Rockcliffe gas plant firm to appeal planning rejection
The firm behind a proposed gas plant which was refused planning permission has said it is going to appeal.North-west Regeneration had applied to build the plant at the North West Recycling site in Rockcliffe, near Carlisle, and it had been recommended that permission be granted, subject to conditions.However, concerns were raised at a recent special meeting of Cumberland Council's planning committee, and it was turned down.At the time, the company did not comment, but it has now said that once it has received the planning decision notice in full it will lodge an appeal.
The plant was intended to turn commercial and industrial waste such as film plastic and paper - which cannot be recycled - into a type of gas by heating it.This would then be used to generate electricity.The plans had sparked protests from nearby residents concerned about health and safety issues.At the meeting on 20 June, concerns were raised that the evidence of the long-term health implications was unclear.Five members of the planning committee voted to reject it, against two to accept.
North-west Regeneration has now issued a statement, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.It pointed out that it had commissioned a number of reports by independent consultants, as well as a Environmental Health Department expert.The spokesman said: "These reports have been reviewed by the statutory consultees, including Cumberland Council Environmental Health, Cumbria Wildlife Trust, the Environment Agency, Natural England, and the Food Standards Agency."All these experts have considered the finest detail of the project and concluded that there is no detrimental impact on human health or the environment."The company is awaiting the planning decision notice in full and will then lodge an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate."
Follow BBC Cumbria on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
40 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK's watered down welfare reforms will push 150,000 into poverty, modelling shows
LONDON, June 30 (Reuters) - New British welfare reforms are still expected to push 150,000 people into poverty despite Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government watering down the measures, according to fresh modelling ahead of a key parliamentary vote. Seeking to quell a rebellion threatened last week, Starmer revised his planned welfare cuts in an attempt to win over more than 100 lawmakers from his own party who had threatened to revolt over the issue in a vote on Tuesday. He amended the bill so that changes to make it tougher to collect some disability and sickness benefits would now apply only to new applicants, while the millions of people who already rely on benefits would no longer be affected. Publishing analysis of the updated policy, the government on Monday estimated that an extra 150,000 people will be pushed into relative poverty in 2030, 40% fewer than the 250,000 forecast to be affected before the changes. A spokesperson for Starmer told reporters that the analysis was not an impact assessment but poverty modelling. "What it doesn't reflect is the wider action we are taking to lift people out of poverty and raise living standards," they said. The government has said it is investing 1 billion pounds ($1.4 billion) a year to help people with disability and long-term health conditions into jobs, as part of broader employment support across the parliamentary term. Lawmakers opposed to the welfare cuts will now have to assess whether the changes Starmer has made are enough to convince them to back the bill. Starmer has argued that Britain's disability benefits system is too costly to sustain, and makes it too difficult for people who can work to do so, by penalising them for their earnings. Those who oppose the welfare cuts say the changes mean too many people will still be harmed and argue that a two-tier system will be created. ($1 = 0.7304 pounds)
Leader Live
43 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Human rights group loses legal challenge over exports of jet parts to Israel
Al-Haq took legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, telling a hearing in May that it was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, which are part of an international defence programme. The DBT defended the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law'. In a 72-page ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed the legal challenge. The senior judges said that 'the conduct of international relations' is a matter for the executive, rather than the courts, and that it would be unnecessary to decide whether there was a 'significant risk' that the carve-out could facilitate crimes. They added: 'The grave risk to life in the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip is not created by the F-35 carve-out, and would not be removed by suspension of the export from the UK of F-35 parts into the F-35 programme.' The High Court was previously told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. The F-35 programme is an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. Israel is not one of the 'partner nations' of the programme, the court heard, but is a customer and can order new F-35 aircraft and draw on a pool for spare parts. The two judges later said they agreed with barristers for the DBT, who said it was not possible for the UK to 'unilaterally' ensure that UK-made parts did not reach Israel. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said: 'In short, the Secretary of State reasonably concluded that there was no realistic possibility of persuading all other partner nations that F-35 exports to Israel should be suspended.' 'Accordingly he was faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve-out or withdrawing from the F-35 Programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue,' they added. The two judges also said the case was about a 'much more focused issue' than the carve-out itself. They continued: 'That issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza. 'Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.' Following the ruling, Al-Haq director general Shawan Jabarin said the long-running case had caused a 'significant impact'. He continued: 'Despite the outcome of today, this case has centred the voice of the Palestinian people and has rallied significant public support, and it is just the start. 'This is what matters, that we continue on all fronts in our work to defend our collective human values and work towards achieving justice for the Palestinians.' A Government spokesperson said: 'The court has upheld this Government's thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter. 'This shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.'
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Savers should be warned about potential pitfalls of Lifetime Isas, MPs say
The complexity of Lifetime Isas could increase the risk of savers making poor financial decisions and the products may need to carry warnings for some people, according to a committee of MPs. The savings accounts enable people to save for their first home or their retirement in one pot. But the Treasury Committee said the dual-purpose design of the Lifetime Isa, or Lisa, may be diverting people away from more suitable products. MPs found that the objectives to help people save for both the short and long term make it more likely that people will choose unsuitable investment strategies. Lisas held in cash may suit those saving for a first home, but may not achieve the best outcome for those using accounts as a retirement savings product, as they are unable to invest in higher-risk but potentially higher-return products such as bonds and equities, the committee said. It also described current rules penalising benefit claimants as 'nonsensical'. Under the current system, any savings held in a Lisa can affect eligibility for universal credit or housing benefit, despite this not being the case for other personal or workplace pension schemes, the committee said. The report said: 'The Government provides higher levels of contribution through tax relief to many other pension products that are not included in the universal credit eligibility assessment, such as workplace pensions and Sipps (self-invested personal pensions). Treating one retirement product differently from others in that regard is nonsensical.' The report added: 'If the Government is unwilling to equalise the treatment of the Lifetime Isa with other Government-subsidised retirement savings products in universal credit assessments, Lifetime Isa products must include warnings that the Lifetime Isa is an inferior product for anyone who might one day be in receipt of universal credit. 'Such warnings would guard against savers being sold products that are not in their best financial interests, which might well constitute mis-selling.' Savers can put in up to £4,000 into a Lisa each year, until they reach 50. They must make their first payment into their Lisa before the age of 40. The Government will add a 25 per cent bonus to Lisa savings, up to a maximum of £1,000 per year. People can withdraw money from their Lisa if they are buying their first home, aged 60 or over or terminally ill with less than 12 months to live. People withdrawing money from a Lisa for any other reason face a 25 per cent withdrawal charge, and can end up with less money than they put in. The report said: 'The withdrawal charge of 25 per cent is applied to unauthorised withdrawals, causing Lisa holders to lose the Government bonuses that they have received, plus 6.25% of their own contributions. 'Several witnesses described that loss of 6.25% as a 'withdrawal penalty'.' There are also restrictions on when Lisas can be used to buy a first home, including that the property must cost £450,000 or less. The report said: 'Many people have lost a portion of their savings due to a lack of understanding of the withdrawal charge or because of unforeseen changes in their circumstances, such as buying a first home at a price greater than the cap. 'However, the case for reducing the charge must be balanced against the impact on Government spending. The Lifetime Isa must include a deterrent to discourage savers from withdrawing funds from long-term saving.' It also added: 'Before considering any increase in the house price cap, the Government must analyse whether the Lifetime Isa is the most effective way in which to spend taxpayers' money to support first-time buyers.' The committee noted that in the 2023-24 financial year, nearly double the number of people made an unauthorised withdrawal (99,650) compared to the number of people who used their Lisa to buy a home (56,900). This should be considered a possible indication that the product is not working as intended, the committee said. At the end of the tax year 2023–24, around 1.3 million Lisa accounts were open, the report said. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts spending on bonuses paid to account holders will cost the Treasury around £3 billion over the five years to 2029-30 – and the committee questioned whether this product is the best use of public money given the current financial strain. MPs also raised concerns that the product may not be well enough targeted towards those in need of financial support and could be subsidising the cost of a first home for wealthier people. It said the data on this issue remains unclear. The report also highlighted the benefits of certain elements of the Lisa, including being an option for the self-employed to save for retirement. Treasury Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier said: 'The committee is firmly behind the objectives of the Lifetime Isa, which are to help those who need it onto the property ladder and to help people save for retirement from an early age. The question is whether the Lifetime Isa is the best way to spend billions of pounds over several years to achieve those goals. 'We know that the Government is looking at Isa reform imminently, which means this is the perfect time to assess if this is the best way to help the people who need it. 'We are still awaiting further data that may shed some light on who exactly the product is helping. What we already know, though, is that the Lifetime Isa needs to be reformed before it can genuinely be described as a market-leading savings product for both prospective home buyers and those who want to start saving for their retirement at a young age.' Brian Byrnes, head of personal finance at Lifetime Isa provider Moneybox said: 'The report marks a further opportunity to engage with policymakers and continue the conversations needed to ensure the Lisa continues to offer the best level of support to those that need it most.' He added: 'While it is right that the Government ensures the Lisa provides value for money as part of its review of the product, it is our view that it absolutely does… 'The Lisa has proven particularly valuable for first-time buyers on lower to middle incomes, with 80 per cent of Moneybox Lisa savers earning £40,000 or less.' He continued: 'We firmly believe that by future-proofing the house price cap and amending the withdrawal penalty, the Lisa would continue to serve as a highly effective product, helping young people build and embed positive saving behaviours early in life, get more people onto the property ladder, and prepare for a more secure retirement.'
