has been publically refuted (Judicial Review) and the Medical advice to the EA was for 500m. Remember that Technicians reported Asbestos was safe until the medical industry started to pick up the pieces. The same applied to the Cotton and coal Industries. With the very closeness of the residents, school children and the unborn (Sure Start Centre) this process is not right for the Norton site. A stated reason for not expanding one of the existing sites is it's closeness to residents! I see KM Bayes still hasn't guaranteed 100% safety of the process because he/she can't! I note KM Bayes isn't even a resident of the area so easy for him/her to question the reasons why the Residents, Councillors, MP's and both public/private oganisations don't want the proces there. It hasn't gone unnoticed it is representatives of Green Estates & associates with the planning application that are now voicing their opinions to discredit opposition, even the planning process itself. The Friends Of The Earth speaker at the committee meeting didn't even know of the 250m guideline by the EA. She commented on how it would be good for the Sheffield Carbon Footprint. She forgot to mention Green Estates publically stated intent to close it's other sites therefore the idea of improving the Sheffield Carbon footprint is actually negative. Green Belt guidelines are for no industrial processing being permitted, this bioewaste recycling is an industrial process hence EA interest. Oh, yes, mustn't forget the reason for closing the other sites - cost! The EA permits costs are increasing hence Green Estates desire to close its other sites to save money! Concentrating on a single site goes completely against Sheffield Council Waste Management policy. Hopefully you will see that planning does not just take in to account the technical process many other factors have to be considered. There are other more suitable sites around Sheffield that don't have close proximity of residents, isn't Green Belt and have better road links that the Norton siste. If a more suitable site exists that does not upset the resiednts then that is where the process should go.

Alas I expect Green Estates to appeal beacuse they don't give a damm about the residents. We'll have to wait and see. Hopefully the Inspector will see the level of resistance to the application especially since alternative sites are available and not so close to residents.

You make it sound like this is a competition. It isn't to the residents for they will have to live with the side affects from the operation. The objections raised against the proposal was 97%. Green Estates pledged in June 2011 not to go through with the application if sufficient opposition was raised. This has been done, so for Green Estates to Appeal shows they have no regard for the residents and workers on or next to the site. Their motives are for profit only. The operation has been reviewed and is continuing to be reviewed due Green Estates changing their plans as a result of our scrutiny. I assume you are referring to the negative air and filtration aspects of the in-vessel part of the operation and not the open air aspects. Recent public studies still found bioaerosol release from negative air with filtration systems. If you have the opportunity to speak or submit your safety assessment at the Appeal will you be guaranteeing 100% capture of the bioaerosols? I ask because the Appeal is a legal procedure making you liable should bioaersols be found outside the operation if the operation is allowed. We believe the operation does cause a risk to the community therefore should not be allowed on this site. Other sites without the close proximity of 'sensitive receptors' are better suited for this operation.

The site is designated Green Belt by Sheffield Council. It has been for many years. If you know anything about Green Belt classification you will know Green Belt sites can be both brown and Green, in fact any colour you want. The designation is to be open space and stop urban sprawl. Thos who keep picking up on the brownfield aspect tend to want to build on. So why not build on all the parks, playing fields and let us all live in a concrete jungle like London and Manchester. Seriously there's an Speciial Scientific Interest site next to it thats part of the Moss Valley. Norton Oaks land is owned by Developers ready to build on. The land along the ring road where Norton Show is part owned by Developers waiting to build on. Don't turn everywhere in to concrete!

The old Lightwood site (former RAF Norton Aerodrome) is green Belt and has been for many years. The Council has not declared any change of this designation. The only people who keep calling the site Brownfield is because they want to build on it. The reason for Green Belt set-up in the 50's & 60's was to restrict and manage City development. If the former Greenham Common airbase, famed in the 1980's for the anti Nuclear Weapons demos, can be turned into a wildlife protected zone I can't understand why can't Sheffield keep it's existing protected land.

If you look at the Environment Agency website and search for Closed Composting you will find the permit rules for this type of process "SR2008No17 Composting in closed vessels". The minumim distances of 250m from residential property/places of work and 1km from an SSSI area. Both of these conditions fail at the Norton Aerodrome. The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) web site has under Composting search "Bioaerosol emissions from waste composting and the potential for workers’ exposure" - "Bioaerosol emissions from commercial waste composting activities will continue to be a health concern for workers on site and to near neighbours.". Its been studies since 2003 that has found health risks with Bioaerosols, hence the minimum 250m from residential property. If you search the governments DEFRA site for either Bioaerosols, composting you will find reports relating to the emission of Bioaerosols from composting. Over the years the processes used have changed to make them safer yet the Governments (DEFRA) June Waste Review concluded further studies are required on the health affects from Bioaerosols. Search the internet for Aspergillosis and you will find evidence of the lung disorder caused by Bioarosols, and yes there has been a death reported in the Independent accredited to Bioaerosols. Sheffield University is undertaking further studies on the affect wind and buildings have on increasing the concentration of Bioaerosols around Composting sites, whether open windrow or closed operations. Sticking the process on top a hill has been reported to increase the spread. Hopefully you will see why this site is not suitable for this process due to the close proximity of residential property. You will also read the young and the elderley are the most at risk from catching Aspergilliosis = Valley Park Junior School, The Woodland View Nusring home are both within 250m of the proposed operating site. You all may then understand why some of us are very concerned why Green Estates deny knowledge of any health problems. I suspect the existing sites were set-up without objection because the problems with Bioarosols from Composting have become more common/available over the years. Search the Barnsly Chronicle archives for the problems they had some years ago with an Open Windrow composting site that required Parlimentary discussion/review and High Court decisions to rject the planning. Green Belt definition: • To check the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas. • To safeguard the surrounding countryside from further encroachment. • To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. • To preserve the special character of historic towns. • To assist in urban regeneration. You will notice that no explicit mention is made of nature conservation. The term 'Green' in this case does not have that meaning, although it is often wrongly thought to do so. Green Belts were so called long before the word 'green' gained the wider use it has today. Green belt land therefore doesn't have to be Green in colour it is an Open Space. Building on it removes that Open Space! You wil also find on the Internet that Sheffield does not have a shortage of suitable land for housing so why use the Green Belt first? Blackburn Meadows is having a Biomass plant built to generate electricity from green waste. The viability report indicates there's sufficient supplies within a 50miles radius to feed the process. The overall objective is to reduce landfill use. The best way is to recycle, this doesn't mean composting everything. Green Estates want to close their other sites which is inopposition to DEFRA's recommendations that communal composting is encouraged. Not super processing plants that create an advers impact on the surrounding area. Those who I have researched the above with are not weirdos. They have a desire to have things right. Hope the above helps.

I can't disagree with you, there is no residents action group yet. Then there wasn't an advertisement of the 19th July meeting for residents to discuss the proposal. The South Community Association indicated they didn't want to advertise the meeting too wide. Those who did attend following some residents advertising found the meeting room couldn't cope with the numbers. At the meeting there wasn't a single comment for the proposal. It takes as you say "overbearing loud mouth types" to get the message out for people to have the chance to make up their mind. If we didn't the waste recycling plant would starting to be set-up now. The planning portal is the opportunity to comment. If you look at the comments posted, the small petition created and the fact no one at the 19th July meeting wants this on the Green Belt you can understand why I can justify saying the residents don't want it. I personally prefer the site to be reforested so that it re creates the anciant woodland connecting Gleedless Valley and the Moss Valley. A safe fresh area for people to enjoy.

The problem is Green Estates who have submitted the planning request don't recognise there are health problems with commersial/industrial composting. The Environment Agency permit rules are based on the known problems of bioaerosols released from composting, significantly from commercial composting. The residents don't want it beacuase of the health risks, the increase in noise of heavy lorries 7 days a week and the land is Green belt.

The former RAF Norton Aerodrome site is not suitable because the processing has known health issues. These are partially accounted for in the UK Environment Agency, with HSE support, to not permit operations of this sort within 250m of residential and places of work. Also not within 1km of an area of Scientific interest. This proposed site does not comply with either of these two minimum rulings. Have a look on the internet for Bioaerosols and Aspergillus and the health risk to those in close proximity of this type of operation.

Thanks for the quick response.

Does anyone have photos of the Officers houses on Lightwood Lane, preferably when they were under RAF use?