The reasons why there has been massive opposition to this proposal include:

1. It is in the open countryside with a totally inadequate access on to a single carriageway road that is frequently congested now, let alone with an additional 400 plus HGVs per day generated by the waste site. The Inspector failed to appreciate this severe constraint despite many witnesses at the Inquiry giving first hand evidence of the congestion and frequent crashes on the road (the A120 at Bradwell).

2. The plant started off at consultation stage as a “recycling and composting facility” and local residents were told it would have a catchment of north Essex only and no incineration. We were misled. The plant started at 300+ ktpa at first consultation but is now 800+ktpa and now includes a 360,000 tpa incinerator and a catchment that includes London and beyond. It has grown every time a new version of the plans has been published.

3. The plant is highly geared towards disposal. It actually has an operating capacity of about 850,000 tpa, and not as quoted in your article. Of this, nearly half will be incinerated or landfilled. All the heat and over half the electricity generated will be used internally – the “CHP” element provides limited external benefit and only electricity. There is no housing or industry nearby to use the “CHP” benefit – even if it were externalised.

4. The plant is sited in a district with a recycling rate already at 50% with every prospect of significantly higher levels being reached. The plant offers no benefits for municipal recycling over and above likely targets that can be met using existing systems. The plants offers zero reprocessing capacity for municipal dry recycling on site – it merely bales it for transport off site again. A much more sustainable district scale AD facility for food waste is at planning stage for a site in nearby Halstead. If built, the Rivenhall plant will probably mean lower levels of recycling because of the need to feed the incinerator’s 1000 tonne per day capacity.

5. The site is part of an old WW2 airfield, but one which has been partly reclaimed by nature. The plant will result in the loss of several hectares of woodland, most of it covered by a Tree Preservation order. The developer’s own wildlife studies have identified over 60 species of birds in the area as well as hares, G.C. newts and at least 4 species of bats – supposedly high priority and protected species. We have woodpeckers, barn owls and buzzards in the site area – all species likely to be highly disturbed by the development.

6. The site is one of the last places left in central Essex with reasonably dark skies at night for people to enjoy the stars and for nocturnal wildlife to thrive. A 24/7 waste plant covering over 60 acres is clearly a major threat to this tranquillity.

7. The incinerator stack height was not agreed at the Inquiry and it is highly likely to be subject to further planning applications. The Inspector set a limit of a 35m x 7m stack – a big enough intrusion in open countryside, but the true size is likely to be larger, perhaps 60m to 70m, as the Environment Agency have indicated. The applicant argued for 40m at the Inquiry.

In short, it is the wrong plant in the wrong place and we will continue to fight it with every legal means available.