People 2 – Incinerators 0
Those scores in more detail:
Oxfordshire County Council refused planning permission for an incinerator in Ardley by 9 votes to 4, and then they refused planning permission for an incinerator in Sutton Courtenay by 7 votes to 6
The Oxford Mail is reporting that Oxfordshire’s “Waste strategy in tatters as councillors veto incinerator plans“:
Oxfordshire County Council’s £100m plans for a waste incinerator were dealt a bodyblow today when its own planning committee rejected schemes to build at both Ardley and Sutton Courtenay.
The committee had been recommended to approve both planning applications by Viridor at Ardley — the council’s chosen tenderer — and a rival bid by Waste Recycling Group for Sutton Courtenay.
But they threw out both applications on the grounds that they conflict with district council Local Plans for both areas, which aim to protect the open countryside from “large permanent buildings”.
Quotable quotes:
Jon O’Neill, chairman of Ardley Against the Incinerator, thanked councillors who voted against giving planning permission. He said:
It was good to see councillors making their own decisions and not being whipped along party political lines. There may be a chance for Viridor to appeal against this decision and we will be ready to fight.
UKWIN member Callum MacKenzie, a spokesman for Sutton Courtenay against the Incinerator, said:
This is great news for Oxfordshire. WRG could not convince councillors that they would properly seal off any hazardous waste before it was transported for disposal and I think that tipped the balance in our favour. The vote was too close for comfort, but I think WRG would be foolish to persist with their plans now.
Fellow Sutton Courtenay campaigner Edmund Rowley-Williams added:
This is very good news, but we remain on our guard in case WRG try to reverse the process.
John Tanner, Labour county councillor for Isis, said:
Putting waste in holes in the ground is the worst thing you can do. The next worst thing you can do is set fire to it. Cherwell district council’s objection to the Ardley incinerator is that there would be a permanent industrial building in rural open land. This is yesterday’s technology and nobody knows how much waste will be created over the next 25 years.
Localgov.co.uk is reporting:
Oxfordshire CC has rejected a planning application from Viridor for a 300,000t a year energy-from-waste facility, just weeks after selecting the company as preferred bidder to build an incinerator.
The council’s planning and regulation committee this week refused both Viridor’s application for a facility at Ardley, and Waste Recycling Group (WRG)’s application for a 220,000t plant at Sutton Courtenay. In September, WRG lost out to Viridor as preferred bidder to treat the county’s waste.
I believe the voting for Ardley was 9 against 5 for. Doesn’t change the result.
5(a) The Construction and Operation of an Energy from Waste (EfW) Facility together with Associated Office, Visitor Centre and Bottom Ash Recycling Facilities, New Access Road and Weighbridge Facilities and the Continuation of Non Hazardous Landfill Operations and Landfill Gas Utilisation with Consequent Amendments to the Phasing and Final Restoration Landform of the Landfill, Surface water Attenuation Features and Improvements to the Exisiting Household Recycling Facility at Ardley Landfill Site, Ardley Fields farm, Ardley – Application 08/02472/CM
Refused on the grounds that:
The development proposed would represent a large permanent building in the countryside which is contrary to policies C7, C8, C9 of the Cherwell Local Plan, and policies EN30, EN31, EN34, and D10a of the non statutory Cherwell Local Plan. The Council as Planning Authority is not persuaded that the need for a facility on this scale to divert waste from landfill is sufficient to outweigh the effects of the proposal on the countryside in this locality.
5(b) Energy From Waste Incinerator (EfW) Infrastructure plus that for Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) Processing Plant with Outside Storage Area and Air Pollution Control Residue (APCR) Treatment and Disposal facilites, Visitor and Office Accommodation and Landscaping within Sutton Courtenay Recovery Park
Refused on the grounds that
The development proposed would represent a large permanent building in the countryside which is contrary to policies NE9, NE10,NE11 and GS2 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan. The Council as Planning Authority is not persuaded that the need for a facility is sufficient to outweigh the effects of the proposal on the countryside in this locality.