According to People Against Incineration (PAIN) spokesman Shlomo Dowen:

After having nearly four years to get their act together over the Nightjar and Woodlark issue, including two costly adjournments of the Planning Inquiry, Veolia had the cheek to ask the Inspector that if their evidence still wasn’t good enough Veolia should be given yet another opportunity after the close of the Inquiry. The Inspector refused this request and instead called time on Veolia, reminding them that it was their responsibility to put their best evidence before the Inquiry to allow the Secretary of State to make a decision one way or the other. Veolia accepted this and agreed to carry the risk should their evidence prove inadequate.

Veolia now have until the end of July to circulate a shadow appropriate assessment of the potential impacts of building and operating a waste incinerator on the greenfield site owned by UKCoal. The site, once a car park servicing the former Rufford Colliery in Rainworth, near Mansfield, is currently a nesting site for endangered birds. Surveys carried out this year show four breeding areas for woodlark and nightjar in and around Veolia’s application site, strengthening the case for declaring it part of a Sherwood Forest Special Protection Area (SPA).

Veolia has so far failed to provide evidence that would rule out significant adverse effects on the integrity of the potential SPA. To date Veolia have not been able to agree a methodology or a definitive list of sites to be included in any assessment with either Natural England or the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust.

The Inspector has now set a strict deadline for the assessment, warning Veolia that failure to rule out adverse effects could mean that the Secretary of State would refuse planning permission for Veolia’s incinerator proposal for this reason alone. A legal representative speaking on behalf of Veolia said that they are aware of the risk and would not take legal action should their plans be refused due to lack of evidence.

Both Natural England and the Wildlife Trust agreed to continue to assist Veolia by supplying information, and by continuing to seek agreement regarding the scope of the assessment. It remained unclear how Veolia would be able to meet the deadline, and there was disagreement that their report would be sufficient.

The Pre-Inquiry Meeting also confirmed that People Against Incineration (PAIN) will be allowed to submit further evidence arising from the release of previously redacted portions of the £850 million waste contract between Veolia and Nottinghamshire County Council.

Veolia’s report is due to be released by the end of July, with Statements of Common Ground to be agreed by 6th August. Any new Proofs of Evidence will need to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate no later than 10th September, to enable the Inquiry to resume on Tuesday 28th September when Natural England are expected to give their evidence and be cross examined.

This story is being covered by MRW’s excellent reporter Ruth Faulkner, who has written a series of recent articles, including:
Veolia given until end of July to submit further evidence relating to Rainworth EfW plans
West Midlands £1bn incinerator scheme halted
Three planned incinerators called into question
and Calls for Coalition to clarify policy on incineration to list but a few…

I am so busy with the inquiry and sorting through the information released by Nottinghamshire County Council following last week’s High Court decision (see “People power” victory and Revealed: What Veolia wanted to keep secret and the Nottingham Evening Post editorial: Ruling upholds our democratic right that I am breaking with tradition and reprinting an article from another website:

Wildlife fears over incinerator plans

Published Date: 06 October 2009
By Helen Lambourne

CONTROVERSIAL plans to build a waste incinerator in Rainworth could be halted if the site is made a protection area for nightjars and woodlarks, it has emerged. A public inquiry into proposals by Veolia Environmental Services for the incinerator at the former Rufford Colliery got under way yesterday, held by Government-appointed inspector Rupert Grantham.

But immediately, a three-month adjournment on the ecological issues due to be considered was called for by Veolia –– saying it was seeking information from Natural England about whether the site might be designated a Special Protection Area (SPA).

The move could lead the inspector to put the whole inquiry on hold after it emerged the status could be a ‘showstopper’ for plans to build the incinerator on that site.

Paul Brown, representing Nottinghamshire County Council, told the inquiry the authority could change its support for the incinerator if the site was made an SPA.

He said: “If it transpires the SPA is a showstopper, everything we do in the next two or three weeks could be a complete waste of time.
“It would be a very difficult hurdle to overcome. The county council would have to review its position.”

Rhodri Price Lewis, for Veolia, said the company had been trying to gain answers from Natural England about whether the SPA was being considered for the last three weeks, but had got no answer.

But he said the public body had no remaining objections to the incinerator plans.

Janice Bradley, of Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, said the organisation had raised concerns about the impact of the incinerator on nightjars for a long time.

She said a recent ruling had found an area should be treated as a potential SPA if data about the birds there would qualify it — even if Natural England had not classified it as such.

Shlomo Dowen, from campaign group People Against Incineration (PAIN), said he had spoken to a representative from Natural England yesterday.

He told the inspector: “The first thing that was made clear was that you as inspector have the authority and should you decide that the site could qualify as an SPA, then Natural England would of course object to the application.”

Mr Grantham adjourned the inquiry yesterday until tomorrow (Thursday) morning while the parties try to gain the written views of Natural England.

He will then decide whether some or all of the hearing should be adjourned for three months.

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?

PAIN argues that the EA failed to meet its legal obligations by failing to compare incineration with less polluting technologies before issuing an environmental permit.

Furthermore, the EA also failed to consider the consultation responses to the Environmental Statement (ES) that accompanied the planning application, despite relying on the ES to issue their permit.

Download PAIN letter to the Environment Agency [PDF]

Some legal bits (edited highlights):

In granting the PPC permit the Agency breached its duties under the Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulations 2007 (the “POPS Regulations”), failing to comply with Regulation 4(b) which requires the Agency to discharge the duty to give priority consideration to alternative processes, techniques or practices which avoid the formation and release of certain chemicals.

It is clear from the decision document that the Agency have failed entirely to carry out this priority consideration process as required under Article 6(3). Instead, the Agency only considered the narrow question of different techniques within the incineration process (see for example C7.2.2 at page 28 of the decision doc) and did not do so with reference to avoiding the production of POPs within Annex III. In failing to consider in the assessment the available alternative processes which would avoid the formation and release of Annex III pollutants entirely, the Agency breached its obligation under Regulation 4(b) of the POPS Regulations.

No information concerning any Environmental Impact Assessment for the installation was supplied by the Applicant in response to Question B5.1 in the PPC Application Form. However, during the determination period, the Environment Agency was provided with a copy of the planning application and environmental impact assessment by Nottinghamshire County Council. The Environment Agency reviewed the relevant aspects of the planning application and made comments as a statutory consultee to the planning application. The Agency has had regard to the relevant information obtained and considers that no additional or different conditions are necessary in light of the EIA. We have seen the Planning Committee Report and had regard to the council?s conclusions. The County Council resolved to grant planning permission subject to a legal agreement and referral to the Government Office for the East Midlands. The planning application has been called in by the Secretary of State.”

It appears therefore that the Agency had regard to the Environmental Statement submitted pursuant to Article 5 of the EIA Directive but not to the representations made by statutory consultees and the public on the Environmental Statement pursuant to Article 6. The Agency is asked to confirm that it did not consider those representations.

On the basis of the failure to comply with the POPS Regulations the permit was unlawfully issued. It follows that the permit should be quashed by the High Court. That is the standard response to an unlawful decision. Indeed, the Court is obliged to take this step under Article 10 of the EU Treaty. A prompt agreement to revoke the permit, or submission to judgement in this case would avoid the considerable costs (including to the public purse) and delay which would be caused by the Agency’s defence of their unlawful decision in judicial review proceedings.

Notts CC was injuncted upon by Veolia, preventing the County Council from carrying out its legal duties under the Audit Commission Act of 1998. The Act requires all local authorities to open their books for inspection as part of the annual auditing procedures.

Section 15(1) of the Act clearly states:

Inspection of documents and questions at audit
(1) At each audit under this Act, other than an audit of accounts of a health service body, any persons interested may—

• (a) inspect the accounts to be audited and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them, and
• (b) make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents.

The injunction was quickly followed by a move to secure a Judicial Review of Notts CC’s decision to do what every local authority is required by law to do – open its accounts for inspection so that taxpayers can assess whether or not decisions made by the Council represent value for money.

The confidential Court documents desfribe Nottinghamshire county Council as the defendants, and name the Audit Commission as an interested party. It is understood that Veolia’s legal actions could jeopardise the District Auditor’s ability to sign off on Nottinghamshire county Council’s accounts and procedures. The potential implications of this have yet to be clarified.

Journalists in both the City of Nottingham City and the County of Nottinghamshire are covering the story, although it is believed to be of national significance. The Mansfield Chad’s latest article on this subject is entitled Incinerator campaign row could go to court although the matter went to the High Court last Friday (17th July 2009). The Nottingham Evening Post reported on Monday, in an article entitled Veolia injunction battle ‘to last until September’, that the matter could drag on as it makes its way through the legal system.

Friends of the Earth’s Legal team have stepped in to ensure that the other interested party named in the court action, the local citizen who asked to see how public money was being spent on delivering public (waste) services in Nottinghamshire, is properly represented.

Will the commercial interests of one multi-national waste company be allowed to derail the rights of taxpayers to see how public money is being spent? Watch this space…

Download letter from the HPA’s Chief Executive, Justin McCracken

According to Ryan:

This topples the whole house of cards whereby the planning authorities rely on the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) who in turn rely on the HPA. How can the HPA claim that incinerators don’t cause any harm to human health when they’ve not examined relevant health and mortality data?

While the public is given assurances, no local health studies are undertaken, and the public health data that is available is not examined.

Planning consultants appear to simply copy and paste from one report to another – with the same text used for planning submissions in diverse locations (e.g. RPS supplied clients in Exeter, Rufford (Rainworth), Dublin and Runcorn with the very same Health Impact Assessment (HIA).

Compare two of these HIA conclusions here.

Also see the Health section of the UKWIN Knowledge Bank

Waste incinerator and two schools plans face investigation

Published Date: 30 April 2009 By Helen Lambourne

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE County Council is being investigated into how it dealt with three major developments in Mansfield and Ashfield.
The Local Government Ombudsman is probing residents’ concerns about the council’s planning department in relation to the new building for Mansfield’s Samworth Church Academy, the proposed incinerator in Rainworth and the new post-16 centre at Kirkby’s Ashfield School.

Council chiefs insist they have acted properly but if the ombudsman finds the county council has carried out any wrongdoing, it can ask it to take action to put things right or even pay compensation to those affected.

The complaint about the proposed waste incinerator relates to the committee meeting in January where councillors backed the plans by Veolia Environmental Services — which will now go to public inquiry.

Keith Kondakor, waste statistician and supporter of People Against Incineration (PAIN), gave the meeting figures about the amount of waste sent to landfill but says he was accused by a planning officer of getting the details wrong.

He said: “The planning officer claimed at the meeting that my statistics were wrong and undermined our valid arguments at the meeting.

“The officer just assumed that my facts must be wrong and made it impossible for elected members to trust what the objectors were saying. It was in fact the planning officer that was getting all his facts wrong.”

The next meeting of PAIN takes place on Wednesday 6th May at Rainworth Methodist Hall at 7pm and there is also a tea dance on Sunday 10th at Rainworth Village Hall from 2.15-5.30pm, with tickets at £4.

The announcement, that a public inquiry is to hear arguments from PAIN and Newark and Sherwood District Council, and possibly others (such as Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust), brings together many who oppose the Sherwood Forest incinerator application for a range of reasons.

In a statement to the press, Sherwood MP Paddy Tipping said:

I know that people will welcome this decision. It provides objectors with the opportunity to argue their case before an independent inspector. This has always been a controversial issue. The proposed public inquiry is the most appropriate way to resolve it. Congratulations to all those who’ve been involved in the campaign.

Whatever the eventual result of the Public Inquiry, the delay creates the need to formulate a Plan B to comply with commitments to reduce sending discarded material, particularly biodegradable matter, to landfill.

This will test the ‘flexibility’ of Nottinghamshire’s Waste PFI contract with Veolia, and the recently signed Waste Partnership Agreement.

According to Shlomo Dowen, of PAIN’s Legal and Research Team:

This is the perfect time for Nottinghamshire County Council to work with the community to introduce weekly kitchen waste collections for anaerobic digestion (AD).

Support for PAIN’s position comes from the Environment Agency. In their recently released decision document for the proposed Sherwood Forest Incinerator (Permit) the Environment Agency calls upon:

The quote above is taken directly from page 119 (Annex 4: Consultee and Public Responses) of the Environment Agency’s Determination of an Application for a PPC Permit under the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No.1973), in response to the suggestion that kitchen waste which should be composted would instead be sent for incineration under Veolia’s current plans.

West Sussex County Council planning committee, at a 3 hour meeting on 10th Feb, refused permission for a new inert landfill site (5.5 million tonnes capacity over 26 years) at Rock Common Quarry near the village of Washington. This was a speculative application by Veolia ES Landfill Ltd working with the landowner Goring Estate. The site is not in the county Waste Plan, and sand extraction was originally permitted on condition of site restoration with a recreational water feature.

The application has been opposed for the last 3 years by Chanctonbury Landfill Action Group (chaired by John Auckland) with support from local businesses, residents and local MP Nick Herbert (the new Conservative Shadow Environment Minister). Two major objections from the Environment Agency focussed on the potential impact on groundwater, and the absence of acceptable flood risk assessment.

In addition it was felt that Veolia’s response relating to air quality, noise, dust and other nuisance effects was sufficiently flawed so that impacts could not be properly assessed. Insufficient detailed revised drawings and plans had been submitted showing repositioned site access and appropriate topographical surveys had not been undertaken.

In an article entitled Washington celebrates as landfill application is refused West SussexToday reports:

Jubilant campaigners are celebrating victory after achieving a landmark victory against a bid to dump rubbish at Rock Common Quarry, Washington, for the next 26 years…For the last three years, the locally-based Chanctonbury Landfill Action Group has fought a constant battle to prevent the unwanted scheme going ahead.

50 campaigners had reportedly travelled to County Hall to make a peaceful protest before the meeting. Afterwards, chairman of the group, John Auckland, said:

I hope that Veolia has the common sense not to appeal. I am very pleased with the outcome and relieved for the people who live in and around Washington.

County councillor Frank Wilkinson, who represents the area, had been unable to speak on the issue for the last three years because he was a cabinet member [editor - not good enough!] said:

I’ve had to keep quiet for three hard, long years, but I am absolutely delighted for the people and Washington that this has been turned down.

Erica Sheward, director of Castle Kitchens – the biggest employer in Washington, expressed her relief at the decision, declaring:

I condemn the whole application. It was a disgrace and pathetic.The decision is a massive relief to everyone. Now we can get on with what we are doing.

This is the way the Horsham News puts it:

Washington has fought off plans for a large landfill site in the village. Today (Tuesday February 10) three years of campaigning paid off after the waste company Veolia Environmental Services was told by West Sussex County Council the plan for a landfill site at Rock Common Quarry was not acceptable.

County councillors shot the application down in a unanimous vote, describing it as ‘flawed’ and with potential ‘catastrophic’ consequences.

The Environment Agency objected to the proposal to dump 5.5 million tons of waste in the quarry, stating the risks were too high.

In a separate development, Veolia and Nottinghamshire county council have come under fire from the Sherwood forest (Rainworth) based People Against Incineration (PAIN) for failing to disclose information requested under the Environmental Information Regulations. Mansfield’s Chad newspaper reports:

An investigation has been launched into why information was withheld from campaigners fighting plans for an incinerator near Rainworth. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has confirmed it will look into complaints by People Against Incineration (PAIN) against Nottinghamshire County Council and waste giant Veolia Environmental Services…the ICO will also investigate a lengthy delay of one year by Veolia in responding to PAIN’s request…and why the company said it would charge up to £125 for further information requests.

In the Mansfield Chad article, Kevin Parker, laughingly described as Veolia’s communications manager, is quoted as saying:

…for every request made by PAIN there is an administrative cost to Veolia Environmental Services and ultimately the local taxpayer.

In reply, a Co-Chair of PAIN Legal and Research Team, Shlomo Dowen, points out:

Veolia are prepared to accept hundreds of millions of pounds of public money – our Council Tax money – for the next three decades, but feel justified charging £125 a question when we want to know how they are spending our money! The worst thing about the situation is that when we ask how our money is being spent, we are told this is commercially confidential and disclosure is not in our interests. When Veolia signed the Waste PFI contracts (worth an estimated £950 million) they took on certain responsibilities normally associated with local authorities, including the requirement to answer Freedom of Information questions (without charging excessive fees) and disclose environmental information upon request. This is the law. Veolia have broken the law (not for the first time) and Veolia have broken faith with the people of Nottinghamshire (also, not for the first time). They should be releasing the information and apologising to us, not defending their illegal activities. I fear there will be more of this to come over the next thirty years.

The decision overrides the refusal of planning permission issued by Nottingham City Council and the wishes of thousands of local residents. Nottingham Against Incineration and Landfill (NAIL) have been campaigning against the incinerator for over seven years and have been at the forefront of the campaign to prevent its expansion.

Part of what is confusing anti-incineration campaigners is the Secretary of State’s claim to have called in the decision to examine energy and climate change issues, yet Hazel Blears MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government does not appear to have given any weight in her decision to climate change emissions that would be caused by the proposed expansion.

Emerging Government policy would appear to support incineration regardless of the energy efficiency and climate change impacts of the specific proposal.

At Eastcroft, for example, there was the possibility of enhancing the existing district heating scheme to utilise any heat generated by the expansion. The decision does not require WRG to harness (recover) the heat. As a result of this, on WRG’s own figures, less than 24% of heat would be recovered as electricity, while more than 75% of the heat would be wasted.

According to Nigel Lee, Nottingham Friends of the Earth:

The decision fails to examine NAIL’s evidence disproving WRG’s claim that the new line would save 24,060 tonnes of CO2 per year (IR para 131). WRG’s figures are misleading because they ignore 66% of the CO2 that would be emitted because it will be the result of burning biodegradable waste! During the Public Inquiry NAIL showed that if all climate change emissions are taken into account, WRG’s new incinerator would be no better than landfill. Improving recycling rates saves CO2 emissions, but WRG’s incinerator will not.

Nottingham Against Incineration and Landfill (NAIL) Chair, Jon Beresford, explains:

The Secretary of State’s decision effectively paves the way for WRG to start its building programme. WRG only have to agreed local issues such as colour schemes, lighting and soft landscaping.

The decision by the Government to support incineration rather than recycling is a real blow for the people of Nottingham, for our environment and for democracy. Residents of Nottingham said ‘NO’ in a 3000-signature petition and Nottingham City Council said ‘NO’ in their planning decision, yet the Government has overruled these local voices to support the profits of big business.

The Government has given the go-ahead on the basis that the expansion supports its Energy and Climate Change policy. This demonstrates what a state of utter shambles the Government’s policy is in. The incinerator will help us tackle climate change no more than a third runway at Heathrow or building more coal fired power stations. We should be reducing, reusing and recycling our waste to save the earth’s resources and reduce global warming gases, not incinerating waste to increase these gasses.

The decision might be a little more believable if the Secretary of State had imposed a condition on WRG to connect the incinerator to the district-heating scheme, to capture and use the heat, instead the heat will be released into the atmosphere and wasted. The only conditions imposed by the Government were with regards to soft landscaping, lighting and the colour of the chimney, not what comes out of it!

Even whilst the Government was making its decision, the plant continued to threaten our health with yet more pollution breaches. The Environment Agency issued yet another Site Warning on 8th October when the incinerator exceeded its Carbon Monoxide emission levels.

Latest Eastcroft incinerator site warning: October 2008. Carbon Monoxide 122mg.m3 against limit of 100mg/m3 (classed cat 4 by EA).

Further breach January 2009.

Carbon in ash September 2008 was ‘not considered a breach’ even though was .07% TOC over max limit of 3% and also Loss of Ignition was 4.2% against limit of 5% – “CAR quotes table 2.2.11 in permit condition 2.2.8.1: “permitted installation must be operated to ensure the bottom ash shall have a total organic carbon content less than 3%, or a loss of ignition of less than 5% of the dry weight of the ash”.