A huge Thank You to Cawarden for their donation of carpet tiles to Stanton Village Hall. Cawarden are part of the Globe Chain initiative that redistributes unwanted office furniture and items to non-profits. For us, such donations make a huge difference. We are a community-run venue relying on hire income and fundraising to maintain and run the Hall. https://www.cawarden.com/

We are looking for a Hall Coordinator. This is a paid opportunity. We’re seeking an entrepreneurial individual or business to lead the operational aspects of the Village Hall. Reporting to the Trustees, you’ll ensure the smooth running of Stanton Village Hall so it continues to benefit our local community. Examples of Key Tasks: Administration and General Enquiries: Be a contact point for hall enquiries (email and Facebook) in a timely and friendly manner. Promote hall availability. Function Bookings Administration: Administer weekend bookings by receiving the online booking, double-checking the diary and sending email confirmation. Then sorting a rota for a Hall Warden to open and close. Regular Bookings Administration: For weekly hirers, administration is mainly invoicing. Coordinating the building needs: Coordinate volunteers and paid support to ensure the Hall is cleaned and maintained for users. Drive new ideas: Alongside, the trustees, identify and support new opportunities that help us improve the Hall, generate income and fulfil our charitable objectives. We’re quite well-developed digitally, which has helped us to streamline tasks. For instance, our website helps us take bookings and payments for hire and events without much human help. Our Trustees are supportive and proactive and, together with our community, we’re brimming with ideas. However, as unpaid helpers with full-time roles, businesses and families (on top of making sure the charity is run well strategically, lawfully and financially), our Trustees haven’t enough time to see to the day-to-day operations of the hall too. Outsourcing this activity is a huge step for us at a time when our finances are quite delicate - but we hope this can move us from surviving to thriving. We can offer flexibility for you to fit this activity around other commitments. You’ll also have a good degree of freedom to explore opportunities and activities that interest you (although we must ensure these align with our charitable purposes). Our Trustees and volunteers will be there to support, bounce ideas off and provide backup. There are a lot of opportunities we could make better use of - including our land, building, funding and fundraising opportunities, offers of volunteer help, ideas, and the needs of local people and businesses. We would love for you to bring passion and creativity to support our Charity and the local community to make the best use of these. If we can find funding or ensure new ideas work financially, then we can support more hours to be made available or explore additional paid support. See the full call here: Commitment: 10-12 hours a month with scope to increase. Budget: £14 per hour initially Location: Mixed (home/desk mainly and hall as required) Basis: We’re looking for a business or individual to undertake this on a freelance/contract basis. You should be mindful of the tax implications of this. You won’t be an employee. Requirements: Highly organised. Able to work independently. Good digital/computer skills Experience with Wix, Canva, Gmail, and online invoicing software would be advantageous Community-minded. Good communication skills. Interested? Please email us introducing yourself and outlining why you are well matched for this opportunity by 3rd November 2023: bookings@villagehallstanton.com If you have any queries or questions then please do email us too.

Residents received letters in Sept/Oct 2023 stating there was additional information relating to the environment statement of the application. Having now had time to review these, our volunteers have summarised these below. It’s important that you make additional comments about this information and it's a great opportunity to add more comments than you might have made when you first objected. See our post here with more reasons to object . Object by selecting "Comment on this Application' here. Response to DCC Highways and June 2023 Traffic Figures Background: · These figures were requested by highways in response to the initial application. · Highways asked the applicant to confirm if the study was done in a neutral traffic week. Observations: · These figures appear to show 41% of traffic continuing straight on at the Cadley Roundabout (towards Caldwell and Rosliston) when leaving the Swadlincote direction from the Willshee’s entrance). This is highly irregular and casts doubt on the accuracy of the data. · The data was collected in May 2022 during a closure of the A444 in Stapenhill due to the cycle lane upgrade by Staffordshire County Council: https://www.staffordshire-live.co.uk/news/burton-news/15-weeks-roadworks-coming-burton-6948865. The response to DCC Highways fails to acknowledge this and states this was a neutral week for traffic, this is in spite of these works creating substantial delays on the A444 and many choosing alternative routes. · I would add that the communication of this document to a public audience for public comment is unhelpful with no key, data units or commentary provided to aid review. Objections: · The data is flawed and the reassurances provided in response to Highways are false/inaccurate. Traffic was not neutral due to the lane closures on the A444 in Stapenhill. As such both the traffic flow and queue length data should be disregarded. A new survey is required. · The traffic impacts cannot be tolerated. The Burton upon Trent Town Plan highlights significant concern about, and delays on, the A444. Additional Visual Impact Viewpoints and Photomontages Background: · Additional LVIA and Heritage Assessment information was requested by Derbyshire County Council on 10th March 2023. LVIA means Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. The applicant has submitted further detail. Observations: · These updated views demonstrate the character of the surrounding area (farmland estates) and the enormous adverse visual impact that the development will have. Image 1 below is the applicant's own image (Appendix 7.8 page 2) from the Cadley Farm development adjacent and the red/pink lines mark the extent of the development, image 2 in the same appendix shows the staggering impact of the development on the landscape. Objections: · Since the initial application, the reinstatement of the Ivanhoe train line between Burton and Leicester has been announced, and these rail users would be additional sensitive receptors to this development. · The landscape impacts are too severe and would not contribute positively to area character or quality (contrary to NPPW Appendix B c; Local Plan Para.3.3; Local Plan Strategic objective 9; Local Plan Policy S1; Local Plan Policy E2b; Local Plan Policy E7; Local Plan Para.6.38; Local Plan Para.7.38; Local Plan Policy SD6; Local Plan BNE1 e,f,g,h; Local Plan Para.8.38; Local Plan Para.8.13; Local Plan BNE4; National Forest Strategy 2014-2024; NPPF 147; National Infrastructure Strategy pg.84; Derbyshire Spatial Energy Study). Heritage Assessment Observations: · The summary given in the Addendum to Heritage assessment grossly downplays the visual impact of the development. These impacts are evidenced in the visuals from the two heritage assets identified (Cadley Hill Farm and Motter & Bailey, Church Gresley). · The Heritage Assessment highlights the historical and architectural features of Cadley Hill Farm (2.1.1). The Heritage Assessment identifies that the ERF would become a ‘dominant feature’ for the farm. · The entire report is not written in a neutral manner and demonstrates a bias towards the applicant (he who pays the piper calls the tune!). For instance, terminology such as ‘the slender stack’ and concluding there would be only minor adverse impacts when the viewpoint photographs demonstrate significant visual impacts (as demonstrated in the viewpoint photos). · The conclusions reached in 2.1 of the Heritage Assessment do not align with the conclusions and visuals provided in the LVIA component of the application. For instance, the Heritage Assessment states that the visibility of the ERF would be limited 1km from the site, yet the LVIA clearly depicts the adverse visual significance and dominance of the ERF. · The Heritage Assessment chooses to exclude heritage assets based on, what I feel is, an inaccurate assumption of the visual impact of the site. · The impact of the development on this viewpoint is stated as minimal in the Heritage Assessment, yet the Technical Note relating to Landscape and Visual matters outlines that there will be a ‘moderate adverse and significant residual visual effect…in the longer term for high sensitivity visitors’. Objections · The assessment is heavily biased and does not make accurate conclusions. The Heritage Assessment acknowledges potential "moderate" heritage impacts but downgrades this to "minor" in its professional judgement - this judgement could be challenged. · The impact on the Cadley Hill Farm as a heritage asset should not be tolerated and the assessment is extremely biased in relation to the effects on this asset (which is in close proximity (200m) to the development). The following development plan statements should be considered in this planning decision: o SDDC Adopted Local Plan SD6 states that its support for renewable and energy developments are subject to two considerations: ‘i) that the environmental effects of the proposal have been appropriately considered and schemes will not give rise to unacceptable impacts on landscape or townscape character, ecology, the historic environment or cultural heritage assets.’ The impacts on Cadley Hill Farm as an asset identified in the heritage assessment are unacceptable, as the visuals demonstrate. o Adopted Local Plan (SDDC) (Para.3.3) states that, “new development will reflect and reinforce the District’s many distinct landscapes and will protect the integrity of our most sensitive wildlife sites, landscapes and heritage assets”. o The integrity of the Cadley Hill Farm (and other local heritage assets) will not be protected if this development were to proceed. o Adopted local Plan Policy S1 states that, ‘it is essential that the District’s heritage assets, landscape and rural character are protected, conserved and enhanced’. This development does not support this end. o Adopted Local Plan Policy E2 also states that, proposals ‘should not give rise to undue impacts on the local landscape, natural environment or cultural heritage assets’. o Adopted Local Plan Part A Policy BNE4 states, ‘Development that will have an unacceptable impact on landscape character (including historic character), visual amenity and sensitivity and cannot be satisfactorily mitigated will not be permitted”. o DCC Derbyshire Spatial Energy Study states that development should ‘remain sympathetic to local character and landscape setting’ and identifies this as a constraint to the development of EFW plants. · The impacts outlined in the Heritage Assessment and updated visuals for this development demonstrate significant disruption to the well-ordered lowland agricultural landscape recognised in the Natural England National character Area profile, and runs contrary to the Statement of Environmental Opportunity 4 which seeks to protect and conserve this character. · Views from the scheduled monument at Castle Gresley Motte and Bailey would be altered by the large-scale development 1.4km away. Even though visibility is limited to the summit of the motte, both the LV technical note and Heritage Assessment reports agree there would be moderate adverse effects on views that contribute to the significance of this heritage asset. · The impact on the Castle Gresley Motte & Bailey are identified in the Heritage Assessment (2.1.2) as follows: ‘the proposed development would be located 1.4km to the north-west and would present as a large modern (though static) visual addition to the landscape’. The report signals that the view down the valley may be important to the history of this asset. · Taken together, the level of landscape and visual change conflicts with policies on protecting heritage assets and requirements to conserve their settings: o Adverse impacts on the setting of the scheduled monument at Castle Gresley Motte and Bailey conflict with NPPF paragraph 194 which requires impacts on the significance of designated heritage assets to be assessed (pg. 56). o The heritage impacts also conflict with South Derbyshire Local Plan Policy BNE2 which requires new development to “conserve, and where appropriate enhance or reveal, the significance of heritage assets and their settings” (pg. 122). o There are potential conflicts with Policy INF8 regarding impacts on the character and appearance of the wider countryside in the National Forest from the development (pg. 159). o The level of change conflicts with the overall emphasis in the Local Plan to protect the varied landscape character, cultural heritage and rural nature of the District (Strategic Objective 9, pg. 29). Technical Note about the LVIA Background: · Additional LVIA and Heritage Assessment information was requested by Derbyshire County Council on 10th March 2023. Therefore the applicant has submitted further detail. Observations: · The technical note incorrectly identifies that the site is semi-derelict land (paragraph 4). This would be true of the land occupied by Willshee’s for the existing MRF and they have recently defined a ‘site’ on that land that comprises the derelict brownfield aspects of the site. However, the ERF is planned to be sited on woodland classified as a priority habitat (deciduous woodland). This can be confirmed on the MAGIC maps platform. In addition, this woodland includes several ponds and comprises five identified wildlife sites habitat to species, including protected great-crested newts, bats, badgers, and a species of leaf beetle previously considered to be extinct. The technical note fails to identify that the site is immediately surrounded by greenbelt to the north and west. · The reference in paragraph 5 to coalmining and urban development appears to serve to distract decision-makers. There has been extensive regeneration of land to the east including the new 50-acre ‘Coronation Park’, Green Flag awarded ‘Cadley Park’ and golf course. This land now reflects extensive green and recreational space. · Two-thirds of the structure will sit above the recessed valley area, this means that 40 metres of stack will be seen and 20 metres of the ERF building. The technical note states that this will have a long-term ‘large’ adverse effect for road users on Cadley Lane (a road leading to the popular National Forest attraction, Rosliston Forestry Centre). This road is pleasant for users with rolling farmland and farm estates. There is some mitigation through planting, but as the initial LVIA outlined, this will be somewhat negligible given the size of the structure Objections: · The LVIA technical note predicts major adverse landscape impacts that cannot be mitigated. This is supported by photomontages showing extensive visibility of the development. The landscape impacts conflict with National Planning Policy for Waste Appendix B paragraph 7 which states facilities should "contribute positively to the character and quality of the area" (pg. 6). This development would not achieve this. · The inability to mitigate landscape impacts conflicts with South Derbyshire Local Plan Policy BNE4 which states "Development that will have an unacceptable impact on landscape character...and cannot be satisfactorily mitigated will not be permitted” (pg. 126). · The 60-metre tall development would be highly visible, protruding above the treeline in an area with a "tranquil" landscape character. · Views from public footpaths and village locations up to 1.5km away would be significantly affected. · The scale and appearance of the development are out of keeping with the surrounding rural landscape. For all of the objections available see here: https://www.villagehallstanton.com/post/objections-to-the-swadlincote-resource-recovery-park-incinerator

Below are some objections that the public may use when formulating their objections to the Swadlincote Incinerator. Towards the end of the objections below are some reflections on the recent updated application (Sept/Oct 2023). Note: these are the result of volunteer effort and not professionals. We cannot vouch for their accuracy. Submit your objections here: https://planning.derbyshire.gov.uk/Planning/Display/CW9/1022/22 Petition here (it's important that you submit your objections as above though) - a petition doesn't mean a lot in the wider planning process: https://chng.it/grTY6Ft8j4 Objections Landscape and Visual Effects The proposed development would: - See much of a 60-metre-tall incineration facility standing over the National Forest landscape, farmland estates and green belt. It would not contribute positively to area character or quality (contrary to NPPW Appendix B c; Local Plan Para.3.3; Local Plan Strategic objective 9; Local Plan Policy S1; Local Plan Policy E2b; Local Plan Policy E7; Local Plan Para.6.38; Local Plan Para.7.38; Local Plan Policy SD6; Local Plan BNE1 e,f,g,h; Local Plan Para.8.38; Local Plan Para.8.13; Local Plan BNE4; National Forest Strategy 2014-2024; NPPF 147; National Infrastructure Strategy pg.84; Derbyshire Spatial Energy Study). - Create permanent ‘large-to-medium’ magnitude of harm for Landscape Character Areas 9 and 10 and their corresponding Landscape Character Types and National Forest LCAs/LCTs. The significance of the landscape character impacts are rated as ‘major-to-moderate’ (LVIA, Table 7.8). - Be of such a large scale that it could not be mitigated ‘to appreciably reduce these adverse visual effects’ (LVIA, pg.26). - Contradict the SDDC Local Plan and National Planning Policy. Grounds to object: - The LVIA clearly identifies these landscape effects. The LVIA appendices contain visuals of the extent of the impact from PROWs up to around 2km away. In particular, the impact 1.26km on footpath SD1/1 (LVIA Appendices Photomontages 1 of 6) demonstrate the contrast of the building wire grid versus the surrounding countryside landscape. - The landscape character has been identified as being subject to ‘large-to-medium’ magnitude of harm for LCAs 9 and 10 and their corresponding LCTs and National Forest LCAs/LCTs (LVIA, Table 7.8). The significance of the landscape character impacts are rated as ‘major-to-moderate’. - The impacts are permanent and are not acceptable. - The presence of highly susceptible users on local PROWs, accessing the National Forest attractions, at nearby golf courses and country parks are not acceptable. The LVIA appendices demonstrate the impact from local PROWs. - The proposed development is not in scale with existing built development and will give rise to undue impacts on the local landscape and natural environment, contrary to Policy E2b of the Adopted Local Plan (SDDC). - The National Forest is an ongoing multimillion-pound project. The visual impacts of the proposed development will devalue that effort. The development would go against the National Forest vision. - There is good scenic quality and the landscape appeals to the senses by the nature of several kilometres of rolling fields and woodland that run up to a woodland at the far vista. The particular character and perceptual aspects, as outlined in the National Character Area profile, are described as ‘tranquil’. The landscape holds much recreational value given the extensive bridleways, footpaths and quieter roads that give rise to more pleasant recreational pursuits such as walking and cycling. There will also be impacts on the landscape when viewed from the popular Rosliston Forestry Centre. This further adds to the assessment of it as a ‘valued landscape’. - There is no existing development of this scale within the immediate area or any area near to it. None protrude on the landscape to any such extent. Habitat, Biodiversity and Natural Capital The proposed development would: - Cause significant harm to priority habitat (deciduous woodland) and scarce and protected species (green-crested newt, grass snakes, bats) (contrary to NPPW Para.5, Appendix B Para.4; NPPF 174a, 174b, 174d, 180a, 180d, 185c; Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 Section 41; Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 5; Local Plan SD6, Para.3.3; Local Plan SD1A; Biodiversity Duty Guidance; Planning Guidance: Biodiversity; Energy from Waste Guide Para.138, Para.184). - Have ‘a potential adverse effect on five of the LWS’ (Designated Site Assessment). - Lead to the loss of most habitats present which cannot be compensated for on-site (Breeding Bird Report 6.3; DSA pg.16). - Lead to the irreversible harm and death of species and habitat. - Not restore these through the proposed offsets which are not like-for-like (in light of priority habitat), or within home range (Protected Species Decision Checklist). - Cause significant harm to the coherence of the ecological network (despite the mitigation/compensation measures proposed by the applicant). - Have inadequate biodiversity improvements in and around the proposed development, to secure measurable net gains for biodiversity. - Have an adverse effect on a habitat and species of principle importance for conserving biodiversity in England (woodland, bats, birds, newts, snakes), despite the mitigation/compensation measures proposed by the applicant (which are inadequate and not in line with the Environment Act 2021). Grounds to object: - The woodland is identified as ‘Priority Habitat’ and is protected. The proposed development would cause significant harm to ‘priority habitat’, of biodiversity value, despite the mitigation/compensation measures proposed by the applicant (which are inadequate). - The planning application has not recognised the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside or the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services. - The planning application has failed to minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide sufficient net gains for biodiversity despite the mitigation/compensation measures proposed by the applicant (which are inadequate and not in line with the Environment Act 2021). - The proposed offset is not suitable and does not feature like-for-like habitat renewal (necessary due to the ‘Priority Habitat’). It would be a ‘trading down’ which is not appropriate. - The proposed development will have an adverse effect on a habitat and species of principle importance for conserving biodiversity in England, despite the mitigation/compensation measures put forward by the applicant (which are inadequate). South Derbyshire District Council have recently declared an Ecological Emergency making the conservation of the environment a strategic priority. Transport, Road Safety and Traffic The proposed development would: - Lead to 20 additional HGVs an hour (196 per day), on top of 500 per week at the existing MRF, on a village road with some of the greatest NO2 readings in the district, with one section nearby declared an AQMA. Compounded by the uncertainty of the Drakelow bypass, which would see another 200 vehicles per day from the Drakelow incinerator and 60 from the Renewable Energy Centre per day, if the bypass were not to proceed (contrary to Local Plan Policy E7; Local Plan SD6; NPPW Para.5). - Add to road safety concerns on the A444 which the County Council have already declared cannot be improved, including narrow footpaths (NPPF 112a). - Permanently prevent a rail freight opportunity that the site is conserved for in the District Local Plan (INF2D). - The Burton Town Regeneration Strategy Stage One Report identified congestion and delays on Stanton Road. "The least reliable routes in the AM are Main Street/Rosliston Road and Stanton Road (40-48%)". (p.65) The 2020 Burton Town Investment Plan also highlighted congestion on the A444 as a barrier to active travel. - In 2021, there were two pedal cycle accidents and casualties (within 6 weeks of one another) on the A444 through Stanton, and there is a marked difference in cycle accidents versus the A444 as it continues into Stapenhill (Staffordshire). Grounds to object: - The A444 is already problematic through the rural village of Stanton. - Significant traffic concerns have been reported by residents over many years on the A444, which runs through Stanton and past several schools. Derbyshire County Council have stated that nothing can be done to improve the safety of the road, even at the Primary School. - The development will also generate additional heavy vehicle traffic and will impact the already problematic A444. - The cumulative impact of a range of developments close by are not factored into the cumulative effects assessment (substantial housing, a new supermarket planned just 700m away, the reinstatement of a large industrial building to the east). - The development would permanently prevent a rail freight opportunity that the site is conserved for in the District Local Plan (INF2D). Green Infrastructure The proposed development would: - Be highly apparent to highly susceptible receptors on nearby PROWs, country parks and golf courses as modelled in the LVIA and appendices. - Reduce the attractiveness of National Forest PROWs. - Have the potential to reduce the attractiveness of proposed PROW and greenway developments (Local Plan INF7; National Forest Strategy). Grounds to object: - The proposed development does not conserve or enhance the green infrastructure (particularly PROWs and the National Forest) and risks future extension of the green infrastructure, contrary to Policy INF7 of the Adopted Local Plan. - The existing green infrastructure and in particular walking routes will be harmed by this development. The LVIA and associate appendices clearly outline the visual impact on many countryside-set Public Rights of Way and over one kilometre away. - The potential development of these routes may also help mitigate the traffic congestion of the A444 (including the AQMA applicable to it) and improve the safety of this road for cyclists (and for pedestrians who are impacted by cyclists using the pavement due to the road risks). Air Quality The proposed development would: - Risk residents at housing developments just 150m away and the nearest complex 226m away. - Add to air quality concerns from another incinerator 3.1km and traffic concerns on the A444 (contrary to Local Plan SD1; Local Plan SD6; NPPF 186; NPPW App B). Grounds to object: - Air quality will suffer as a point of fact, even with the adoption of BAT and monitoring. - The Air Quality Assessment within the application itself outlines that emissions from the development could have an impact up to 10km away. - The proposed development is close to the AQMA-marked A444 (which sees over 17000 vehicles a day). For this reason, it is inappropriate (NPPF para.186). - The area in the vicinity of the proposed development (the two Stanton-based NO2 reading points (SDDC9 and 10)), except for a monitoring point in Woodville, had the highest annual mean readings in 2021 across the district (SDDC Air Quality Annual Status Report, 2022) - Were the proposed development to proceed, there would be two major incineration plants within 3.1km of one another. The cumulative impacts of the two incinerators being in proximity are not modelled within the Air Quality sections of the environmental statements, posing an outstanding air quality concern. Indeed, it fails to even mention the existence of the Drakelow site, despite it being just 3.1km away. This sits contrary to para.186 of the NPPF. Land Use Conflict The proposed development would: - Contradict the growing residential and leisure use immediately surrounding the site and the farmland/agricultural use to the West of the site (contrary to NPPW Appendix B). Grounds to object: - The proposed land use contrasts the heavy agricultural use of the West of the A444. - The area has seen investment in a golf course, foot golf, and country park (likely resulting in high receptor susceptibility to the visual effects of the ERF which will dominate the landscape when looking West from those locations). - The development of further green infrastructure of nearby and proposed PROWs contradicts the development. Some of these proposals support the ongoing development of the National Forest and related route development. Noise The proposed development would: - Generate around 5-60db persistently, the equivalent of moderate rain fall. - Add to existing concerns from nearby residents (contrary to Local Plan SD6; NPPW App B; NPPF 174, 185). Grounds to object: - The noise assessment accompanying the application outlines significant and persistent noise effects on residents once the site is in operation. It concludes that the operation of the incineration plant alone (not including the Aggregates Facility) would create a long-term ‘minor-to-moderate’ magnitude of impact, and the significance of the impact would be ‘significant’ (Noise and Vibration Assessment, Chap.9, pg.45). - The proposed incineration aspect of the development is set to create noise from three aspects of the plant at a range of around 85-95 decibels. This will be persistent for noise sensitive residents due to the 24/7 nature of the site. - The Willshee’s recycling site (of much lesser scale than the proposed development) which exists on the site at present, has already created additional noise and has been subject to complaints by local residents. The noise from the existing site carries across the fields to properties on the West side of the A444 in Stanton over 1.4km away. - Since the proposed development sits 40 metres proud of the proposed tree line and existing valleyed recess, there are no natural barriers or strategic buffers (contrary to SD1 of Local Plan) to sufficiently mitigate against noise. - There is no adequate strategic buffer between houses from just 226m away. Odour The proposed development would: - Have the potential to create odours for nearby housing developments (NPPW App B). Grounds to object: - During the engagement phase, concerns were raised about odours. The applicants responded that there would be none. This contradicts the Air Quality Assessment included with the application, which states: “As the proposed facility will process refuse-derived fuel (RDF), which is composed of waste, there is also potential to generate odours”. - Several Neighbouring properties stand just 150 and 226 metres away. Harm to Health The proposed development would: - Proceed at a time of ‘inconclusive’ health impacts and Scotland and Wales have stopped permitting such developments. - Have failed to consider the cumulative health effects from the Drakelow incinerator and other local developments (See traffic chapter). Grounds to object: - Incineration, like other waste management solutions, are not ‘safe’ to human health. Research that explores whether incineration is harmful to human health is difficult and highly contested due to evolving technologies and techniques (versus old, less clean forms), international differences in approach, and the difficulty in attributing health effects to one cause - particularly when incinerators are often in more deprived areas where health outcomes may be poorer. However, there is a healthy, albeit always contestable, body of research to suggest negative health effects for those living close to incineration sites. - The conclusion of the Independent Review of the Role of Incineration in the Waste Hierarchy in Scotland suggested cautious and strategic consideration were needed regarding the health impacts. It stated: "Whilst it is too late for the location of these incineration facilities, future waste capacity of any kind should be placed more strategically... given the risks that incineration poses to human health and the environment, and the risk of lock-in, Scotland should not construct more capacity than it needs and only some of the currently planned capacity should be built... Communities deserve more authentic and committed engagement from local authorities and industry than is currently sometimes the case. This includes making more data more accessible... the growth of incineration, changes to waste composition and wider decarbonisation will make incineration less favourable over time, which if unaddressed will have implications for Scotland’s net zero ambitions." Economic The proposed development would: - Stand to reduce the tourism benefits of the National Forest on the local economy. - Go against National efforts to drive a circular economy since EFW emits pollutants and the site does not have scope for carbon capture to be retrofitted (contrary to Local Plan; National Infrastructure Strategy pg.21; National Infrastructure Commission second national infrastructure assessment: baseline report pg.40-41; Clean Air Strategy s.3.1; Resources and Waste Strategy Evaluation Plan pg.36). Grounds to object: - The EFW plant does not support a circular economy and the National Infrastructure Commission have raised concern at the growing emissions from EFW facilities. - The National Forest is an ongoing multimillion-pound project. The visual impacts of the proposed development will devalue that effort. Groups and businesses trade upon their association with this National Forest designation, and as the quote above shows there is significant local tourism income that results from it. Lack of Alignment with Local Plan The proposed development would: - Contradict the Local Plan (District) (contrary to Local Plan Para.1.8; NPPF para.8; National Infrastructure Strategy pg.84). - Be contrary to the alleged ‘certainty’ the Local Plan says it brings. Grounds to object: - The Adopted Local Plan does not identify the proposed development site as a location for a development of this nature. The Adopted Local Plan has influenced the decisions of many to reside in the rural Green Belt or at extensive nearby new developments (for instance Kiln Meadows, Manorfields) in and around the Stanton, Caldwell and Drakelow countryside. - A development of this nature is not identified or necessitated in the Local Plan and goes against the ‘certainty’ the Adopted Local Plan is stated to bring. - The NPPF states categorically “where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan (including any neighbourhood plans that form part of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted”. Not Exceptional Circumstances The proposed development would: - Not meet exceptional circumstances and would add to over-capacity in England and the District (contrary to NPPF para.8; Local Plan Para.7.6; NPPW Para.7 pg.6; Drakelow Incinerator; UKWIN; Waste Management Plan for England pg.17). Grounds to object: - There is no national or district incineration under-capacity. - The relevant Infrastructure Delivery Plan (s.13, pg.21) does not identify the strategic need or possibility for the proposed development. - Neither the Adopted Local Plan, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (s.13) nor the ‘Delivery Schedule of Waste Infrastructure within South Derbyshire’ set out a need for further waste management facilities. A new incinerator just 3.1km away exists. - As such, there is no strategic or business case for this development. Failure to Engage The proposed development would: - Not have engaged those locally and impacted by the site sufficiently (contrary to Localism Act 2011; NPPF 126, 132). - Be based on an inaccurate statement of community involvement, with less than 1% of residents in the engagement area receiving the postal documents alleged. Grounds to object: - The Statement of Community Involvement states that postal letters were sent to over 1000 ‘properties closest to the site’ and included a marked map area (pg.10, para.4.1.1). However, a community survey attracting over 120 eligible responses* in this boundary area found that only one household claims to have received this. Fewer than 1% of properties appear to have received the engagement documents alleged in the SCI. - This has resulted in the County Councillor withdrawing his comments towards this application. - The village of Stanton has no parish council and so its only form of authority engagement is via an Area Forum. Despite County Councillors attending this regular engagement event, this development has not been brought to these. Other Objections Additional grounds to object: - To put the development of two incinerators in such proximity (3.1km) into context, across all of England in the year 2019, there were only 2 mixed municipal incinerator permits approved (UK Parliament Comments Library, 2020). The same for 2017, 2016, and 2015 (in 2018 there was just 1). For there to be 2 incinerators approved in this area within recent years would be highly irregular. - Litter has been a problem since the RDF opened and more litter and more reactive litter-picking activity is noted on the road close to the site. The Village of Stanton had to request more bins as a result of this and villagers began litter picking in 2020 after a noticeable rise in litter following the RDF opening (NPPW App B k.). - The site is in a flood zone 3 area which runs from east to west through the site. It has already been established that flood compensation measures from the MRF facility were not put in place (Environmental Statement: Water Resources, pg.1). The same statement states these cannot be achieved retrospectively. Waste is considered a polluting substance in the context of surface water run-off (NPPW App B). - The 25-year Environment Plan (pg. 94, Chapter 4 (iv)) outlines the need to carefully consider the infrastructure and its ability to meet future changes. The site does not provide space for carbon capture retrofit. - There is a reasonable likelihood that a protected species (as identified in the environment assessment) is present and affected by the proposed development. The planning application has not provided adequate information on how the species will be affected and the measures to safeguard them (NPPF 180a). - The application failed to properly assess alternative sites (DCC Principles of Decision-making). Inadequacies at Waste Planning Authority Level The Waste Planning Authority do not identify this site or any sites in their Local Plan. Neither do they identify the types of waste management facility that would be located on an allocated site. As such, the Waste Local Plan is not compliant with National Policy (NPPW Para 4,5; NPPF Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development i, ii). The failure of this Waste Local Plan to align with National Policy has frustrated the planning application assessment process. Updated Information: These are additional updates provided towards the application. Residents received letters in September and October 2023 about these. Response to DCC Highways and June 2023 Traffic Figures The traffic data is flawed and inaccurate: The data was collected during a closure of the A444 (in Stapenhill for a cycle lane to be introduced) which would have impacted normal traffic flows. This was not acknowledged by the applicant. The data shows an irregular split of traffic at the Cadley Roundabout which casts doubt on its accuracy. A new survey should be conducted during a neutral traffic week. The traffic impacts cannot be tolerated given existing concerns about congestion on the A444 raised in the Burton upon Trent Town Plan. Additional Visual Impact Viewpoints and Photomontages The new viewpoints demonstrate: The rural, agricultural character of the surrounding area. The enormous adverse visual impact the development would have on the landscape. Objections: The reinstatement of the Ivanhoe rail line between Burton and Leicester means rail users would be additional sensitive receptors. The visualisations show the development would have an unacceptable impact on the rural landscape that cannot be mitigated, conflicting with Local Plan policy BNE4. Heritage Assessment Addendum The assessment downplays the visual impacts despite evidence to the contrary. Objections: The assessment is heavily biased in the applicant's favour. The conclusions do not match the evidence in the LVIA of major landscape impacts. There would be an unacceptable impact on the setting of the nearby Cadley Hill Farm heritage asset, conflicting with Local Plan policies SD6, S1, E2, BNE4. Impacts on views from the Castle Gresley scheduled monument conflict with NPPF 194 and Local Plan policy BNE2 on conserving heritage assets. Technical Note on LVIA The note contains inaccuracies about the site context and surroundings. Objections: It fails to recognise the site comprises priority habitat woodland and nearby greenbelt land. Predicted landscape impacts that cannot be mitigated conflict with NPPW policy requiring waste facilities contribute positively to local character. Inability to mitigate landscape impacts also conflicts with Local Plan policy BNE4. The development would be highly visible protruding above treelines in a tranquil, rural landscape for miles around. Submit your objections here: https://planning.derbyshire.gov.uk/Planning/Display/CW9/1022/22

Thank you to the twenty volunteers and villagers who joined us for our community litterpick on the 1st October 2023. Together, we collected 14 bags of litter. We served refreshments before and after. Follow us on facebook @villagehallstanton to stay up to date with more events.

We have received some possible draft objections you may want to consider to oppose the Willshee's (Waste and Recycling) at the Cadley site consolidation application. Whilst the consultation end date has passed this is only a minimum date. This application seeks to do many things, including accepting that, despite only being permitted to have 500 truck movements a week, Willshee's have been doing around 1250! The papers covered the issues at the site quite well here: https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/waste-skip-firm-willshees-operating-8696341 Think of impacts such as enjoyment, traffic, dust, noise, light, pollution, nature (wildlife and woodland there)): VIEW OBJECTIONS HERE: Do get in touch if there's more you've observed. COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION: https://planning.derbyshire.gov.uk/Disclaimer?returnUrl=%2FPlanning%2FDisplay%2FCW9%2F0623%2F15%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3FtG3JL_j_lfwhD2mSf4hCzpots_rTlkuRDVC5y4LOLd4qLzPrMNy8jWA DO NOT WORRY IF IT SAYS IT IS CLOSED. IF THE COMMENT BUTTON IS THERE YOU CAN STILL ENTER A COMMENT. Note, this is different from the incinerator additional information that you may have received a letter for in early-mid September. That application needs looking at and responding too as well.

We're streamlining regular/weekly hirer payments and making it easier to communicate holiday dates in good time with our new regular hire schedule form. Learn more about the Hire Schedule Process We've been exploring how other halls administer regular hire to try and overcome some challenges we face such as poor holiday notice and late payments. We also wanted to overcome the challenge that some months have 4 weekly sessions and others have 5 (meaning the cost changes between months). The new hire schedule will help us to figure your use over the six months for us to calculate a fixed monthly amount for that six months. This will support you to create a standing order so you're never late. See the attached file for more information, the forms and a worked example: Hire Rates We've actively worked to freeze rates to support groups to return post-COVID and since things are a little more back to normal, and amid rising running costs, we have had to revisit our rates. We've explained this a little more in the attached information pack: Our rates for October 2023 to March 2024 will be: - Regular hire rate (off-peak) 8am-6pm: £13 per hour - Regular hire rate (peak) 6pm - 11pm: £14 per hour - New sessions/hirers in their first 12 weeks of hire: £12.00 (increasing to regular hire rate after 12 weeks). We have explored the prices that other Halls charge and believe this is still competitive. We don't price additionally for kitchen use either. We're also introducing the opportunity to pay for the six month period upfront to save 5%.

An important part of our AGM is recruiting new Trustees. All Trustees step down annually to reapply and be reelected, and new trustees apply. Trustees are important, they manage and lead the Charity, and the Village Hall can't operate without them/enough of them. You don't need to have been a Trustee previously. Our Trustee Information Pack for 23/24 can be found on our website: https://www.villagehallstanton.com/agm-and-trustees Our Information Pack (on our website) explains more about being a Trustee as it is probably new to most, and there's a Charity Commission blog post about being a Trustee here: https://charitycommission.blog.gov.uk/.../what-is-a.../ Our Governing Document stipulates that we should have 9 Trustees and we do need new Trustees to support us to observe this. Ready? Express an Interest in becoming a Trustee using our form here: https://forms.gle/hRiy4nxrjioPTtyb7 Not sure? Email Tracey (Secretary) - admin@villagehallstanton.com or message our FB with any questions. Note: All Trustees are unpaid - this is a key and distinctive feature of most Charities and one we uphold. We can't say it's easy, but if we want our Village Hall to survive and thrive then we must have Trustees to manage it.

We have made it easier to find available weekly/regular hire slots near to Swadlincote and Burton on Trent. Here at Stanton Village Hall. Just head to https://www.villagehallstanton.com/weekly-hall-hire and take a look at the days and times we have available. You can also filter by duration and time of day. Regular hire is currently just £12 per hour. If you want to find out what sessions already run at the Hall then take a look at the 'What's On' session of our website to learn more about the classes and groups available: https://www.villagehallstanton.com/calendar #fitness #art #culture #teaching #relax #burtonontrent #Swadlincote

Stanton Village Hall is a spacious birthday party venue close to Swadlincote and Burton upon Trent. We are conveniently situated on the A444 between Burton on Trent and Swadlincote. We have lots of parking (for around 20 cars), and the inside of the Hall is a flexible space ideally suited for 80 guests. How to Book Visit our website at https://www.villagehallstanton.com/book and find the number of hours, date and start time that works for you. Payment is taken instantly online. Why Hire a Village Hall for a Kids Birthday Party? Using Stanton Village Hall for a children's birthday party offers several advantages. Here are some reasons why it can be a great choice: Space: Stanton Village Hall provides ample space to accommodate various activities and games. It boasts a large central hall that can be utilised for different purposes, such as setting up play areas, hosting games, a bouncy castle or even hiring in entertainers. Flexibility: Choosing Stanton Village Hall lets you personalise the event to your preferences. You can decorate the space to match the party theme and create a unique atmosphere. Additionally, you have the freedom to bring in your own entertainment options, such as magicians, clowns, or bouncy castles, to make the celebration more enjoyable for the children. Weather-proof: Weather in the UK can be unpredictable, especially if you plan an outdoor party. By opting for Stanton Village Hall, you have a reliable backup plan in case of rain or extreme weather conditions. You can have peace of mind knowing that the party will go ahead as planned, regardless of the weather outside. Facilities: Stanton Village Hall offers facilities that can enhance the party experience. It includes kitchen facilities for food preparation and storage, toilets for convenience, and sometimes even outdoor spaces like gardens or playgrounds where children can play safely. Privacy: Hosting a party in Stanton Village Hall provides a degree of privacy that may not be possible in other venues. You can have exclusive use of the space, allowing the children to have fun without worrying about disturbing neighbours or other attendees of the venue. Cost-effective: Stanton Village Hall is a cost-effective option compared to renting private event spaces or venues specifically designed for children's parties. We are a community-run, not-for-profit venue. Community involvement: Choosing Stanton Village Hall for a children's birthday party helps us to continue running the Hall for various community activities.

We've tried to make booking hire extra easy. It can be done entirely on our website within minutes! 1) Head to https://www.villagehallstanton.com/book (or see the links at the bottom of this post). 2) Pick the duration you want. Remember to include time you need for getting ready and packing/cleaning away. 4 and 5-hour hire are our most popular options. 3) Check whether the date you want is available on the booking calendar. If the date or time isn't showing then unfortunately, it's already booked out to someone else. (By all means, look at the weekend before or after too!). 4) Select the date and start time for your hire then click next. 5) We'll take details about you and ask you to agree to leave things tidy etc. 6) Next, you'll pay. You can use debit/credit card or PayPal for this. The hire cost plus a damages deposit is taken (you'll get the deposit back once we've checked you've left everything clean and in good order). 7) Wait for your FORMAL CONFIRMATION email from a real volunteer before sending invites (we like to double-check bookings just in case!). We'll send you emails before the day itself :)

Support the Hall by taking part in the East Staffordshire Community Lottery. We are delighted to be part of East Staffordshire Borough Council's new East Staffordshire Community Lottery. Each week, you'll have the chance to win £25,000 plus cash and ticket prizes for fewer numbers too. And, for each ticket entry (only £1), we as a Charity receive 50p! We can't stress just how vital these funds are to us just now. Please help us keep the Hall running using our support link below or the QR code. The income from this lottery is quite significant for us relative to other income we receive. https://www.eaststaffordshirecommunitylottery.co.uk/support/stanton-village-hall