Anaerobic objection!

SIR, – East Lothian in general and the northern coastal corridor of the County in particular has, for the past year, been locked in a controversial debate and hotly-disputed planning application for a 67kWh per annum off-farm, crop-fed anaerobic digester plant, the largest of its kind in the country, to be shoehorned into a 2ha area of prime agricultural land, requiring between 15,000-20,000 additional HGV/tractor and trailer movements each year to deliver feedstock and export bi-products.
This is a complex and highly-technical matter which, by virtue of the fact it would be shoe-horned into a site of under 2ha, is therefore deemed to be a local development and subject to the same level of planning scrutiny as, for example, a house extension or a conservatory; the application was recommended for approval by Council planners, despite the access road carrying this volume of heavy, noisy slow-moving vehicles within 3m of a steading conversion dwelling house, but this was overturned by elected members by 10 to six in June, 2016.
However, the applicant has found a loophole in the chronology through which to submit an appeal on the grounds of, ‘Failure to make a decision; deemed refusal,’ and the matter now rests with the DPEA, and it is on the subject of the NFUS letter of representation that I feel compelled to write.
Whilst I would agree with the NFUS contention that: “There are many misconceptions and untruths surrounding the plans for this renewable energy plant,” the vast majority of these have been perpetuated by the appellant, not the least of which is whether, given the huge transport implications would actually be producing ‘green energy’ when all factors are taken into account.
But where I do take grave exception to the NFUS statement is where it says: “Throughout the entire planning process, the applicant has been respectful and mindful of those in both the local community and further afield, holding consultation meetings and answering queries.”
For the record, the applicant J Haig Hamilton and Sons has ridden roughshod over local opinion, consistently making material changes, omitting key information and downplaying the transport implications. He also issued lawyers letters to objectors who had produced an information leaflet in which he claimed the depiction of the AD Plant was disproportionate to its context, attempted to impose himself and his opinions at a public meeting attended by 250 objectors, banned objectors – including some fellow farmers – from the land in question by locking gates it transpired were not owned by him as well as rubbishing honestly-held and well-informed views of objectors.
However, the comment from NFUS, whose unequivocal support anaerobic digestion are diametrically-opposed to those of the Tenant Farmers Association, to which I and I know many other objectors take great exception to, namely, that: “Those objecting to this project seem to be in support of renewable energy, as long as it is not in their locality,” is not only pejorative but also subjective, presumptuous, stereotypical and wholly ill-informed and I would expect much better from an organisation purporting to be representing one of Scotland’s flagship industries.