Planning Reasons

Reasons for objecting to the plant

We believe that the most robust reasons for objecting to the plant are based on Trafford Policy contraventions and Planning reasons. Please find more information below on each of these, which you may wish to highlight in your objection letters. To have the most impact, please avoid copying and pasting the text and if you have read any of the plans, please link information from them into your letter. We will be developing this page over the coming weeks with further information.

Policy Misalignment

  • Joint Waste Development Plan


BCAG stance:

This site has not been identified as a suitable site for handling waste in Trafford in this policy. The latest Peel Energy publication shows that BREP will handle 70-75% waste wood and a proportion of solid recovered fuel, which contains plastics, paper etc., thus it IS a waste-handling facility. Therefore, this site is NOT aligned to Trafford’s Joint Waste Development Plan.

Incineration: In the case of any proposals for waste incinerators, the Council will normally seek to ensure that these:-

  1. are located within industrial areas well away from any main residential areas;
  2. are not unduly prominent or out of scale, having regard to the nature of their surroundings, their visibility from public viewpoints and the extent of possible screening measures;
  3. do not prejudice the regeneration of an area identified by the Council as being in need of investment, and do not prejudice existing industries, particularly food manufacturing and high technology activities.

BCAG stance:

BREP is classified as an incinerator by the Environment Agency, as it would fall under the Waste Incineration Directive. Therefore, the above extract is applicable to this proposal.

BREP is located approximately 500m from the nearest residential properties and is not located within an industrial area. Also, the densely populated areas of Davyhulme, Urmston, Stretford and many parts of Greater Manchester are directly downwind of the plant. For this reason, Trafford’s policy implies that this plant cannot go ahead.

Additionally, there are many food manufacturing companies located downwind of BREP. In other locations around the country, there have been concerns raised from food manufacturers when incinerators have been located in their vicinity (e.g. see Kelloggs in Wrexham: When the reality of this proposal becomes apparent, this industry may degenerate in our local area.

The Council adopts seven key environmental priorities to build a Sustainable Future, including:

Facilitating positive change to the built environment to create and maintain a safe and pleasant place to live and work with a vibrant economy, rich heritage and protecting open spaces.

BCAG stance:

Due to the emissions from the plant, it is believed that BREP goes against the priority of creating and maintaining a safe and pleasant place to live and work. Local amenities may also be negatively impacted, as people will not want to live, work or conduct recreational activities in the locality of the plant. Therefore, BREP may inhibit our vibrant economy.

Preventing and reducing pollution of air land and water, recognizing the issues of climate change as a high priority. Taking forward strategies to reduce Greenhouse gasses (C02) and those harmful emissions closely linked to chronic health impacts. Bring back into gainful use Brownfield land through remediation, enforcement and assisting the development process.

BCAG stance:

BREP will be a huge source of pollution to the air and therefore, allowing it to go ahead will contravene the priority to prevent and reduce pollution of air. It is very encouraging to hear that Trafford are keen to reduce those harmful emissions that are closely linked to chronic health impacts. Given that the emissions from BREP are exactly these emissions, it would not be appropriate to allow this plant to proceed.

To support local and regional economic growth and prosperity that is sensitive to the needs of Trafford and to support small business and local employment opportunities.

BCAG stance:

Although this plant may create a small number of jobs, we believe the existence of the plant will have a much wider detrimental effect on the local amenities and the local economy.

To secure improvements in health and well-being, support preventative health strategies and to reduce health inequalities for people and communities.

BCAG stance:

Given the emissions from the plant and the associations of these with serious health effects, there is no way that BREP could go ahead as part of a preventative health strategy.

To increase opportunities for sport, leisure and healthier lifestyles in its communities.

BCAG stance:

Again, given the emissions from the plant, BREP would inhibit healthier lifestyles in our community. Many people may also avoid using the local, downwind sports facilities.

Priority 6: Strengthen the role and impact of ill health prevention

Trafford will be significantly above the national average and the gaps between the neighbourhoods with the worst and best health will be considerably reduced. Residents will be healthy, active and have an improved quality of life with more participating in physical activity, sport and culture.

BCAG stance:

Many of Trafford’s neighbourhoods are situated downwind of the plant and the residents will be exposed to the harmful emissions. We believe that BREP would weaken ill-health prevention in Trafford and as such, it is contrary to this priority.


If you can spot any other policy-related objections, please let us know ( We need everyone’s help! Some of the policies you may wish to read are:

Trafford Unitary Development Plan, particularly the waste policies for treatment and recycling. (

Proposals map to see what else is being proposed in the local area.

Regional Spatial Strategy (

Emerging Joint Waste Development Plan (


Site-Specific Concerns

Below is a list of grounds for objecting to the plant. These are planning-focused and many are not the BCAG’s primary reasons for objecting, although they all count. If you do get the chance to read the plans and link anything your find in those to the reasons below, it would strengthen the case even further. The plans can be found at

  • Emissions to air -Incinerators are a pollution source discharging dioxins, forans and particulate matter over large areas. Some emissions are bio-accumulative and will build up in the environment and in people, causing potentially serious health effects. In Manchester City Centre and along main arterial routes, pollution levels under certain climatic conditions do rise above national air quality standards already. The Nexon Methane Plant has already been given permission to proceed, on the same site. Two Part A processing plants will be located very closely together, both emitting pollutants, and in such close proximity to residential areas.
  • Traffic generation – The traffic generated by the lorries delivering to and removing waste from the plant will have a cumulative impact on the existing congested M60 motorway.
  • Hazardous materials – transportation of toxic ash from the plant and the hazardous emissions to which we will be exposed.
  • Impact on residential amenities. Existing business will be blighted and new business discouraged
  • Visual amenity – There will be a significant visual impact as it will be visible from local houses on both sides of the canal.
  • Cumulative impact of development proposals in the locality.
  • Noise and disturbance resulting from the plant
  • Loss of trees
  • Effect on a conservation area – A wildlife corridor is directly adjacent to the site.
  • Proximity to houses – It is located too close to housing.
  • Storage on land
  • Smells
  • Light Pollution
  • Provision for protection from vermin