Back in May 2010, DISC worked in conjunction with North Yorkshire County Councillor John Savage to send a latter to George Osborne (see full letter reproduced below). This attracted regional media coverage – see, for example, the article in the Yorkshire Post entitled Cameron lobbied to halt finance for national drive to burn waste.

More recently DISC submitted a substantial examination of their support for zero waste and their opposition to the incineration of waste on economic, environmental and health grounds, in response to the Review announced by Caroline Spelman in her “Waste – new thinking for a new economy” speech to Futuresource on 15th June 2010.

Download DISC’s 32-page consultation submission [PDF].

Now DISC has set up an online petition at: http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/dont-incinerate-north-yorkshire.html

The petition calls on the councillors of North Yorkshire County Council and the City of York Council:

1. To listen to the community;
2. To vote against the proposed waste management plant at Allerton Park;
3. To urgently review their waste management strategy;
4. Specifically to review in full a wider set of more innovative and sustainable solutions for the future that match current national policy, reflect up to date technology and the state of the economy by going beyond large-scale incineration, reflecting the views of the public of North Yorkshire today through full, open and responsive dialogue with the public, and safeguard the heritage of those who live and work in the county now and in the future.

Sign the petition now!

Further information about the proposed Allerton Quarry incinerator can be seen at the Crown Hotel, Borobridge from 11am-7pm on July 15th Crown Hotel, in Harrogate on Saturday 17th July from 10am-4pm and on Monday 19th July at Knaresborough House, from 10am-6pm.

Letter to George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer

18th May 2010
Immediate potential savings of £2bn – £3bn.
Financially disastrous waste PFIs being awarded nationally
North Yorkshire imminent – please halt it now.

Congratulations upon your recent appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I am writing in my capacity as Chairman of North Yorkshire County Council to highlight the urgent need to save money immediately and to implement the Conservative waste strategy of anaerobic digestion and high recycling levels. This is a manifesto and coalition agreement detailed in item 11. Environment of the ConLib agreement.

This issue is particularly urgent as genuine and immediate cost savings are possible and the figures nationally in this respect are significant – between £2 and £3bn has been budgeted in PFI credits to support incineration projects up and down the country. The PFIs are not fixed cost contracts, will considerably, bind local governments if entered into precipitately and are driving forward change that is far from best practice. In terms of financial risk they may actually be the tip of the iceberg as is evidenced by the recent massive overspend on the Manchester waste PFI which jumped from £100m budget to £124.5m during implementation.

The incineration industry also receives an irregular subsidy in the form of a 90% tax discount on disposal of the ash, some of which is toxic but NOT fully regulated as such.

This was enshrined in Statutory Instrument 1996 No 1528 which in essence has served its time as a policy and generated sufficient investment in the industry to define whether incineration technology has the legs to deliver a sustainable contribution to the energy strategy for the UK. Overwhelming evidence suggests it has not and it should be withdrawn.

Our own county council has wrestled with central directives to manage landfill diversion but in the absence of clear guidelines over CO2 emissions, food waste and waste collection methods, large quantities of money and valuable time has been spent to no avail. My county of North Yorkshire now faces the real prospect of implementing a large scale recycling programme only to then scale it back in 2013-2014 as an incinerator comes on line.

There is a large body of evidence to show that incineration is a poor strategy:

• Investment levels are far higher than recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion options (Peter Jones Waste Consultant – London Mayoral Independent Appointee)
• Energy recover levels in comparison levels are very poor (ICF recycling) not least because transmission losses and energy storage is a massive inherent technical problem
• Anaerobic Digestion holds the advantage that energy is stored in the form of fuel and can be localised to minimise transmission losses.
• Costs are very high and the contracts last over 25 years – leaving any local authority exposed to large market shifts in costs and fuel mix. They will be unable to take advantage of new technology when it comes onstream.
• CO2 levels will rise in comparison to landfill (Peter Jones OBE)
• Incineration creates very few jobs and the net effect is to take revenue out of the local economy. Most of the engineering is foreign and the operators are multinationals.
• Materials banned from disposal into landfill are not similarly segregated from incineration but as their value rises through scarcity and the effect of the Landfill Tax ratchet, these high calorie sources are likely to become more scarce.
• Central electricity generators are installing significant capacity to co-fuel burn e.g. Ferrybridge, North Yorkshire which will radically alter gate prices downwards by about 50% and add 1 million tonnes demand to the market for waste derived fuel drawn from an 8o mile radius from Newcastle to Nottingham, Hull to Manchester.

Boris Johnson has recently appointed Peter Jones as London’s external consultant and we have brought Peter and Dr Paul Connett (Cambridge and St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY where he specialized in Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology over to explain the economic situation to the County Councillors. Over 140 council officials from a cross section of the executive to parish council chairmen attended the conference.

Well organised programmes in leading authorities have achieved very high landfill diversion rates e.g. West Midlands is now at its 2020 landfill target already!

Our council, among many others, have not responded positively to the Landfill Tax and now see incinerators as a quick fix to meet their targets late. However as Peter Jones shows in the attached slide the incineration route is inherently flawed – with CO2 levels at their lowest in anaerobic digestion and recycling and rising again to new heights with incineration.

The incineration route is fundamentally underpinned by two financial packages.

Firstly PFI credits in our own area for incineration plans are allocated at £65m – across the country there are dozens of other councils planning the same route based on the grants and the tax subsidy for ash disposal. It is calculated that between £2 and £3.2 billion nationally is involved just for the incineration plants.

In addition to this grant, the operators will receive a massive £41.50 discount on Landfill Tax (reduce to £2.50 per tonne) on disposal of potentially toxic incinerator bottom ash (IBA) – the material that drops out of the furnace.

The outgoing Labour administration reneged on a full review of this discount only last month. Withdrawal of the subsidy was stopped by laggard authorities arguing that they had committed upwards of £1m each on coming to the decision to use the incineration route and were well advanced in their planning. Were the subsidy to be withdrawn this would probably generate another £60m in tax revenue in this area and at least make it clear to ratepayers nationally who effectively pay the full rate that this Conservative government is keen to avoid subsidising polluters.

Generally withdrawal of PFI credits for incinerators will prove a good political move – the programme would generate jobs locally in all authority areas in wage groups which are likely to spend locally and keep the wealth circulating. There are up to 20 times more jobs in recycling versus incineration and in our own area up to 1000 new jobs could be created. Local brown field sites will be required for processing. Reusing materials also reduces a reliance on exports which will benefit the pound. And the routes to recycling and anaerobic digestion are far more solid and less likely to generate a project overspend. This will move us far closer to CO2 targets quicker and more sustainably.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours
County Councillor John Savage – Ainsty Ward

Whilst the merits of the proposal to generate electricity and provide district heating are acknowledged, it is considered that insufficient information has been provided by the applicant to justify the proposal being able to be assessed upon its sustainability credentials. Thereby, in the absence of a technical feasibility assessment and an assessment of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the whole development (including the connection to the National Grid) it is arguable that the proposed development should be assessed not against the policies concerning sustainable development, but rather against the policies relating solely to waste disposal.

The report concludes:

In failing to adequately demonstrate how the facility will provide the ‘energy from waste’ upon which the proposal is sought to be justified, the proposal is wholly inconsistent with the general thrust of sustainable development principles and the drive to move waste up the hierarchy.

The report recommends that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. In the opinion of the County Planning Authority, in the absence of any technical feasibility study and socio-economic and environmental
impact assessment, it has not been adequately demonstrated whether
or how the proposed development for an Energy from Waste facility is
capable of connecting to the National Grid and supplying district
heating to ensure that the development is compliant with planning
policies concerning sustainable development, namely Policies ENV5,
ENV12, ENV13 and YH2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire
and the Humber;

2. In the opinion of the County Planning Authority, the proposed
development for an Energy from Waste facility at this location has not
been sufficiently supported by waste input data which would
demonstrate compliance with Policy 4/1 of the adopted North Yorkshire
Waste Local Plan;

3. On the basis of the first reason given above, in the opinion of the
County Planning Authority, in the absence of supporting evidence to
indicate otherwise, the proposed development forms the least favoured
means of the management of waste by way of gasification as opposed
to those methods further up the hierarchy, namely recycling, re-use,
reduction or recovery of waste and is therefore not compliant with the
national, regional and municipal waste strategies and planning policy
outlined in PPS10 and in addition Policy 4/1 of the adopted North
Yorkshire Waste Local Plan.

Last week’s Yorkshire Post covered the story of the residents of Tockwith who protested at Marston Business Park, the site of the proposed incinerator.

Protesters wore face masks as they staged a mass demonstration against the proposed siting of a hazardous waste incinerator near their homes.

Paddy Gastrell, chairman of the Tockwith Residents’ Association is quoted as saying:

We are concerned about the potential impact on health and having such a process going on so close to the village plus there will be a large chimney which will impact the landscape for miles around…The village and its primary school were all downwind of the proposed incinerator. We wanted to show the councillors that everybody in the village from adults to children is totally opposed to the application.

An article in the Yorkshire Evening Post provides further background to the application and the protest:

BCB originally applied to build a waste incinerator and power station on the business park next to the village. The plans drew massive opposition from residents.

The plans were later withdrawn following objections from the Environment Agency – but another proposal for a waste incinerator is now being considered.

The protest was organised by Tockwith Residents Association, which says no incinerator should be operated so close to homes or businesses.

DISC – the Dalton Incinerator Steering Committee – had written to all 72 county councillors asking them to state where they stood on the issue, before next month’s County Council elections.

But David Andrews, Chair of DISC, says he understand the Councils Assistant Chief Executive, Carole Dunn, has written to all of the members telling them that they shouldn’t “make statements that would suggest that they have already made up their minds…or may prejudice their ability to take part in future decision making on this issue.”

“The reason we are opposing plans for the incinerator is that we care about our environment and the people who live in that environment both now and for generations to come,” said Mr Andrews. “As far we we’re concerned this is not a political issue, it’s a human issue which directly involves the very people who elect the county councillors.

“I think it’s disgraceful that those councillors should now be told they aren’t allowed to support the views of the people who voted them into power. Surely their first responsibility should be to those people, not to politics.”

Mr Andrews said DISC were now calling on the Assistant Chief Executive to retract her statement and he says he believes the current law backs their decision. He said the Standards Board for England had issued legal guidance which quite clearly stated that “the fact that a councillor may have made it clear that he has a policy predisposition to favour a particular outcome in relation to a decision to which he is party does not mean that it is unlawful for him to participate in making that decision.”

“We believe the statement from the Assistant Chief Executive goes directly against that guidance, and if necessary we are prepared to take that to the local government Ombudsman,” he said. He’s also asking all members of DISC to contact their local MP to complain about what he says is “a clear abuse of the democratic process”

DISC was initially formed to fight plans to site the incinerator at Dalton near Thirsk, but has now become the protest group for residents living in villages around the three sites thought to be favoured for the development: Dalton, Allerton Quarry and Burn Airfield.

Visit the Marton cum Grafton village website and of course the DISC website for more…

We urgently need your attendance at this meeting so the matter can be closed off and left in the hands of the Council to address the issues formally. The Executive have told this Committee they want the shortest possible delay and a minimum use of resources in the investigation. We need the Council to allow this Committee the time to do a proper report and corrective actions to avoid the Dalton site scenario arising again.

If you wish to speak at the meeting you will be allowed to do so. Please e-mail your request three days before hand to Jackie.Harvey@northyorks.gov.uk. We will be attending and providing formal evidence regarding this issue. However the Dalton site is not the specific issue at hand – the Waste Core Strategy process was flawed and generated a flawed list of sites and concepts which were evidence in themselves of the poor quality of the work undertaken regarding localisation of those plans.

David Andrews,
Chairman DISC

Also see Northern Echo’s “New scheme for waste sites in North Yorkshire” article

Bailiwick of Jersey
Residents of the Island of Jersey are being blackmailed by those who are set on replacing the worn-out incinerator at Bellozanne with yet another incinerator. According to the BBC, the French firm given the £106m building contract for a new incinerator has agreed to fix the price only until the end of October. “Deputy Guy De Faye has warned that any delay [e.g. to allow time for evidence and alternatives to be carefully considered – ed.] could force up the cost of the incinerator”.
Quick! Buy now, ask questions later…
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/7637709.stm
and http://www.jerseyinsight.com/news_1.aspx?id=0:11710&news=2:808
and http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/09/25/incinerator-campaign-hots-up
for more details.

East Midlands
Nottingham (NAIL)
Public Inquiry closed, judgement expected before the end of October. The City Council’s case was greatly strengthened by efforts of Nottingham Against Incineration and Landfill (NAIL) campaigners. Several articles are available from the Nottingham Evening Post’s website, including:
New-look incinerator ‘a pig in lipstick’ and
Closing statements in incinerator inquiry

Nottinghamshire (PAIN)
People Against Incineration (PAIN) campaigners are awaiting Veolia’s answers to questions put to them by Nottinghamshire County Council. Whether or not the application will be considered by Newark and Sherwood District Council and by Nottinghamshire County Council planning committees before the end of the year or not has yet to be determined. PAIN is also awaiting Information Commissioner Office decisions about the non-disclosure of Waste PFI contract details and about the level of Veolia’s charges for environmental information.

North West
Cheshire
Despite being granted planning permission for the monster facility by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the campaign opposing Ineos Chlor’s proposals is still going strong. Suspect calculations used to justify the stack height are to be further investigated with the support of UKWIN. Watch this space…and be sure to visit CHeshire Anti-Incinerator Network (CHAIN) and Halton Action Group Against The Incinerator (Halton Breathe/HAGATI) websites.

South East
Kent
Kent Enviropower Limited (a part of the Waste Recycling Group) have announced on their website that:

procedures to start all three lines have begun and the facility is expected to start burning waste later today” [Friday 26th September 2008]. “The facility is also accepting deliveries of waste. The next round of performance tests on the EfW facility are due to begin next week. These tests are a normal part of the commissioning process, and are designed to ensure that the facility is operating efficiently before Kent Enviropower takes it over, and begins commercial operations. The Materials Recovery Facility is also operating and accepting deliveries of recyclables.

Oxfordshire
New campaign group formed in Oxfordshire, and immediately join UKWIN! Oxfordshire County Council was presented with a petition organised by the Sutton Courtenay action group Sutton Courtenay Against the Incinerator. Waste Recycling Group (WRG), which owns the Sutton Courtenay landfill site, put in a planning application for an incinerator in August. Spanish-owned WRG is vying for the incinerator contract with Viridor, who operate the other major landfill site in Oxfordshire at Ardley, near Bicester.

Sutton Courtenay Against the Incinerator oppose the proposals to the site in South Oxfordshire as an incinerator would:

• Dramatically reduce air quality in Sutton Courtenay and the surrounding areas, leading to health risks and poorer quality of life;
• Significantly reduce the housing prices in the Sutton Courtenay area;
• Destroy the beautiful countryside that we have come to know and love;
• Increase the traffic through the village and all the roads in this area.

For examples of media coverage see
http://www.banburycake.co.uk/news/3662589.Action_group_fights_incinerator_plans/
and
http://www.banburycake.co.uk/news/3677339.Strong_opposition_to_incinerator_bid/
and http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/3663419.Incinerator_protesters_launch_group/

Also visit the Sutton Courtenay Against the Incinerator website for more. And don’t forget, Sutton Courtenay is one of two possible sites; the second is Ardley in North Oxfordshire. For more on the Ardley Against the Incinerator campaign visit the AAI website.

Surrey (GAIN)
Surrey County Council, which had been putting off considering the Capel incinerator application, has suddenly added this item to next week’s Planning Committee agenda. The recommendation is, subject to referral to the Secretary of State as a departure, and subject to the prior completion of a S 106 legal agreement to secure the routing of HGV vehicles and a travel plan, to PERMIT subject to conditions, citing the ‘need’ for such a facility and the lack of suitable alternatives. Local campaigners (GAIN) expect a decision on the Trumps Farm application to follow shortly. The Trumps Farm planning application was submitted in mid-July and the last date for objections is 30 September. A decision for Trumps Farm is scheduled for early 2009.

South West
Cornwall
Have you received your copy of the CD yet? They are proving very popular this season, so request now to avoid disappointment. Just a couple of weeks to get in any questions or comments for the Environment Agency to consider as part of the first round of the Environmental Permit (formerly IPPC) process. The Environment Agency must decide whether to grant or refuse the application. If it grants the application, it must decide what conditions should be included in the permit. Any comments should be made in writing to the Environment Agency at the following address: Permitting Support Centre, PO Box 4209, Sheffield, S9 9BS
In addition, if the EA decides to grant the application then they will make the draft permit available for comment. The EA’s guidance on decision-making under the Regulations can be found at www.environment-agency.gov.uk. This guidance explains what factors the EA considers relevant to its determination.

West Midlands
Staffordshire
Brewood and Coven Council has resolved to ask Staffordshire County Council to re-consider the scheme proposed under planning application 08/00601/COM on the grounds that the exceptional size of the proposed incinerator facility at Four Ashes is detrimental to South Staffordshire and consequential emissions from the plant and high volume of traffic on nearby roads would be harmful to residents and cause significant road congestion. They point out that:

South Staffordshire Council considers that the current proposal is contrary to policies TR3, BE25, BE26, RE1 and LS1 in the South Staffordshire Adopted Local Plan, and accordingly, South Staffordshire Council urges Staffordshire County Council to re-examine the possibility of downsizing to a Waste to Energy Plant to minimise the impact on the environment, residents, traffic system and quality of life for all.

Warwickshire/Coventry/Solihull
Warwickshire/Coventry/Solihull burner is cut by 45,000 tonnes according to campaigners who attended the recent Warwickshire Environmental Overview Committee meeting. Four people asked questions about waste and incineration. The breaking news is that the outline business case will be based on a 305,000 tonne burner instead of 350,000 tonnes. That is 45,000 tonnes less waste burned each year. It also means the plan is to replace a 240,000 tonne burner with one 65,000 tpa bigger at the cost of around £170m before PFI multiplier. By reducing the size hard-working campaigners have changed the cost models. Campaigners are advising caution however, saying: “We need to see if this reduction is real”.

Yorkshire & the Humber
North Yorkshire (DISC)
Dalton Incinerator Steering Committee (DISC) scores early victory as Public Examiner sends North Yorkshire County Council back to consult! See UKWIN article for more.

See Critics claim council waste strategy in tatters

In short the Examiner on Wednesday 24th September 2008 decided he was unlikely, over the full course of 7 days, to be happy with the evidence presented by North Yorkshire Waste team and has asked them ‘to consider their position’.

The background to this is that NYCC were warned at the preparatory meeting that the Examiner had serious concerns which needed addressing. NYCC were warned of this again on the first day. In the evidence certain key points were made clear:

• The Council had not had a single face to face meeting with counterparts in adjoining authorities to consider what plans they were pursuing for waste sites and technologies or where they might be located
• The Council had no clear information on the industrial waste disposal capacities or recycling routes and capabilities within its own boundaries and had conducted no face to face meetings with private operators who manage 91% of waste in North Yorkshire
• The Council had not held any face to face meetings with the statutory consultees eg Highways Agency, Natural England, etc.
• We presented a logical and convincing case that the NYCC had ignored consistent public consultation results which showed deep concerns against incineration and the imposition of a single large site on one local community since 2001 through the district authorities and York City consultations.
• DISC also made a case against the sustainability assessment – which has now been admitted by NYCC as being incomplete.
• The strategy assessments were weighted differently without any clear logic or evidence to support the methodology. Sites had been considered but rejected without records as to reasons why. Options which had been reviewed thoroughly were put together but not subjected to further review in their new combined size and scale.
• The examiner explained that far more serious issues lay ahead which the meeting had not yet discussed at all.

Mr King had also brought to light a very long list of minor issues which all cumulatively served to undermine the competence of the strategy and therefore in the light of these circumstances asked for the Council to withdraw and consider its next actions.

There is now to be a meeting for November 11th 10:00 am at County Hall for about two hours where the Council team will be given one final chance to address these issues. No new work will be permitted and they must produce all evidence that was expected during the Examination. If they are unable to prove that these are mere presentational shortcomings then the plan will be rejected totally -including the Minerals strategy.

Where will this leave us?
1. The Council will have lost 2-3yrs in the process
2. The site allocation will start again as part of a new plan (not the old plan rehashed)
3. Any attempt to develop sites such as Dalton will have any no Council support in policy or strategy other than those existing agreed policies and the status quo will apply until new strategies are agreed.
4. A completely new plan will be required as the old one has been rejected. The Council cannot revisit a plan.

DISC is calling for as many supporters as possible to attend on November the 11th at 10:00am at County Hall, Northallerton.

DISC’s supporters have followed the process laid out by Government and this is the final stage of this process for testing local authority plans for their community. David Andrews, Chairman of DISC, says:

The process we have seen was fair, very solid and thoroughly trustworthy. The failure of the NYCC Core strategy will highlight to all other authorities the importance of thorough and honest preparation of plans such as these and the perils of poor attention to detail and we therefore urge you very strongly to clear your diary and attend on the 11th of November. As soon as you know you can attend please e-mail us to confirm. We would like to advise numbers to the Council as soon as possible to show the massive interest in this. An e-mail confirming your attendance is good enough.