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.

Leading English councils hit 70% recycling rate

At least two English councils are achieving 70% recycling and composting during the summer months, making government targets to reach just 50% by 2020 look unambitious.

The two include South Oxfordshire and Rochford in Essex.

70% and above recycling and composting rates have been achieved in other parts of Europe for years – famously in the Flanders region of Belgium.

The government’s 2007 waste strategy requires English councils to recycle or compost 50% of their waste by 2020. But in 2007/08, 19 councils were already above that level (ENDS Report 406, pp 21-22 ).

Both Scotland and Wales have undertaken commitments to achieve 70% recycling targets.

According to ENDS:

South Oxfordshire, which achieved a 38% recycling rate in 2007/08, began a new waste collection contract in June. It is run by waste firm Verdant, a subsidiary of Greenstar.

The council already ran a co-mingled collection of dry recyclables alongside the paid-for garden waste collection. But in June, it added glass and Tetra Paks to its dry recyclables collection and started collecting food waste on a weekly basis from all households except flats. Since then, unaudited figures show it has achieved recycling and composting rates of 70.6% in June, 71.4% in July and 70.5% in August. The August rate breaks down as 36.0% dry recyclables, 21.6% garden waste and 12.9% food waste.

Rochford in Essex is reported to have broken the 70% recycling mark when it started a new collection contract in July 2008, that included free weekly collection of food and garden waste alongside accepting plastics and cardboard in its dry recyclables collection.

This UKWIN Update attempts to bring together just some of what has been happening since our previous update. Inevitably I will miss some important items, so please feel invited to add more information of interest by leaving a comment on the UKWIN website (below).

Global Day of Action
UKWIN is joining forces with campaigners around the globe who are organising a Global day of Action Against Incineration. For more details please contact Neil.

Cheshire
The government has approved plans to build a 95MW incinerator in Cheshire which is set to burn 600,000 tonnes of refuse-derived fuel a year. The decision is obviously a disappointment for all those who campaigned hard to prevent this permission from being granted. Due to the current economic climate, and to the lack of local authority contracts, the facility, although approved, may never be built. Watch this (sad) space…
Links:
http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=53154
and
http://www.runcornandwidnesweeklynews.co.uk/runcorn-widnes-news/runcorn-widnes-local-news/2009/08/20/mike-hall-mp-slams-ince-marshes-incinerator-plan-go-ahead-because-of-existing-ineoschlor-runcorn-plans-55368-24490218/
and
http://www.crewechronicle.co.uk/crewe-news/local-crewe-news/2009/08/19/middlewich-incinerator-protestors-demand-council-bosses-reject-plans-96135-24472513/

Veolia High Court
Veolia have taken legal action against their waste partner Nottinghamshire County Council. The case, involving the right of the public to see how public money is being spent on delivering public services, is being heard on Tuesday 25th August 2009 at the High Court.

WASTE COMPANY IN COURT BATTLE TO KEEP WASTE CONTRACT SECRET FROM RESIDENTS

A French-owned waste company is going to the High Court to try and prevent Nottinghamshire County Council making public details of its £850 million waste management contract and the invoices paid by the Council.

The full hearing of the Judicial Review is taking place after an interim injunction was obtained by Veolia Environmental after council officials agreed to release the information following a request by local resident Shlomo Dowen, of People Against Incineration [PAIN].

Mr Dowen is represented by lawyers from Friends of the Earth’s Rights & Justice Centre.

Information in the contract and the invoices will show how much money Veolia Environmental is charging the local council for each method of treatment (landfill, incineration, recycling, composting, etc.) and will help show whether or not the local authority is getting value for money.

Shlomo Dowen said:

Nottinghamshire residents have a right to seeing how tens of millions of pounds of our money is being spent, and our waste is being dealt with. This information must be made public. Veolia Environmental must not be allowed to keep this information secret.

Friends of the Earth’s executive director Andy Atkins said:

The law gives the public explicit rights to see this type of information precisely so that they can hold authorities to account on major issues such as this. Companies like Veolia that wish to take enormous amounts of public money must recognise that members of the public have an interest in ensuring that the money is well spent.

Mr Dowen has already accessed some information from the Council and has asked the District Auditor to investigate amount of money it is charging Nottinghamshire’s County Council in respect of landfill tax.

Veolia is also embroiled in another controversy with Nottinghamshire County Council over its plans to build an incinerator on a former Colliery site in Sherwood Forest. The company claims that local waste levels are expected to rise significantly in the coming years– a fact hotly disputed by PAIN, who point to evidence that Nottinghamshire’s waste levels have actually fallen.

Hearings for the Public Inquiry into the proposed Sherwood Forest Incinerator will begin on 6th October 2009 in Rainworth, near Mansfield. These hearings are expected to last for three weeks. PAIN is joined at the Inquiry by Newark and Sherwood District Council and Notts Wildlife Trust who also oppose Veolia’s incinerator plans.

Shocked in Shepshed
Residents of Shepshed in Northwest Leicestershire we shocked to learn of possible plans for an incinerator in their village. The plans for an incinerator near Shepshed have been put forward by Biffa. Biffa are one of three companies short-listed by the County Council to build a new facility to process the County’s waste. Leicester Friends of the Earth have backed local residents in their opposition to plans to build a giant waste incinerator near Shepshed. You can read more about this at:
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Fury-grows-incinerator-plan/article-1276006-detail/article.html
and
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Massive-waste-burner-planned-Leicestershire/article-1273645-detail/article.html
and
http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=53228

Emerging Global Anti-Covanta coalition
Campaigners from North America are joining with others faced with the prospect of a Covanta-run incinerator in locations around the world to share information and campaign tips. UKWIN is supporting this effort. If you would like to join this coalition, please contact paul@fluoridealert.org

Invergordon
“Controversial plans for a £43m waste incinerator in Invergordon have been rejected by Highland Council.” “Planners snubbed over Invergordon project…Company considers appeal…Highland town celebrates as waste plan thrown out…” “Highland Council chief executive Alistair Dodds is considering a plea from SNP opposition group leader John Finnie to launch an inquiry into his senior planners’ handling of the application.”
See
http://www.north-star-news.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/4964/Incinerator_plan_is_extinguished.html
and
http://www.highlandlibdems.org.uk/news/000155/thurso_welcomes_decision_to_throw_out_plan_for_incinerator_in_invergordon.html
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8204937.stm

Perth
“Residents against the building of a waste incinerator in Perth believe the local council acted unlawfully when granting outline planning permission…Outline planning consent for the development was granted in 2006, but full details only emerged this year. The Grundon Waste Management plans for the £100m incinerator, which include a 260ft chimney, have attracted hundreds of objections. Bridgend, Gannochy and Kinnoull Community Council hired planning lawyers to look into the matter.” “The community council turned to Roy Martin QC and advocate Stephen O’Rourke in their David versus Goliath battle to prevent English-based Grundon Waste Management creating a towering £100 million recycling plant on the Shore Road.”
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8213662.stm
and
http://www.perthshireadvertiser.co.uk/perthshire-news/local-news-perthshire/perth-city/2009/08/21/community-council-reveal-incinerator-legal-hurdle-73103-24492774/

RAID – Residents Against Inappropriate Developments
In their August 2009 e-newsletter the newly formed RAID are announcing their plans for further public meetings to inform more people about the proposed developments associated with the Hatfield Power Park (Doncaster) and especially one known as the DEW Project. If you have not yet seen the presentation or know someone who has not seen it please come along on one of the dates below:
Thorne – 3rd September at the Assembly Rooms
Dunscroft – 9th September at St Lawrence Community Centre
Dunsville – 18th September at the Community Centre
Hatfield Woodhouse – 25th September in the Village Hall
Stainforth – 2nd October at the Resource Centre (Old Folks Centre)
All the meetings will start at 7.30pm.

Also, the Barnsley Doncaster and Rotherham (Dearne Valley) Joint Strategic Waste consultation is coming to Dunsville Community Centre. On Friday 4th September there will be a public consultation meeting at Dunsville Community Centre to discuss the suitability of Hatfield Power Park as a waste management site as part of the DPD process. There will be a display from 2pm until 5pm and then a presentation from 6pm until 8pm with questions and answers.

Please encourage anyone you know to visit the RAID website and sign the online petition.

Newcastle
An ongoing political row is rumbling on over the issue of the incineration of waste in Newcastle.
See:
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/the-environment/go-green-news/2009/06/20/controversial-debate-over-newcastle-incinerator-72703-23932252/

Crymlyn Burrows
There is news on the infamous Crymlyn Burrows Incinerator on the outskirts of Swansea. Neath Port Talbot Council has accepted a payout of £6.7 Million in a court case against the firm of consultants that advised them to go ahead with the plant. The local residents are also taking a class action suit against the incinerator for the odour problems it is causing. For those unfamiliar with the background story see the Swansea FoE website.

Jersey
“A damning new report on the euro rate incinerator fiasco has raised serious concerns about the management of the Treasury.”
See
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/08/10/incinerator-report-serious-concerns-over-treasury/

Kingston
KINGSTON AGAINST INCINERATION NETWORK
Networked to UK WIN – Networking Communities fighting Incineration
The last Kingston Council “consultation” workshop on Waste and last year’s Energy seminar did not reflect adequately input from local residents and there were various individual protests at the waste workshop. It is therefore very important that there is grassroots understanding and consensus on this before the waste consultation workshop on the 16th September to ensure that what we want is not manipulated into what we don’t want…For more info contact PennyKFOE@aol.com

A letter from the Co-ordinator of Colchester and NE Essex Friends of the Earth, Paula Whitney to her local Gazette Letters page:

Dear Editor,

Cllr Tim Young (6 Aug) has robustly defended Colchester council’s formal opposition to the Essex Waste Strategy last May when the coalition took control. Last autumn Colchester’s Cabinet formally opposed the county’s second bid for PFI funding since 2005. Well done!

Cllr Tina Dopson informed Defra that Colchester did not support the
bid. Our LibDem MP Bob Russell, many opposition councillors and campaigners told Defra and the Minister this, and that many thousands of Essex people have opposed MBT and incineration since 1999.

Since May 2006 waste PFI rules require bids to show that all relevant councils and the public ‘have been consulted and that there is broad
consensus’. Hence the 2008 trick public consultation, widely
condemned as misleading.

Colchester rather put a spoke in the last PFI bid by pulling out. If we can scupper the bid we will save Essex council taxpayers huge costs and recycle and compost more instead.

Now the surprise news has just hit the headlines (3 Aug) of a third
desperate attempt by ECC for costly PFI finance from Government. This one deftly includes Colchester as one of the councils supporting the bid as a member of the previous Essex waste ‘Partnership’. Pardon?

The ‘MBT’ plant for 351,000 tonnes a year at Basildon would shred and
compost ‘black bag’ waste in massive warehouses, reducing its weight
by a fifth. ECC officers said it may be landfilled or turned into polluting fuel pellets to burn in an incinerator on one of the sites.

Let’s hope Colchester council, our MP and some of us can move fast to
inform Defra and the Minister that neither they nor the Essex people
support the PFI bid. These 27.5 year contracts will cost the taxpayers huge sums to destroy our valuable resources.

And finally…
Music to our ears
Yet another anti-incinerator song has been composed. “It Was Madness” will be released on the 14th September. On this note UKWIN has been asked if there is anyone who would be able to help promote the single…

A 1-minute preview of the song can be heard at http://web2.nessmp3.com/bands/1327. There is a possibility it could be a National hit and with it massive exposure for the cause. The artist who wrote and performed the song is keen to do appearances, etc, however he won’t be able to work the ‘machine’ on his own. Are there any offers of help?

Residents and councillors organise peaceful protest on steps of County Hall

Essex County Council is to consider a planning application for a regional waste site and 360,000 tonne per annum waste incinerator sited at the former Rivenhall WW2 airfield this Friday (24th April) with an officer recommendation of approval.

Residents and councillors will be holding a peaceful protest on the steps of County Hall starting at 9am on Friday, ahead of the meeting that starts at 10am.

Over 800 representations were received by the council, overwhelmingly objections – from residents, landowners, parish councils, wildlife, countryside and amenity organisations and the district council.

If the application is passed, it would be a blatant breach of the promise made by Lord Hanningfield, Leader of Essex County Council, that there would be “no incineration without a referendum” in Essex (direct quote from Lords Hansard), a pledge he repeated in signed letters to residents.

The waste site would be one of the largest in Europe, importing wastes from all over Eastern Region and London. Around 1.3 million tonnes of waste a year would be trucked in and out of the site, with over 400 HGVs a day adding to the congestion on the A120 and connecting roads.

The development would destroy or disturb an area documented as an important wildlife habitat, home to 5 species of bats, around 70 species of birds as well as many other species such as brown hares, which the County Council has pledged to protect. Mature woodland would be felled, good quality agricultural land developed and historic WW2 structures that have survived until now bulldozed or sold for scrap.

The incinerator would operate 24/7, burning around 1,000 tonnes of wastes a day, raising local air pollution. Emissions would include gases and particulates. The Environment Agency has stated that the proposed chimney height of 35 metres is “not generally considered to be acceptable” and have strongly indicated a higher chimney would be needed, raising further concerns about landscape impact.

At the last stage of consultation on the application, the developer announced that he may turn the entire site over to commercial and industrial wastes from Eastern Region and London, yet had consulted with the public on the basis that the site would deal mostly with household wastes from Essex. Braintree District Council has strongly objected to this late change in particular, calling for a further planning application, which the County Council has turned down.

There is widespread concern, including from councillors of all parties, that the County Council has a vested interest in the site. The council has admitted in writing that whilst the planning application has been under consideration, the council has at the same time been in active commercial negotiations with the developer.

For all these reasons and more, there is a strong call being made to the Secretary of State for an independent public planning inquiry. Already hundreds of letters have been sent to GO-East calling for an inquiry, with hundreds more names due to be sent on a petition and a further letter signed by district and county councillors of all parties.

To request that the decision be called-in for a public inquiry, please write to: Miss Janna Tweed, Government Office for the East of England (Go-East), Planning Casework Team,  Eastbrook,  Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 2DF and/or e-mail: Janna.Tweed@goeast.gsi.gov.uk

Cllr. James Abbott, one of the co-ordinators of the Stop the Incinerator Campaign said:

When several years ago we first raised the alarm that an incinerator was being planned for the airfield, the applicants and the county council accused us of misleading the public and scaremongering. When we uncovered using Freedom of Information Act requests that the council and developer had been in discussions about an incinerator since at least March 2006, the council denied any incinerator was planned. Similarly, time and again concerns about the increases in size of the plant, its catchment and the types of waste it would take have been denied. The public have been comprehensively misled by those in a position of trust.

The waste site has grown every time a new version of it has been published, and its catchment has grown larger and larger. We were told at first it would only treat waste from north Essex, with no burning. Then we were told only Essex waste would be treated and that it was “a recycling and composting plant”. Still, the developer uses this description, even with an industrial plant and incinerator added. Its a bit like calling the Titanic a sailing yacht.

The County Council is awarding planning consents in line with its own Waste PFI bid to Government. The Rivenhall site, twinned with the Basildon plant is in the PFI – the same as in this planning application. The council has failed to separate its functions as a planning authority and a waste disposal authority as required to do. They have even used excuses of commercial confidentiality to refuse to release documents requested about the site, despite claiming that the Rivenhall application was merely a “private planning application” that they had nothing to do with.

We will continue to fight these plans every inch of the way. A public inquiry is absolutely essential, and might restore some of the shattered trust in the way in which this process has been conducted to date.

Here is a reminder from Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator of Colchester & NE Essex Friends of the Earthof some of this long campaign over thirteen years since the draft Essex Waste Plan came out in 1996:

• We held our first of thirteen conferences in June 1998 called ‘Is Waste a Burning Issue?’ with Keith Collins and Alan Watson – of consultants ‘Ecologika’ – as key speakers for recycling and against incineration. Eight LibDem councillors attended, including CBC Cllr Ken Jones, also the leader of the county LibDems. They went away and reversed their previous support for incineration. By November that year the county Labour group had also changed their policy and strongly opposed incineration.

• After a big rally we held outside County Hall and a conference in March 1999, the Conservatives caved in and a month later signed the ‘Working Together’ policy with the district councils to achieve 60% recycling and composting by 2007. This was included in the Waste Plan.

• Three trials were set up to test the feasibility of 60% recycling. The Mersea area trial was the most successful, reaching 60% by 2002, with weekly kerbside collections of everything including garden waste and plastic bottles, separated at the kerbside using separate recycling boxes and bags and suitable vehicles. Colchester already collected paper, card, cans and separated colours of glass with the special ‘Fame’ flatback vehicle with metal stillages. The trial had 82% participation and 98% public satisfaction.

• The district councils had employed Ecologika to run detailed waste analyses and draw up detailed recycling strategies for the district councils, all but one of whom joined together as the Waste Consortium and commissioned Ecologika to fight the county council at the 1999/2000 Essex Waste Plan inquiry. Unfortunately the inspector left incineration in the waste plan, although he took out some of the identified waste sites.

• Colchester’s LibDem MP Bob Russell hosted our ‘No Incineration for Essex’ first Parliamentary meeting at Westminster, with speakers from across the UK. There was crossparty support and an anti-incineration rally outside Westminster with groups from all over the UK.

• The Conservatives were elected in a landslide victory in 2001 on a vociferous anti-incineration campaign and manifesto. As James Abbott says below, Lord Hanningfield on many occasions pledged there would be no incineration and that if it was proposed there would be a referendum.

• At their first three meetings the county council Conservatives alone approved the Waste Plan including incineration, saying they were legally required to include it. This was not true and ‘an unprecedented number’ of letters, including from seven district councils, were received by Michael Meacher’s office asking the Government to call the decision in. These were passed to the GoEast office to deal with, where Geoff Gardner, ECC’s officer and author of the Waste Plan, rejected this bid, acting as GoEast’s advisor.

• Three individuals (two councillors and me) took ECC to the High Court in March 2002 and proved there is no such legal requirement. You must have a plan for dealing with waste but it does not have to include incineration. However, Judge Sullivan decided the new Conservative councillors knew they could include or exclude incineration when they rubberstamped the Waste Plan so he considered it was valid and refused to dislodge it.

• We had to raise £28,000 to cover the costs of the challenge which was raised with individual and group donations from across the UK, including £2000 from each of the three individuals, with many individual donations from £5 to £2000.

• The opposition Labour and LibDem groups put a motion to full council following the High Court decision, to amend the Waste Plan to exclude incineration, but the huge majority of ruling Conservatives threw out the motion.

• In June 2002 Colchester FoE had launched the Zero Waste Charter at Westminster, hosted by the LibDem national waste spokesperson MP Sue Doughty. We held a colourful rally with other UK anti-incineration groups in front of Westminster, including our red Incinerator dragon. The first councils in the UK to formally adopt the Zero Waste Charter were Braintree’s Labour council and the LibDem Chelmsford council.

• At the end of 2002 the Essex War on Waste public consultation offered six MBT and incineration options. We drew up alternative ‘Option 7′ with councillors, which supported the Zero Waste Charter, and we held stalls in the main towns offering all the options. Option 7 was recognised and counted by the consultant running the Essex WoW consultation. 69% of formal responses supported Option 7 and 76% opposed all six official options. Braintree council and twelve out of fifteen parish councils formally supported Option 7.

• Since then these two councils and all Essex districts were taken over by Conservative administrations which support the county’s waste plans. By December 2005 ECC had lodged their bid to Defra for PFI funding. However, the rules for PFI changed in early 2006 which required ‘broad public support’ for PFI bids, and for all the district councils to support the bid.

• In May 2007, just after the major district council elections, the Outline Business Case for the PFI waste bid was released. It showed that the proposed MBT plants at Basildon and Rivenhall Airfield would shred and dry black bag waste and produce fuel pellets to burn in an incinerator. The incinerator was placed ‘for modelling purposes’ at Rivenhall Airfield, but it could be on any of the identified sites including Stanway, or Sandon at Chelmsford.

• So ECC required all the district councils to formally support the PFI bid by July 2007, which they did. They also had to try to get public support with their widely condemned new trick consultation in February 2008. It was decorated with green fields and butterflies, and managed to elicit public support for incineration of the MBT residues in the woolly description as ‘fuel for energy’.

• Colchester opposition councillors pledged to oppose the waste strategy and PFI bid in July 2007 when it was agreed by Colchester’s Tory council. They joined various demos we held around Colchester. In May 2008 the Conservatives lost five seats, with waste being one of the issues. The new coalition administration immediately formally opposed the Essex waste strategy and adopted Option 7 in its place. They later formally reversed the previous Conservative’s support for the PFI bid.

• ECC has lost years and years over this whole process because of the continuing dogged opposition at every stage. They are at one of the last application stages for PFI now before they offer the contracts in the EU journals. Many people have objected to the latest PFI application including through their MPs Angela Smith for Basildon and Bob Russell for Stanway at Colchester. We have pointed out that the PFI bid does not have ‘broad public support’ and one council has opposed it.