The sensible overall conclusion is that this is not a proposal which on its own merits deserves to succeed. It amounts to a short term gain in terms of achieving targets at the cost of long term pain for the receiving environment and for the communities affected by the decision. This is indeed a case where “the folks” and their elected representatives have reached the right conclusion about what is best for the places in which they live. They deserve to have that decision respected by the Secretary of State. For all these reasons the inspectors are invited to recommend that the appeal is dismissed.

Let’s hope our Eric is listening!

Local campaigners are aware that there is still a fair way to go before they can finally put this application to bed, and they have kindly provided UKWIN with an approximate timetable of what happens next based on similar previous inquiry outcomes.

• Environment Agency Permitting Consultation – 11th August 2010 (consultation closes followed by decision)
• Planning Inspector’s Report – October 2010
• Secretary of State’s Decision – December 2010 (decisions can take as long as 6 months or even a year, but they tend to take 2 to 4 months)
• Challenge Stage – January – February 2011 (potential opportunity to challenge if the decision does not go our way or for Viridor if they are not happy)

In the meantime Ardley Against Incinerator will be working towards the second planning application hearing by Oxfordshire County Council’s Planning Committee, which is expected sometime in September or October 2010.

According to one of Ardley Against Incinerator’s leading lights:
If there is an additional piece of good news from the last three weeks, it is the amount of information and advice we have been able to pick up that will make fighting the second application a little easier.

The Ardley Against Incinerator group sends a big “thank you” to all of their supporters, including the following parties, for their dedication and support since their first ever meeting back in July 2008: Bucknell & Middleton Stoney Parish Councils, Bicester Print, Cherwell District Council, CPRE, FOE Oxfordshire, B430 Traffic Group, Planing Aid, Sam @ NewsQuest, SAVI, SCAI, Tusmore Estate and Weston Front.

Ardley Against Incinerator is a not for profit voluntary group formed by concerned local residents and business campaigning against the proposed development by Oxfordshire County Council and Viridor Waste Management of a 300,000 tonne industrial incineration plant at Ardley Fields Farm.

To keep up to date with the Ardley Against Incinerator group visit their website at: http://www.ardleyagainstincinerator.co.uk/

And there continues to be much to track in Oxfordshire, including Oxfordshire County Council’s recent decision to sign a contract with Viridor for, would you believe it, an incinerator at Ardley.

This story has been covered by both LetsRecycle and BBC Oxford.

And plans are expected in August for an MBT plant at the site at Sutton Courtenay (near Didcot in Oxfordshire) previously subject to a failed planning application for an incinerator. See Waste incinerator bid for Sutton Courtenay withdrawn.

INTRODUCTION

If we believe that climate change is a serious threat to our planet, we can’t avoid the fact that CO2 is a major contributor to that threat. It seems preposterous that our Council should be proposing and supporting a technology – incineration – that actually adds to CO2 emissions and are still seriously considering locking us into a 25 year contract based on this outdated technology.

In an ideal, environmentally friendly, world, we would all shop locally from local organic producers, giving rise to easily recyclable – or no – packaging; we would all live in carbon neutral houses, travel in the most fuel-efficient way etc. And these are things we can all fight for at any time.

However, in life, as in politics, it makes sense to choose your battles. SCAI feels that the battle worth fighting right now is against incineration – per se not just in Oxfordshire.

ONGOING BATTLE AGAINST INCINERATION

This is still a live issue and threat to the Oxfordshire community, from the points of view of both efficiency and cost. We need to continue to show a strong commitment to ridding our county of the threat of an incinerator. This is a long-haul campaign! Many thanks to all of you for your ongoing support of the SCAI campaign and your actions to keep this issue in the public arena.

BACKGROUND & SUMMARY

As a result of a welcomed EU Directive to reduce landfill input by 75%, our County Council’s reaction to heavy fines for non-compliance with the Directive is to have put forward the idea of an incinerator as the only solution.

This arose five years ago and as our local MP, Ed Vaizey, has pointed out, technology has moved on since then and there are now many other alternatives that could be considered from the points of view of both cost (apparently important to the OCC) and efficiency (important to our communities now and to future generations).

Therefore, the main thrust of our campaign is to get the OCC to consider the alternatives available today – many of which are technologies that are in the process of being improved – rather than incineration, which in the light of these emerging alternatives is outdated and least efficient.

SUGGESTED ACTIONS:

Please send your views to Joanna Simons, Chief Executive, Oxford County Council, 01865 815330 joanna.simons@oxfordshire.gov.uk

POINTS TO MAKE INCLUDE:

• A technology neutral choice, the council’s stated policy, cannot be made from a list with only one technology on it.
• The bids were all for the same method of disposal because the recycling target for 2020 was set too low at 55 per cent.
• To make a technology neutral choice, the council should have raised the recycling target, to around 75 per cent, when they would have received bids with a full choice of technologies. At this rate of recycling, incineration no longer has greater economy of scale and becomes the least sensible, on non-financial criteria, of a wide range of similarly priced options.
• The county council has failed to implement its policy of technology neutrality and in doing so tied us all in to a recycling target that is too low for the next 25 years, the length of the incinerator contract.
• They are in direct conflict with the policy of the Oxfordshire Waste Partnership to progress towards increasing waste reduction, reuse and recycling.
• They are also in direct conflict with a widespread desire for a waste economy that is both sustainable and properly respectful of future generations.
• If we believe (as is generally accepted) that climate change is a serious threat to our planet, we can’t avoid the fact that CO2 is a major contributor to that threat. It seems preposterous that our Council should be proposing and supporting a technology that adds to CO2 emissions.

UPDATE ON THE PROCESS

Planning permission for Viridor to build an incinerator in Ardley was rejected in October. They are planning to make an appeal against this decision in July.

The applicant (Viridor in Ardley) needs to achieve two things –

1. 1. planning permission AND 2. an environmental permit.

1. Having been refused planning permission for an incinerator in Ardley by the OCC planning committee last October, Viridor is appealing this decision. The date for this appeal is currently July. Not only does Viridor have to submit new evidence in favour of building an incinerator BUT ALSO OCC has to demonstrate a strong defence of its planning committee’s decision to refuse permission.

Once the composition of the planning committee has been confirmed, we will circulate their names and contact details.

1. Although the Environment Agency makes much of their role as purely a consultee with little influence to block applications, we feel that this is disingenuous, and they could wield more power through their own internal processes. For example, the more vigorous they make the modelling conditions for applicants (i.e., what the applicant needs to show that they have taken into account) the more likely the process will become too stringent and/or too expensive for the applicant to fulfil. And therefore it follows that the applicant may withdraw.

The EA has now told Viridor it must supply further information about the impact on air quality and human health before it will consider issuing a crucial environmental permit to enable it to go ahead. Viridor must also provide details about the potential impact on wildlife and drainage.

Environment Agency area manager Simon Hughes said: “We have asked the applicant to submit further information as the application was lacking in detail in a number of areas. Some of these areas had been raised by local communities through the meetings we have held with them, and in representations made during consultation. Local people have an important role to play in these proposals and we will continue to involve them.”

SUGGESTED ACTIONS:

In order to ensure more stringent conditions being set by the EA, we should all express directly to the EA, our expectations that they will act to protect and improve the environment and promote sustainable development (including how we deal with waste).

Contact senior members of the Environment Agency (details below) to make them aware of our campaign and concerns:

The Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Hilary.Benn@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Minister of State (Minister for Food, Farming and Environment) and Environment Agency fitzpatrickj@parliament.uk

Huw Irranca-Davies MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Marine and Natural Environment) irrancadaviesh@parliament.uk

Dan Norris MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Rural Affairs and Environment) dan@dannorris.org.uk

Paul Leinster, Chief Executive, Environment Agency

Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4UD

Lord Chris Smith, Chairman, Environment Agency

Millbank Tower, 25th. Floor, 21/24 Millbank, London, SW1P 4XL

Howard Davidson, Regional Director, Environment Agency

Thames Regional Office, Kings Meadow House, Kings Meadow Road, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 8DQ

Simon Hughes, Area Manager, Environment Agency

Red Kite House, Howbery Business Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BD

POINTS TO MAKE INCLUDE:

• Although the EA has now requested further information from Viridor, this is a year after the application was lodged and is largely as a result of lobbying from local communities.
• So, there is frustration at the apparent lack of urgency and determination shown by the Environment Agency with regard to the threat of incineration in Oxfordshire.
• The EA has real power to scrutinise any proposed scheme, and set conditions, based upon the best scientific evidence available – please use it.
• You are the people who are there to conserve what is precious and defend communities and ecosystems from rubbish solutions (excuse the pun).
• Show some backbone in delivering the promises stated on the EA website:

“It’s our job to look after your environment and make it a better place”

“Our principal aims are to protect and improve the environment, and to promote sustainable development”

• If Viridor is made to act now and satisfy stringent guidelines set by the EA, then at least we can take some comfort that these website statements actually mean something.
• Simon Hughes has said: “Some of these areas had been raised by local communities through the meetings we have held with them, and in representations made during consultation. Local people have an important role to play in these proposals and we will continue to involve them.” So please demonstrate that you are listening to these further representations from local people.

Many thanks to all those of you who continue to write to our local papers on this issue and take the time to post comments to relevant articles. If you would like any further details on how to contact the press and participate in our local media campaigns – or if you have any ideas for a new angle or article, please get in touch.

Ardley Against the Incinerator chairman Jonathan O’Neill is quoted as saying:

We knew this was going to happen. We now need to wait for the appeal inspector to say what the appeal process is going to be, if they are going to have a hearing or take written submissions. We know people worked exceptionally hard in round one and we are going to be asking people to work exceptionally hard in round two. Just because they are appealing, we are not going to roll over.

Ardley with Fewcott Parish Council chairman Brian Steventon said:

Clearly, we shall be making representations, but how that will be handled will depend entirely on the inspector. This will be round two of the battle.

There is no news yet from WRG about whether or not they intend to appeal the Sutton Courtenay decision, but WRG have not withdrawn their Environmental Permit. Local campaigners Sutton Courtenay Against the Incinerator (SCAI) remain vigilant. SCAI continues with preparations to counter an appeal.

Environmental Permit
SCAI remains heavily involved in opposing WRG’s environmental permit application on a wide range of grounds, from air quality to flood risks.

For instance WRG have yet to provide an effective drainage scheme for their proposal, which is a requirement for both the incinerator proposal and an earlier extension of the landfill site to 2030, which the Planning Committee had approved 18 months ago, in July 2008.

Scrutiny
OCC has a number of scrutiny committees which can review and challenge decisions made by the Council. Members of these committees can also act on the behalf of local people in trying to influence council policies.

Local campiagners have formally requested the Growth and Infrastructure Scrutiny Committee review the processes and procedures adopted by the Council in the execution of its waste disposal plans and the alternatives now available. The Committee will be considering the request at its meeting on 18 February 2010.

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.

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.

Twenty parish councils have lobbied minister Hazel Blears urging her to call in the planning application for an incinerator at Ardley. They want the Secretary of State for Communities and local government to appoint an independent planning inspector to decide whether the £100m project gets the go ahead.

The article goes on to explain:

Jointly these parish councils represent more than 8,000 residents, across villages including Wendlebury, North Aston, Hethe, Croughton, Fritwell, Tackley and Launton. In the letter, councillors say they are concerned over Oxfordshire County Council’s impartiality to decide the planning application and accuse it of being the judge and jury at its own trial.

Parish councillors believe the controversial application conflicts with local and national planning policy and the proposal has far wider implications than just Ardley and surrounding area.

Chairman of Chesterton Parish Council Colin Board is quoted as saying:

They [Oxfordshire county council] are under pressure from the Government to cut its recycling bill and waste that’s actually put into landfill, and as such is rushing it through.

He said there were traffic issues and concerns over the technology proposed for the site.

A Bucknell spokesman said:

Careful attention was paid to the content of the letter, by research and reference, and it was intended not only to inform the local parishes, but also to send a message to OCC of their disregard of correct procedure and public consultation.

Jon O’Neill, of Ardley Against Incinerator, which has concerns about pollution, health risks and an increase in traffic, said:

This is another fantastic show of strength against Oxfordshire County Council and their proposed plans for an industrial waste incinerator at Ardley Quarry. Surely, now they will take notice to the objections not only being made by Cherwell District Council, Ardley Against Incinerator, and now the 20 parish councils in this letter representing over 8,000 north Oxfordshire residents.

This is Oxfordshire reports:

Cherwell District Council has warned it is prepared to take the matter to the High Court if necessary, if County Hall gives the go ahead to the Ardley Fields site.

Cherwell rejected the proposal on the grounds that a mineral and waste development framework has not been finalised by either council.

It also raised concerns the large chimney stack needed for the incinerator would damage the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the proposal would have an adverse impact on the surrounding roads and environment.

The report explains how Oxfordshire County Council is due to consider two sites where developers wish to build incinerators in the county — one at Ardley Fields, near Bicester, and another in Sutton Courtney, near Abingdon. Campaigners are described as being “worried about pollution, the risk to health from emissions and the increase in traffic, especially lorries”.

Fred Blackwell, chairman of planning at the district council, said:

There are very strong planning reasons why the incinerator shouldn’t automatically be located in Ardley. While we cannot support the Ardley proposal, we are keen to work with our county colleagues to find solutions to waste disposal which are within our planning guidelines. We are prepared to use all policy available to prevent the incinerator from being built in Ardley.

Jonathan O’Neill, chairman of Ardley Against the Incinerator, said:

It’s absolutely fantastic news from Cherwell. It adds massive strength to our campaign. A judicial review is a very costly and powerful weapon, so for them to come out in that fashion it is great. I don’t think we expected such a unanimous voice.

Nick Mawer, chairman of Bicester Town Council’s planning committee, said:

I am delighted Cherwell District Council is taking such a strong stand against the planned incinerator at Ardley. In addition to the sound planning reasons for objecting to the proposed development, there are many other reasons why we should not be building an incinerator at Ardley.

He said the town council had grave concerns about the impact on the road network and health issues of the proposal.

North London
The authority that manages north London’s waste says it has come up with a plan to reduce reliance on an out-of-date incinerator.
See North London to cut incineration

The North London Waste Authority has announced that it plans to submit an Outline Business Case to Defra before the end of this month in a bid to secure a record £520 million in PFI funding for its MBT-based waste treatment project. Representatives from the Authority’s seven member councils will be asked to approve the OBC on October 29, allowing it to be submitted for funding before the October 31 deadline for the current round of PFI awards.
See North London prepares record £520m PFI bid

Nottingham
The planning inquiry into expansion of WRG’s Eastcroft Incinerator in Nottingham ended on 24 September with the Inspector saying he would produce his report by the end of October. This report will now go to the Secretary of State (SoS) for a final decision which will be issued on or before 19 February 2009. The reason given is because of its major significance to the government’s climate
change programme and energy policies.

WRG might have thought this would help their case. The existing two furnaces in the incinerator provide heat for a district heating scheme as well as electricity, so they argued this is an ideal location for an incinerator. However, they refused to put in the investment required to expand the district heating system so the actual planning application was for an electricity-only third line. WRG’s own calculation showed that the proposed incinerator wouldn’t meet the ‘recovery’ target in the draft revised Waste Framework Directive. We will have to wait and see how the SoS deals with that.

WRG also produced a calculation purporting to show that the proposed third line would save net climate change emissions compared to landfill. However we showed that simply by including emissions from biogenic carbon the incinerator would be no better than landfill. Again, we will have to wait and see how the SoS deals with that.

Oxfordshire
Protestors against plans for an incinerator in Oxfordshire have used lasers to project their message into the night sky. An image reading “no incinerator” was beamed onto a cooling tower at Didcot power station on Monday evening.
See Illuminating incinerator protest

Plymouth (Ernesettle)
A first meeting has been held to set up a steering group for an action group in Ernesettle. By all accounts it was a successful meeting, attracting a good spread of people from the affected areas. Geraldine Lane was elected Chair of the group which is to be called STIFLE – Stop The Incinerator Fouling Land at Ernesettle! Watch this space for more…

Surrey
Capel incinerator receives planning permission! Surrey County Council has approved plans to build an 110,000 tonne-a-year incinerator at Capel, but local residents are planning a legal challenge. See www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=10482 and http://newenergyfocus.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=1&listcatid=32&listitemid=1785&section=Bioenergy%20%26%20Waste

Friends of the Earth (FoE)
FoE welcomes new national campaigner
Gaelle Legroux has started as the new campaigner in the Resource Use team at Friends of the Earth, filling the position left vacant when Anna Watson moved into the Rights and Justice team. Here is a message from Gaelle to introduce herself:

Who am I? Well, first I’m French, which you’ll quickly notice if you call me on the phone. My background is mainly European and combines two main areas: media and environment. As for the first, I worked as a TV journalist in France, then in Belgium with the TV channel Euronews on European affairs. I also worked as an editor for the European Parliament website, writing daily articles in French on a wide range of issues, including climate and environment.

Apart from being a personal commitment, environment also constitutes my second strong professional experience. I first worked with the French Green Party during the European elections campaign in 2003-2004, producing thematic sheets used by activists and writing the electoral program of the party (what they will fight for if elected in the EP) and other campaign materials targeting voters. In the end 6 French Greens MEP were elected and one of them took me in her suitcase to Brussels. I worked as an assistant for 2 years, following the environment Committee with an MEP focused on biodiversity and climate. REACH and LIFE+ were the two main legislative files at that moment but I also followed the directive on waste.

Wishing to have a new start in London, I applied with Friends of the Earth – an organisation I used to know and work with in Brussels – and just started as a waste campaigner with Michael Warhurst and Becky Slater. I’ll work with them on UK and European policies, and will probably meet you at some point! I can be contacted at gaelle.legroux@foe.co.uk or 020 7566 1630.

In other news…

New Minister for Recycling and Waste
Jane Kennedy has been appointed minister for waste and recycling in place of Joan Ruddock as part of the Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s major ministerial reshuffle – see http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=10480

Joan Ruddock has moved to the new department of energy and climate change – see http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=10470

Recycling litter funds honeymoon
A couple spent three months collecting and recycling litter to pay for their honeymoon flights.
Quote from the groom: “There was enough rubbish out there to fly us to the moon and back.”
See the BBC news piece. Also see Scottish household waste recycling rate reaches 31.7% where they describe “Reverse Vending”

Veolia ripped off by Italian Waste company
It appears that Veolia purchased a dodgy incinerator only to find that managers have been fiddling emissions monitors downward hiding rocket high emissions. Local towns have high local cancer and respiratory illness are significantly higher than in other parts of Italy, with young girls were reaching puberty early, even if they still had the stature and appearance of other girls of a similar age. Veolia is reportedly not very pleased to see its shiny new plant locked down while work is carried out to bring the unit back up to safety levels

Defective Incinerator Plant Sold to French Company
Down in Pietrasanta near Lucca in Tuscany, there is a waste incinerator plant. Formerly owned by the Italian company Termomeccanica, this plant was recently acquired from its Italian owner by the French company Veolia. Shortly after taking control of the plant, the new French owners were not all that happy to discover that the incinerator plant’s emission levels had been fiddled with to bring them within legal limits. The police were called in and their investigations resulted in the suspension of the incinerator plant manager. Additionally, a hard disk containing software apparently written specifically to modify the reporting of emission levels was confiscated…” [Source]

My sincere thanks to all who called my attention to the reports in this update! Shlomo

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.

The Sutton Courtenay application for a facility includes plans for an incinerator bottom ash recycling plant, air pollution control residue landfill and visitor and office accommodation. Interested parties can view the proposals at a public display on Thursday and Friday (24 and 25 July), from 2pm until 8pm, at Sutton Courtenay Village Hall, in Hobbyhorse Lane [Source: Abingdon Herald, Tue. 15 July 2008].

The Oxford facility is just one of the projects receiving funding through the European Investment Bank [Source]. The EIB was recently criticised in the CEE Bankwatch Fuelling the Fire report on how the European Investment Bank is financing the incineration industry for promoting incinerators over recycling initiatives.

According to EU waste policy, the EIB should support efforts to reduce, recycle and compost waste. However, this analysis shows that instead, in the 2000-2006 period, the majority of the EIB’s waste investments (68%) supported incineration, a waste management method fraught with environmental and economic deficiencies…

…out of 33 waste projects approved by the EIB between 2000-2006, 22 include incineration. Only two projects appear to have involved sorting waste for recycling and one involved composting. One, in Cornwall, England, includes landfill.

…where the private sector is involved in waste management service provision, there is a heavy concentration involving rather few companies such as Veolia and Suez (SITA), and some companies have benefited from several EIB loans in the waste sector.