The Buckinghamshire Advertiser has published a story detailing the offensive comments made by Buckinghamshire County Council’s (BCC) cabinet member for planning and environment Martin Tett regarding the much respected SAVI campaign.

On 29th July 2009, reporter Jack Abell posted the following news item under the heading Anger over ‘nimby-ism’ claims

BUCKS Residents Against Incinerators (BRAINS) have hit out after a Bucks County Councillor accused another anti-incinerator group of scaremongering.

Martin Tett, Buckinghamshire County Council’s (BCC) cabinet member for planning and environment said that he believed that SAVI, a group set up to oppose a possible incinerator in the north of the county, were using scaremongering tactics to put people off an incinerator being built in that area, and said it was a case of nimby-ism.

This has incensed BRAINS, who have fought BCC over the possibility of an incinerator being built near Beaconsfield.

Peter Brogden, chairman of BRAINS, said:
This is not about nimby-ism or some misguided health and safety concerns, as BCC and Mr Tett claim. It is simply a case of miscalculation and a head in the sands attitude of BCC on about every measure you could consider. They are about to make the biggest single economic error in the county’s history. What does it take for them to reconsider?

The financial justification made by BCC for a municipal incinerator, already deeply flawed by their overestimate of future waste volumes, is totally invalidated by the threefold increase in cost to dispose of incinerator bottom ash which will follow on the probable reclassification by the Environment Agency of it as a hazardous waste.

BCC decided last year to put a household waste incinerator in Calvert near Aylesbury instead of near Gerrards Cross or Beaconsfield, but there is a still chance that a commercial waste facility could be placed in the area. A decision on the location of that facility will be made towards the end of this year, and BRAINS are continuing to fight BCC on the issue.

One Response to “Intelligent comment from BRAIN wrongfoots less than savvy councillor”

  1. Nimbyism is when you fail to address or engage an issue locally. Most campaign groups are coming up with a whole raft of creative and credable layered alternative solutions for particular sites such as like for like MBT/AD technology with 2RoCs electricity/heat options; residual reductions such as weekly food waste collections; AD food digesters, Zero Waste recovery parks, or when backs are to the wall on options future plasma technology /Gasplasma for difficult waste. The local common sense, no NIMBY concepts are there; the problem is that leaders like Martin Tett in Bucks, Eddie Alcock in Suffolk are deaf to alternatives, aren’t listening or serious about sustainable alternatives or change. They are kamikaze pyromaniacs, period. They continue giving it the EfW/CHP Burner Blah, Blah. Cllr Tett isn’t even talking from the same script as his national Conservatives counterparts who are talking local consensus, talking incinerator taxes. Talk about changing perceptions, Tett needs to work on his perceptions.

    Credit must be given to very intelligent folk in BRAINS and SAVI many profession engineers, scientists, communicators etc who seen the obvious flawed tonnage, cost cracks in the EfW/CHP white elephant burner Tett is wedded too. He is starting to lose coherence and rationale in his debate with the public, BRAINS, SAVI and others. Residual waste tonnage has slumped, business case projections have dropped off/below the radar, future “Modernising Landfill Tax Legislation” in line with other EU counties theatens to to add £37.50 for every tonne of IBA disposed wastefully, without value to landfill and CLO from MBT/AD costs to lanfill finishing look set to reduce. Both IBA and CLO represent serious output tonnages (about a third) of the total residual input tonnages. Cllr Tett, Cllr Alcock I’d be seriously worried about your business cases, projections and sums.

    http://www2.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=53038&section=local_authority

    On health; Cllr Tett find me one peer reviewed UK epidemiological study (not opinionated reviews) on safe health/biomarkers and proximity to modern incinerators from 2006, indeed since Elliott’s concentric study in 2000. There are non. Also Cllr Tett in the HPA Nov 2005 brief 4 page statement; find and specific reference to PM2.5 fine particles from modern incinerators; there are no PM2.5 epidemiological studies or conclusions on these specifically unmonitored emissions. So groups are for from scaremongering; they are stating the precautionary and epidemiological truth.

    Additionally certain waste companies have been caught spinning untruths by independent watchdogs over safety claims of EfW/CHP; which can never be termed “safe”.

    http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46508.htm

    ASA seriously dents any “sustainability” or “safe” claims for EfW/CHP burners.

    Well done BRAINS and SAI – and all those other fantastic campaign groups around the UK.

    Rob Whittle
    Vice Chair, NAIL2
    Norfolk

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Website crafted by Ben of dowen.me.uk and Josh Dowen, Only Solutions LLP © 2011 UK Without Incineration Network We wish to thank famfamfam.com and OpenClipArt.org for many of the images we have used Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha