Archive for the Campaign Updates Category
A decision of sorts has emerged from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government regarding the Rivenhall Airfield Public Inquiry into an incinerator proposal.
You can read the Secretary of State’s decision letter and the Planning Inspector’s lengthy report, both of which are archived on the excellent web-site of the Stop the Incinerator Community Group.
The decision leaves several issues unresolved, and as the following campaign update explains:
The major waste plant including a 360,000 tpa incinerator has been granted planning permission by the Government, which endorsed the Inspectors Report, following the October 2009 Inquiry.
The Inspector and the Government admitted that the waste plant would have negative impacts on the countryside and local communities but that the need for the plant outweighed these impacts.
There are 63 conditions attached to the consent. The most important of these requires the plant to have no more than one chimney stack and for that stack to be no more than 35m above current ground levels. However, the Inspector and the Secretary of State were unable to decide on the conflicting evidence they received about the stack height – the developers deciding to change from a 35m to a 40m stack during the Inquiry, the advice of the Environment Agency which strongly suggested that 35m would be well short of that required and the objectors who asked for clarity as the stack height was a key issue due to the location in open countryside.
This uncertainty could well result in further applications if the Environmental Permit requires a higher stack. The EA has stated that stack heights about double that proposed are more typical for a plant of this size.The plant is unlikely to be operational for many years, if it is built at all. It will take up to 2 years to excavate the gravel and sand to create a lower ground level and void for the plant and another 2 years to build it. There is also uncertainty over whether the plant would handle the Essex County Council municipal waste contract which is currently out to tender. It could be that the plant operates entirely as a commercial and industrial waste plant – a far cry from the “recycling and composting facility for north Essex” based on municipal waste that the developers first consulted on.
The local community, parish councils and Braintree District Council put up a strong fight against the plans and the original planning application attracted over 800 objections and just one letter of support. There is widespread concern about the way in which Essex County Council has repeatedly backed a major waste plant on the site (the current one is the latest in a series of revisions) and has ignored community views when it has a known commercial interest in the plant being built and used the plant to model its PFI bid. The County Council also spent up to £90,000 of public money at the Inquiry urging consent to be given, against the overwhelming views of local communities.
The Stop the Incinerator campaign has already decided to continue the fight against any incinerator being built on the site and will support campaigns against any other incinerator proposal in Essex.
The story was covered on BBC East on 6th March when campaign co-ordinator Cllr. James Abbott noted that this huge plant (the total site is over 60 acres in size) was being built in a district where total waste is falling and where recycling is now above 50%. The plant would generate over 400 HGV movements a day and import well over 95% of its feedstock from outside the district, including from London and the Home Counties. It has a planned total throughout (in and out) of 1.3 mtpa and would include a paper pulping plant, MBT unit, AD tanks and the incinerator. It would have a high gearing of waste disposal with about half of the imported material (by weight) being incinerated or landfilled.
Bribe Communities to accept Waste Incinerators says industry lobby group with parliamentary sponsors or so it appears…
Following what they refer to as “a five-month inquiry”, the seemingly respectable sounding “Associate Parliamentary Sustainable Resource Group” claims we need 500 waste management plants, observing that achieving planning permission “remains an acute challenge for the waste sector”.
The Group proposes re-jigging ‘public consultation’ to turn planning new waste plants into what they describe as “a win-win proposition”. They look to Europe, “where waste management has become associated with delivering social benefits”.
Their report proposes incentives, with communities offered discounts on their energy bills or allowed to own waste plants to win their ‘buy-in’. It urges the waste industry to consider the model of community-owned
wind farms, which share the profits from electricity sold to the national grid.
Community funds tied to waste contracts and operated through a committee are viewed as more “flexible” than planning gains made through section 106 agreements or the community infrastructure levy.
The new report, available on-line, is sponsored by none other than Suez Environment and SITA.
It appears the Group also propose the use of regulatory loopholes to enable local authorities to get into the waste to energy business – by throwing them some sweeteners as their version of “community involvement”, presumably in the hope that local authorities will then willingly permit the plants.
Interestingly, given the higher carbon emissions of waste incinerators compared to other management options, a word-search of the report fails to find any mention of either “carbon” or “greenhouse”!
With cross-Party co-chairs (see below) justifying the grand-sounding name, the Associate Parliamentary Sustainable Resource Group turns out to be just another lobby group run by the waste industry including the big corporates. For more, visit http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/apsrg/members.
Cross-Party co-chairs of the Associate Parliamentary Sustainable Resource Group
Dan Rogerson Liberal Democrat
Angela Watkinson – Conservative
Barry Sheerman and Alan Whitehead – Labour
Lord Taylor of Holbeach – Conservative peer
Lord Lewis of Newnham and Veolia Trust
Anti-incineration experts rallied to support Guernsey to reject plans for a waste incinerator on the island.
Following the emergence of an anti-incineration campaign for Guernsey (supported by UKWIN), and recent presentations to deputies, key business leaders and the public by Alan Watson, Director of Public Interest Consultants (PIC), and by Dr Paul Connett, Professor of Environmental Chemistry at St Lawrence University, Guernsey has decided against building an incinerator at Longue Hougue.
Images from protest against Suez / SITA Guernsey Energy from Waste incinerator
The Guernsey campaigners earned the praise of the experts, with Dr Connett saying:
A classic case of great teamwork and great timing. The local group was very well organized with a number of very well informed (and lovely) people. My few days there were a delight – and the outcome was most exciting.
and with Alan Watson adding:
This was a great campaign and the island is now set for a zero waste strategy.
The island’s media are reporting that:
Guernsey’s States have voted overwhelmingly to scrap plans for a multi-million pound waste-to-energy plant at Longue Hougue. The decision follows a much closer earlier vote which amended a requete from Deputy Jan Kuttelwascher. That gave deputies the opportunity to throw out the Suez proposals… Members of the Environment Department did not take part in the votes because of a potential conflict of interest.
The short article also notes that the States have also decided to look into exporting Guernsey’s rubbish to Jersey.
And according to The Guernsey Press Jersey has agreed to accept Guernsey’s waste for a decade to come.
Senator Alan Maclean, minister for Economic Development, and reiterates a letter sent to Public Services in 2009 stating that Jersey could take 30,000 tonnes of Guernsey’s waste for 10 years.
A 2-minute interview with two local anti-incineration campaigners is available from http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_guernseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=485422 and a longer article about Guernsey’s abandonment of incinerator plans has been produced by the BBC.
We would like to thank you for your effective assistance in this matter and for bringing it up with us in time, which contributed to preventing a possible infringement of the EC rules in the UK.
So ends a letter sent to Friends of the Earth’s Rights and Justice Centre, who represented anti-incineration campaigners from Hull and East Riding (including HOTI and East Yorkshire Eye) in a dispute over funding for a proposed Saltend incinerator. The letter was issued by the Head of the European Commission Directorate General Internal Market and Services Public Procurement Policy Unit based in Brussels, following an investigation of a complaint made against Hull City Council and East Riding of Yorkshire County Council.
The complaint, made in March 2009, focussed on the award of a waste disposal services contract to the Spanish-owned Waste Recycling Group (WRG). Campaigners alleged that Hull and East Riding Councils were about to commit an infringement of the EC public procurement rules, as they intended to award a waste disposal services contract to WRG, without allowing other firms to submit a bid.
In 1999 the Councils signed a 25-year waste disposal services contract with WRG. The Councils subsequently announced their intention to extend this contract by a further 5 years, at an the estimated cost of about £72 million. This would have entailed modifying some of the existing contract’s conditions, without carrying out a prior call to competition and a tendering process in accordance with European Commission (EC) rules.
The planned contract amendments included an increase in the capacity of WRG’s proposed incinerator as well as changes to the payment mechanism. Campaigners successfully argued that this would constitute “a material amendment of the essential conditions” and therefore could not be considered a lawful extension to the existing contract.
According to the European Commission:
In such a case, the £72 million worth contract would constitute an autonomous and new public contract, which should therefore have been tendered out on the basis of an open, transparent tendering process in accordance with the EC rules.
As a result of the complaint:
…the UK authorities were invited not to proceed with the extension of the existing contract or with any other relevant act, before the Commission services’ conclusion regarding [their investigation into] compliance with the Community law of the issues under review.
During a telephone conference in October 2009 between the EC and UK officials, the Commission expressed their doubts and concerns that the proposed contract amendments would constitute an unlawful contract modification, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice, and would therefore constitute an infringement of public procurement rules.
Following that discussion, Hull City Council and East Riding of Yorkshire County Council gave the Commission an unequivocal commitment “that the Councils were no longer contemplating the possibility of extending or amending the existing contract with the WRG” and that “…the Councils now intend to continue with the contract in question as it stands, without introducing an extension or modification to its terms”.
And to think, they might have gotten away with it if not for those pesky anti-incineration campaigners working with the help of Friends of the Earth’s Rights and Justice Centre!
You can help support Hull campaigners in the next round of their legal battle to stop an incinerator from being built in Saltend by investing in HOTI bonds – see Get ‘em while they’re HOTI
Saturday 20th February
One Planet Ivybridge Network
from 8pm onwards
at the Imperial, Western Road, Ivybridge
Facilitated by the Ivybridge Environmental Action Group in partnership with the PL:21 Transition Initiative
Open and inclusive green networking evening for everyone interested in environmental issues and 21st century sustainable living.
Live music featuring Jake Bradshaw
Early bird special menu items will be available to participants all evening at £4.95 per meal and The Imperial’s standard menu will also be available throughout.
Sunday 21st February
Green Drinks
from 11am onwards at Julie’s Cafe, Glanvilles Mill, Ivybridge
A chance to meet informally to get to know other green minded people in the Ivybridge and surrounding area. All are welcome (bring your children for a milkshake and cookie).
Saturday 27th February
‘Call to Action’
at The Watermark in Ivybridge,
from 1.30 pm to 4.30 pm (talks from 2 pm to 4pm with refreshments in the middle).
Sponsored by the Co-op for Fairtrade Fortnight.
A showcase of social and environmental organisations that are active in the Ivybridge area. This will be a family event open to people of all ages and there will be a crèche and play area provided for the very young.
Entrance is free, although tickets are available to ensure entry, from The Watermark information Centre, St Luke’s Charity Shop, or via email from frankie@ecoivy.org.
Don’t forget to keep an eye on the EcoIvy Community Diary for the latest events.
You can now view Viridor’s application for an Environmental Permit for their proposed incinerator, as part of their proposed Resource Recovery Centre at New England Quarry, Devon.
The application, written by consultants SLR on behalf of Viridor, explains:
Viridor propose to construct and operate a RRC facility comprising an EfW facility and a nonhazardous Landfill. The EfW facility is designed to accept up to 275,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of residual municipal solid waste (rMSW), commercial and industrial (C&I) wastes. Reception and treatment of all wastes will take place within the EfW building. The nonhazardous landfill will accept approximately 33,000tpa (to a maximum of 60,000tpa) of wastes not suitable for the EfW facility. In addition, the landfill would accept all wastes destined for the EfW in the instance that both lines are closed for maintenance.
Regarding the destination of the fly ash, the application says:
…it is likely that the fly ash from New England will be disposed of at a licensed facility in Gloucestershire.
Local campaign group EcoIvy points out that:
…Viridor plans to build a ‘Resource Recovery Centre’ at New England Quarry, less than two miles from the beautiful town of Ivybridge which is situated on the edge of Dartmoor National Park in South Hams Devon.
The residents of Ivybridge are insisting that they be fully consulted regarding any matter that may adversely affect their environment or their economy.
This includes the quality of the air that we breathe, the amount of traffic on our roads and the price of our houses. We love Ivybridge and will do what we can to ensure that Ivybridge continues to be a beautiful, safe and desirable place to live both now and in the future.
The campaign has led to a new found community spirit in the town and this site is now growing into a hub of communication for Ivybridge residents for the promotion of all positive social and environmental activities and good causes in the area.
Visit their website at: http://www.ecoivy.org/
Viridor’s Environmental Permit application is available from: http://www.viridor-consultation.co.uk/index.php?contentId=197.
Scottish communities are giving up rubbish for lent in an effort to reduce Scotland’s waste mountain.
As part of a new 2010 challenge volunteers across Scotland are pledging to ’slim their bins’ and reduce their home waste by at least 25%.
The ‘Home Waste Challenge 2010′, part of Friends of the Earth Scotland’s (FoES) national waste prevention campaign, has already attracted over 30 households to participate. Each one is monitoring their rubbish bin over a week and taking easy steps to help them use less of the world’s resources.
Rosiaina Browning, FoES’ Waste Prevention Co-ordinator, said:
Lent is the ideal time for people to start the Home Waste Challenge. Giving up waste is an original idea to try and is something fun and creative the whole family can take part in. Just by simply reducing food waste the average household can save up to £430 per year whilst helping protect our environment against climate change.
Friends of the Earth Office staff are also practising what they preach and have all started the “Home Waste Challenge” in their own households by taking simple actions such as stopping junk mail and using a compost bin.
The Home Waste Challenge will continue throughout 2010 with more and more Scottish households signing up to participate. People are invited to take part at www.reducewaste.org.uk.
CREW (Communities Reducing Excess Waste) is Friends of the Earth Scotland’s waste prevention project which aims to reduce waste at source. It is available for small businesses, households and communities across Scotland.
Joint work between Surrey County Council, a team of advisers and waste contractor SITA has resulted in a move away from mass burn incineration for the County. Their Research found that although there was “no typical profile of a world class waste authority” there is a set of common characteristics and activities that define world class, which include the need to focus attention on preventing waste from being created.
From a local authority perspective, waste prevention means reducing the amount of waste that needs to be collected and treated by Surrey’s authorities. This includes:
• Waste materials not being produced at all
• Materials being dealt with by residents themselves
• Materials formally disposed of being reused
Five priority projects for residents have been identified targeting potential tonnage reduction and ability to influence behaviours:
1. Food waste reduction, Love Food Hate Waste campaign
2. Green waste reduction via home composting
3. Reuse of bulky items such as furniture and white goods
4. Reusable nappies
5. Junk mail reduction
AD for Food waste
According to the report (available from the Surrey County Council website), there are over 100,000 tonnes of food in Surrey’s household waste. “The preferred method of dealing with food waste is to avoid its purchase, or to dispose of at home using devices such as green johannas. However there will be a significant volume of food waste in any event.”
The World Class Waste Solutions (WCWS) report recommends segregated food waste collection followed by treatment using Anaerobic Digestion Technology.
Evidence has shown that segregated food waste collections improve performance in three ways:
• Reduce the volume of waste by exposing the level of food wasted
• Divert food from harmful landfill to recycling solutions
• Increase recycling of other products by reducing contamination and enabling complementary systems to be developedAnaerobic Digestion (AD) is the most appropriate technology for food waste. AD is an organic technology which breaks down food waste in the absence of air to produce two by-products
• A compost material which can be used on agricultural land
• A biogas which can be used to generate electricity or to power vehiclesA 40,000 tonne AD facility is recommended, to be based at an Eco Park. The capital cost and revenue costs of AD have been built into the projected cost of the waste contract. A 40,000 tonne AD facility will save over 17,000 tonnes of carbon each year compared to landfill – this is the equivalent of taking over seven thousand cars off the road.
Minutes of the 2nd February 2010 Surrey County Council Cabinet meeting reflect the move away from mass burn, and towards reducing waste arising and increasing recycling and composting to 70%.
WORLD CLASS WASTE SOLUTIONS (Item 12)
The Cabinet Member for Environment set out the key elements of the Waste Strategy. She said that it was crucial to reduce the amount of waste being sent to landfill and that the Council was aiming to increase re-cycling rates to 70%. This would be achieved by improving the re-cycling centres and encourage all Districts / Boroughs to provide food waste collections. She announced that the County Council was aiming for zero waste to landfill by 2013 [although this is based on an assumption that ash would be recycled...]
Surrey County Council resolved:
(1) That the World Class Waste Solutions described in Annexes 1 – 3 to the submitted report be adopted as the Waste Disposal Authority Action Plan.
(2) That approval of those amendments to the Waste Disposal Project Agreement within the current contractual context necessary to deliver new services and infrastructure by 2013 be delegated to Strategic
Director for Environment and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment, Head of Legal and Democratic Services and Head of Finance.
(3) That authority to work with the Surrey Waste Partnership to develop a new Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Surrey by 30 June 2010, be delegated to Cabinet Member for Environment
Reasons for decisions:
The recommendations will enable delivery of World Class Waste Solutions for Surrey by 2013 in a manner, which meets legal requirements, represents value for money and is the lowest cost option to the County Council.
Further information released by Surrey County Council (SCC) records how:
In 1999 the Council entered into a long term integrated waste management contract with SITA UK, to manage waste services and deliver residual waste treatment using Energy from Waste technology.
SCC acknowledges that:
A number of setbacks have occurred around the planning process. This culminated in a High Court decision in March 2009 to quash the planning approval for an EFW facility at Capel. There have also been increasingly difficult legal and financial issues relating to the delivery of EFW facilities within the remaining period of the existing Waste Disposal Project Agreement, which expires in 2024.
and that:
There has been a reduction in household waste nationally (5% in last year) but particularly in Surrey (10% in last year). There have been significant increases in recycling rates – up 10% in last year with continuing increases projected. New technologies have emerged which offer the prospect of lower cost
and smaller scale operation.
In June 2009 the Leader of the Council stated:
As a result of the improvements to date, we have an opportunity to remove or reduce our reliance on EFW (energy from waste) Plants in Surrey. I have asked officers to look at our options as a matter of priority as I want Surrey to set the standards of excellence in this area and I feel confident that this is possible. It is an area of our work in which I think we should be aiming to be world class.
Mystery surrounds the most recent fire at the Crymlyn Burrows waste treatment plant near Swansea.
Little is known about the circumstances, apart from a brief article on the BBC News website informing us of the fire on 9th February 2010:
Firefighters tackled a blaze at the Crymlyn Burrows waste treatment plant near Swansea. Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service was called to the Materials Recovery and Energy Centre just after midnight. The fire was said to be deep seated in around 400 tonnes of waste material. Staff had to use diggers to get to it as fire crews used a water hose. Firefighters left the scene at around 2.50am.
You may recall the LetsRecycle articles from 2003 (e.g. Crymlyn Burrows plant banned from taking waste and HLC takes stock after fire at Crymlyn Burrows waste facility describing how, on 10th August 2003, the Crymlyn Burrows waste facility “suffered a fire in its composting area, which took fire fighters four days to put out”
and how “During this time over a million litres of water was used to put out the fire and became polluted by the burning material and waste on the site”.
We await further details of this latest fire…
MVV Umwelt held an exhibition in Plymouth on Monday 8 February (at Ernesettle) and on Tuesday 9 February (near Devonport Dockyard) to display their plans for their two proposals for incineration in Plymouth. Notification was by an ad in the local paper on the previous Wednesday; despite this there was a very good turnout by Ernesettle residents on Monday, who made their feelings known with a range of very pertinent questions, leaving MVV Umwelt in no doubt that they would face a fight.
The Devonport site is attracting less opposition as it has come into the picture late in the day, but residents are starting to come together as they realise the implications.
Stuart and I had been to Ivybridge to hear Paul Connett’s inspiring presentation on 3 February and we were delighted to see Neil Tugwell of the Ivybridge anti-incinerator campaign at Ernesettle.
