or maybe its ‘Alarm bells ringing in Newcastle’
Mixed messages are emerging from Newcastle, as a deadline for consultation responses rapidly approaches. Or has the deadline already passed?
In scenes reminiscent of a pantomime (oh no they’re not), Newcastle’s on-again / off-again ‘consultation’ process has been further complicated by the release of a report by Newcastle City Council.
The report includes the following assessment:
• Incineration “at the recommended scale of 40,000 tpa is unlikely to be delivered at an affordable rate (in comparison to other treatment options)”.
• “It has relatively poor environmental performance in key areas”.
• “The City would only benefit from the associated carbon reduction benefits of combined heat and power if such a large scale facility was located in relatively close proximity to key regeneration areas which is probably incompatible.”
• “Considering the fact that a stand alone incinerator of 40,000 tonnes would not be viable, it is highly unlikely that incineration within the boundaries of Newcastle is possible.”
The Journal is even reporting that “Newcastle City Council [is] set to reject Byker incinerator”
From an article published on 16th January 2009:
The prospect of a new incinerator being built in Newcastle was virtually ruled out last night. A report is due to go to the city council’s executive later this month on plans to deal with 40,000 tonnes a year of non-recyclable waste at the site of the controversial former Byker incinerator.
One of the options which will be explored is burning waste to produce energy. A meeting of the city’s environment overview and scrutiny panel earlier this week pointed out that both political groups on the council had a long-standing opposition to incineration.
The panel ruled: “If possible, members would prefer to see this ruled out.”
You might think that local people were celebrating a famous victory.
But not all is as it seems…
The Journal has also reported how the BAN Waste community group suspended its partnership agreement with council amid claims the authority has broken an agreement to give the group a two-month consultation period on the report. A BAN Waste spokesman is quoted as saying:
The council seems to consider the pure act of BAN Waste attending a meeting or being in partnership equates to them consulting with us in a meaningful way.
The controversial Newcastle City Council report does not appear to rule out the burning of waste at all! Options still on the table include:
- Production of Solid recovered Fuel (SRF) [also known as Refuse derived fuel or RDF) – most likely destined to be burnt in a cement kiln (meaning additional transportation from the North East to a cement kiln outside of the region)
- Gasification (a technology also covered by the Waste Incineration Directive)
- Autoclave – followed by further treatment which could include power generation
- and even old school mass burn incineration with energy recovery
The only option the Council dropped was the one which was most popular with the public – anaerobic digestion.
As for the controversy over the democratic engagement that never was, BAN Waste explains:
The issue at last week’s Executive meeting was that we [local campaigners] were meant to have had a 2 month consultation period on this last summer. We were given the document 3 days before Christmas (Dec 22) and asked to respond by Jan 5th! We therefore suspended the Partnership we have the council, and after campaigning in the press and lobbying the scrutiny panel, they recommended we be given a further 4 weeks to be ‘consulted’.
In 2003 the Council Executive agreed not to incinerate waste in the city and the Liberal Democrats promised not to support waste incineration. A survey by the Council in 2006 of the views of the residents of Newcastle firmly rejected waste incineration and in March 2008 Council Officers agreed to provide 8 weeks for BAN Waste to examine and comment on the final waste proposals.
The relationship broke down after officers gave the group a copy of its 65 page report 3 days before Christmas and asked for a response by 5 January – a move described by BAN Waste Chair, Paul Roberts, as “an insult and a disgrace”.
BAN Waste member Nick Fray said:
There is little doubt in our mind that this is a deliberate attempt to exclude community input from the decision making process.
Spokesperson for BAN Waste, Dan Alliband, said:
The waste strategy is the biggest decision Councillors will have to make and will decide the city’s waste policies for the next 20 years. The fact that BAN Waste has been given just 6 days over the Christmas holidays to comment on this complex report is a slap in the face for democracy.
We call on the Scrutiny Panel to recommend to the Executive that the council follow their own guidelines on community consultation and delay a decision until a proper consultation has taken place. By council we mean Lib Dem and Labour councillors, as well as council officers’.
The Scrutiny Panel recommended that the Executive delay making decisions on the scale of residual treatment and the options available to allow for consultation. This recommendation was accepted on the 28th January. The Executive have asked that all submission go to the Scrutiny Panel and a report be drawn up for the Executive on March 13th. This digs into the time available due to the bureaucracy of submissions timescales and the need to compile a report, but hopefully will allow the process to be scrutinised.
To learn more about BAN Waste, visit their website