Plans to develop a substantial waste recycling facility near the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal in Somerset have been submitted, prompting mixed reactions from local residents and officials.
Bridgwater Recycling Ltd, formerly known as ETM Recycling and based in Bristol, has applied for permission to establish the facility on greenfield land between Somerset Bridge and the M5 motorway, bordered by the Bristol to Exeter railway line to the north and the canal to the south.
The proposed plant is intended to handle the transfer, treatment and storage of non-hazardous soils, aggregates and road sweepings. These materials would be recycled for future construction uses, supporting the local circular economy.
READ MORE: Condemning the hateful backlash to Bath Pride coverage
READ MORE: Somerset festival to relocate after more than a decade at original site
To minimise the impact on canal users and nearby establishments such as the Boat and Anchor pub, the developer plans to erect a three-metre-high fence along the southern edge of the site, alongside new tree planting to screen the facility over time.
Environmental measures will include wheel washing stations for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and a sprinkler system designed to suppress dust and dirt from vehicle movement and recycling operations within the site.
A spokesperson for Severn Compliance, representing Bridgwater Recycling Ltd, explained that the company operates several permitted waste facilities focused on producing recycled aggregates and soils. The proposed facility would accept waste streams primarily from the construction and demolition sector and waste management, with no hazardous materials involved.
The plant is anticipated to process up to 350,000 tonnes of waste annually, with a weekly cap of 7,000 tonnes.
However, Somerset Council leader Bill Revans, whose North Petherton division covers the area, has expressed formal objections. He voiced concerns that development here could exacerbate flood risks within the River Parrett catchment.
Citing the site’s inclusion in the Sedgemoor Local Plan for industrial use, Revans argued that turning it into a waste processing facility is unsuitable. He questioned whether proper consultations have taken place with the Canal and Rivers Trust and the Environment Agency regarding water use from the canal, especially given that it serves a flood management function during major incidents.
He also raised concerns about air quality, highlighting cumulative effects due to the nearby incinerator.
Local resident Fay Braddick, living on Somerset Bridge, shared frustrations about limited consultation with the community. She noted existing challenges from nearby recycling and reclamation businesses, including noise disturbances and problematic lorry parking that hinders road access.
Braddick also warned that raising the site’s land level by three metres could increase water run-off during heavy rain, potentially worsening flooding by raising canal water levels.
While supportive of job creation and economic opportunities, she called for greater inclusion of local voices in the planning process.
Somerset Council is expected to announce its decision on the planning application within the coming months. Given the scale and significance of the proposal, the matter may be considered publicly by the council’s strategic planning committee rather than under delegated authority.
Meanwhile, the Environment Agency is conducting a separate consultation on the necessary operating permits until 26 August. Interested parties can participate by visiting the agency’s consultation website.