The Environment Agency has now issued the draft environmental permit for the proposed Battlefield incinerator.
This is an expected development. Environment Agency staff refer to Veolia as its 'customer', the EA has invested in Veolia as part of its pension fund, 2008-9:
see http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0709BQDT-e-e.pdf
and appears to considers it its job to issue permits rather than refuse them.
OBJECTIONS NEED TO BE IN BY TUESDAY 20 APRIL. After Safe Waste in Shropshire complained to the Environment Agency about the short period of time allowed to object and which included the Easter holiday, the EA has 'generously' extended this period by 4 days (2 working days) from the original 16 April! . [Note that this is the 3rd time that public consultations for this proposed facility have been timed over public holidays, presumably to deter credible objection as much as possible.]
Environment Agency consults on Battlefield permit
The Environment Agency is to launch a consultation on its draft decision to issue an environmental permit for an energy from waste facility (EWF) at Battlefield in Shrewsbury.
The Battlefield facility needs a permit from the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2007. This permit will make sure that it operates without causing significant harm to the environment and human health.
We have received an application from Veolia ES Shropshire Ltd for an environmental permit for the facility, which burns waste at high temperatures, using the resulting energy to generate electricity.
Having considered the application and all other relevant information and responses, we now wish to consult the public again before we make a final decision. This will allow people to give us their views on the draft permit and explanatory decision document. The consultation period will last for 20 working days from Friday 19 March to Friday 16 April 2010.
Copies of the draft decision document and the documentation associated with the application can be seen on public registers held at the following locations:
· The Environment Agency office at Riversmeet House, Newtown Industrial Estate, Northway Lane, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, GL20 8JG
· Shropshire Council, Public Protection Department, Shirehall, Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY2 6ND
The documents are also available to view at our office in Shrewsbury:
· The Environment Agency office at Hafren House, Welshpool Road, Shelton, Shrewsbury, SY3 8BB
To make an appointment to inspect these documents free of charge during office hours (9.00 am to 5.00 pm Monday to Friday) call the External Relations Team at Hafren House on 01743 283410 or Shropshire Council’s Public Protection Department on 01743 254157.
Alternatively, people can request an electronic copy of the documents, or talk to a member of staff about the draft permit, by calling External Relations at Hafren House 01743 283410 who can arrange this for you.
The documents may also be seen at Shrewsbury Library or Shrewsbury Reference Library (both at Castle Gates, SY1 2AQ) and at The Lantern, Meadow Farm Drive, Harlescott SY1 4NG.
Any comments on the content of the draft decision document should be made in writing by Friday 16 April 2010 to the Environment Agency, Permit Support Centre, Quadrant 2, PO Box 4209, Sheffield, S9 9BS.
Area Manager, Toni Dumolo says “No final decision has been taken on the question of issuing the permit at this stage. The public’s response to the draft permit and decision is a necessary and important part of the process.
“We will only issue a permit if we are satisfied it contains the necessary conditions and control measures to ensure protection of human health and the environment. Conditions in the permit will also ensure compliance with all relevant EU legislation including strict air emission and monitoring standards for facilities of this type.
“If we decide to issue the permit, this will be only the first stage in our regulation of the facility. When it is up and running, we will monitor its environmental performance, including emissions to air, to ensure that permit conditions are not breached.”
MORE INFORMATION Contact Lyn Fraley or Emily Poyser on 0121 711 5829/5855
(these numbers can also be used during an emergency to contact a duty press officer)
Emily Poyser
Communications Officer (Media)
Environment Agency - Midlands Regional Office
Tel: 0121 711 5855 / 5829
Tel (Internal): 722 5855
Mobile: 07747 472 100
Address: Sapphire East 550 Streetsbrook Road Solihull B91 1QT
www.environment-agency.gov.uk
THE UGLY TRUTH THAT LURKS BEHIND VEOLIA'S 'GREENWASH'
The company that Shropshire Council considers to be a suitably ethical partner for its waste contract is now sponsoring the the Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2010 exhibition. [The previous sponsor was that well-known environmental champion, Shell.] Veolia's track record is particularly sparkling, including in Israeli-occupied Palestine - see the report and call for demonstration, below. Anyone who happens to find themselves in London on 10 April would be welcome. Remember that action from local people played a large part recently in Veolia's getting dumped from being awarded a waste contract in Sandwell, near Birmingham.
Dear Shropshire resident, do we really trust these people to handle our waste responsibly? After all their preferred solution is to burn it in Battlefield, without proper regard to our safety or future finances.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUMP VEOLIA DEMO: SATURDAY 10 APRIL, 2 - 4pm, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
There is an opportunity to open a new front in the Derail (or Dump) Veolia campaign. Veolia is sponsoring the "Veolia Wildlife Photographer of the Year Exhibition" at the Natural History Museum, London, both the 2009 and the 2010 exhibitions. See http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/onlineGallery.do for information on the exhibition.
The exhibition provides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate against Veolia's complicity in Israel's war crimes through their supply of services to the illegal settlements - the tramway and bus services linking settlements to Israel, and the landfill site in occupied Palestine taking settlement refuse. It is worth noting that the tramway connects the Pizgat Ze'ev settlement with West Jerusalem: 600 more houses were announced for Pizgat Ze'ev a few weeks ago, now part of the row between Netanyahu and Obama.
There is also the deal Veolia is making with the Dan bus company over the tramway. Even after five years, when Dan will buy out the tramway contract, Veolia will still be supporting the settlements through its Jewish-only (i.e. apartheid) bus services and the landfill site built on occupied land in the Jordan valley.
The main 2009 exhibition in London ends on 11 April. There will be a Dump Veolia demo outside the Natural History Museum on Saturday 10 April, from 2-4pm, outside the Cromwell Road entrance, on the pavement. If we find there are enough participants we will ask some to cover the Exhibition Road entrance too. The address is Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD; website www.nhm.ac.uk.
Needless to say, the demo will be entirely peaceful. Make sure you don't impede passers by: we are trying to get their support, not annoy them. We will have leaflets to hand out.
The 2010 exhibition at the Natural History Museum is likely to start with an awards ceremony for the competition winners, with an international audience of nature photographers, competition judges and "respected industry figures", probably about 20 October this year. The 2010 exhibition's first day is 23 October.
Dear Shropshire resident, do we really trust these people to handle our waste responsibly? After all their preferred solution is to burn it in Battlefield, without proper regard to our safety or future finances.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUMP VEOLIA DEMO: SATURDAY 10 APRIL, 2 - 4pm, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
There is an opportunity to open a new front in the Derail (or Dump) Veolia campaign. Veolia is sponsoring the "Veolia Wildlife Photographer of the Year Exhibition" at the Natural History Museum, London, both the 2009 and the 2010 exhibitions. See http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/onlineGallery.do for information on the exhibition.
The exhibition provides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate against Veolia's complicity in Israel's war crimes through their supply of services to the illegal settlements - the tramway and bus services linking settlements to Israel, and the landfill site in occupied Palestine taking settlement refuse. It is worth noting that the tramway connects the Pizgat Ze'ev settlement with West Jerusalem: 600 more houses were announced for Pizgat Ze'ev a few weeks ago, now part of the row between Netanyahu and Obama.
There is also the deal Veolia is making with the Dan bus company over the tramway. Even after five years, when Dan will buy out the tramway contract, Veolia will still be supporting the settlements through its Jewish-only (i.e. apartheid) bus services and the landfill site built on occupied land in the Jordan valley.
The main 2009 exhibition in London ends on 11 April. There will be a Dump Veolia demo outside the Natural History Museum on Saturday 10 April, from 2-4pm, outside the Cromwell Road entrance, on the pavement. If we find there are enough participants we will ask some to cover the Exhibition Road entrance too. The address is Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD; website www.nhm.ac.uk.
Needless to say, the demo will be entirely peaceful. Make sure you don't impede passers by: we are trying to get their support, not annoy them. We will have leaflets to hand out.
The 2010 exhibition at the Natural History Museum is likely to start with an awards ceremony for the competition winners, with an international audience of nature photographers, competition judges and "respected industry figures", probably about 20 October this year. The 2010 exhibition's first day is 23 October.
Failed Incinerators - UKWIN issues its Christmas 'hit list'
This cheery information is from an email that Safe Waste in Shropshire recently received from Dr Michael Warhurst, Senior Campaigner at Friends of the Earth.
'Shlomo Dowen at UKWIN (UK Without Incineration Network) http://www.ukwin.org/ has been pulling together a list of victories in 2009 – see below – and it is pretty impressive. It shows how effective local activists can be [ ] when they are provided with the information & support they need. It’s not all over – there are still a lot of projects out there (e.g. http://bit.ly/4Rwyh6),) but there is a feeling of dominos toppling.... and the fight will go on in 2010! Even George Osborne is fighting one:
http://www.northwichguardian.co.uk/news/4796923.Osborne_backs_campaign_against_incinerator/
Derby incinerator turned down at planning - http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Protesters-jubilant-incinerator-plan-goes-smoke/article-1624683-detail/article.html
Surrey dropping incineration - http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=54150§ion=local_authority <http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=54150§ion=local_authority>
Luton dropping out of the waste PFI - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/12/09/luton-borough-council-withdraws-from-bear-pfi-project-in-bedfordshire/ and http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/bed-news/Incinerator-plans-set-to-be.5638065.jp
Rufford (Sherwood Forest) inquiry adjourned until after Easter 2010
North Devon incinerator plans 'mothballed' - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/12/14/north-devon-incinerator-plans-mothballed/
Tockwith, North Yorkshire - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8413255.stm
Telford and Wrekin Council unanimously reject Sita’s waste incinerator proposal - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/12/08/sita-loses-again-as-telford-wrekin-council-rejects-granville-incinerator/
Sita withdraws Ernesettle plans - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/11/09/progress-in-plymouth/
Oxfordshire double victory - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/10/20/big-wins-in-oxfordshire/
Oxfordshire – Sutton Courtenay and Ardley (see above)
(Indefinite?) delays in Hull
Invergordon – http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1358662?UserKey&UserKey <http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1358662?UserKey&UserKey> - but to be appealed http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1498541?UserKey=
Dunbar proposals defeated - http://business.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Campaigners-delighted-as-incinerator-plan.5608678.jp
Cornwall planning victory (to be followed by a victory at the public inquiry next year?!)
Cardiff incinerator plan dropped As a result of this, DEFRA’s list of PFI projects only has 2 projects left for approval with Hull, Derby and Dorset leaving the list in the last few days. Also many approved PFIs are still not built: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/localauth/funding/pfi/projects.htm
'Shlomo Dowen at UKWIN (UK Without Incineration Network) http://www.ukwin.org/ has been pulling together a list of victories in 2009 – see below – and it is pretty impressive. It shows how effective local activists can be [ ] when they are provided with the information & support they need. It’s not all over – there are still a lot of projects out there (e.g. http://bit.ly/4Rwyh6),) but there is a feeling of dominos toppling.... and the fight will go on in 2010! Even George Osborne is fighting one:
http://www.northwichguardian.co.uk/news/4796923.Osborne_backs_campaign_against_incinerator/
Derby incinerator turned down at planning - http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Protesters-jubilant-incinerator-plan-goes-smoke/article-1624683-detail/article.html
Surrey dropping incineration - http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=54150§ion=local_authority <http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=54150§ion=local_authority>
Luton dropping out of the waste PFI - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/12/09/luton-borough-council-withdraws-from-bear-pfi-project-in-bedfordshire/ and http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/bed-news/Incinerator-plans-set-to-be.5638065.jp
Rufford (Sherwood Forest) inquiry adjourned until after Easter 2010
North Devon incinerator plans 'mothballed' - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/12/14/north-devon-incinerator-plans-mothballed/
Tockwith, North Yorkshire - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8413255.stm
Telford and Wrekin Council unanimously reject Sita’s waste incinerator proposal - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/12/08/sita-loses-again-as-telford-wrekin-council-rejects-granville-incinerator/
Sita withdraws Ernesettle plans - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/11/09/progress-in-plymouth/
Oxfordshire double victory - http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/10/20/big-wins-in-oxfordshire/
Oxfordshire – Sutton Courtenay and Ardley (see above)
(Indefinite?) delays in Hull
Invergordon – http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1358662?UserKey&UserKey <http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1358662?UserKey&UserKey> - but to be appealed http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1498541?UserKey=
Dunbar proposals defeated - http://business.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Campaigners-delighted-as-incinerator-plan.5608678.jp
Cornwall planning victory (to be followed by a victory at the public inquiry next year?!)
Cardiff incinerator plan dropped As a result of this, DEFRA’s list of PFI projects only has 2 projects left for approval with Hull, Derby and Dorset leaving the list in the last few days. Also many approved PFIs are still not built: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/localauth/funding/pfi/projects.htm
Surrey County Council drops incineration plans and aims for 70% recyling
Surrey Surrey County Council has recently turned down two proposed incinerators infavour of anaerobic digestion, two small gasification plants and a target of 70%recycling by 2013.[Compare this with Defra's unambitious target of 50% by 2020. Meanwhile, San Francisco's recycling is currently at 72% and the city is aiming for Zero Wasteby 2020!!
http://www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/overview.html?ssi=3]
The report below, from Surrey County Council's website,
http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspages.nsf/LookupWebPagesByTITLE_RTF/Surrey+County+Council+drops+incineration+plans?opendocument points a way forward for all councils that go against incineration.
That definitely needs to include Shropshire!
[We should point out that we would have reservations about gasification, preferring a 'no-burn' solution.]
Come on, Shropshire!
County Council today announced that there are no longer plans to buildEnergy from Waste (EfW) incinerators in Surrey. Outlining the council's new waste strategy plans, Leader of the Council Dr Andrew Povey said: "I am very pleased to announce that we are scrapping plans for any EfW incinerators in Surrey. Today I will be instructing that the planning applications for incinerators at Capel and Trumps Farm be withdrawn.
"With our help, and that of our partners, our residents are now doing so well at producing less waste and recycling more that we are in a position to look at alternative methods of dealing with our waste and saving both money and ourcountryside."
The way to achieve this is by diverting waste from landfill. The practice is not only destructive to our landscape and environment but the taxation on landfill alone currently costs us over £7 million per year. This tax is increasing at an alarming rate and will have almost doubled by 2013. If we don't act now the Surrey taxpayer could be paying as much as £13m annually in landfill tax alone within four years, so our goal is to avoid putting any waste in landfill by then."
The council's new approach to waste will concentrate on reducing the amount of waste Surrey produces, encouraging people to reuse things where they can and recycle as much as possible after that. The new plans will lead to a reductionin the amount of household waste dealt with every year by 35,000 tonnes, enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall 14 times. As a result the county will be making substantial savings in waste disposal costs by 2013. Minimising waste alone will result in estimated savings of £3.5 million per year in disposal costs.
Cabinet Member for the Environment Lynne Hack said: "A key element of the county council's new waste vision is an Eco Park, which would be the first of its kind in the country. It would incorporate a range of waste treatment facilities, an innovation centre to look at and develop the latest technologies and an education centre open to all. "The proposed location is the existing waste management facility at Charlton Lane, Shepperton, which has been in waste management use for many years.
The buildings would be designed sympathetically to fit in with the surrounding area and would look much more attractive than the existing development. There would be a reduction in traffic compared with the existing operation."
The Eco Park would include an anaerobic digester and a gasifier, which would be half the size of the EfW plants originally envisaged for Capel and Trumps Farm." In a gasifier, waste is heated to produce a gas, which can then be burned cleanly at high temperatures to provide energy in a similar way to natural gas. Anaerobic digestion is a natural treatment by which food waste is broken down producing gases, which can be converted into energy. Last year 100,000 tonnes of food were thrown away in Surrey. The council is already working with the district and borough councils on separate food collections, which should be operating throughout the county by the time the digester is ready.
Because of successes in minimising waste and increases in recycling, Surrey requires much smaller plant than the proposed EfW incinerators. Together the gasifier and the anaerobic digester would treat 100,000 tonnes of waste per year, a considerable reduction from the 270,000 tonnes proposed for the EfWincinerators. They would produce enough energy to power 10,000 households, which equates to one fifth of the houses in Guildford. This 'green' energy would be sold to the national grid. The new Eco Park plans would cost £50m, significantly less than the £200m it would have cost to build two EfW incinerators.
Local residents would of course be consulted during the planning process and their views taken into account. Dr Povey concluded: "We are currently recycling about 47% of our waste; our target is to be recycling around 70% by 2013, which will put us among the best performers in the world. By taking this new approach and with this flexible use of new technologies we will be a world leader in dealing with waste. This strategy will reduce the carbon impact and cost less than previous solutions, making it the best value for money for the taxpayer."
http://www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/overview.html?ssi=3]
The report below, from Surrey County Council's website,
http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspages.nsf/LookupWebPagesByTITLE_RTF/Surrey+County+Council+drops+incineration+plans?opendocument points a way forward for all councils that go against incineration.
That definitely needs to include Shropshire!
[We should point out that we would have reservations about gasification, preferring a 'no-burn' solution.]
Come on, Shropshire!
County Council today announced that there are no longer plans to buildEnergy from Waste (EfW) incinerators in Surrey. Outlining the council's new waste strategy plans, Leader of the Council Dr Andrew Povey said: "I am very pleased to announce that we are scrapping plans for any EfW incinerators in Surrey. Today I will be instructing that the planning applications for incinerators at Capel and Trumps Farm be withdrawn.
"With our help, and that of our partners, our residents are now doing so well at producing less waste and recycling more that we are in a position to look at alternative methods of dealing with our waste and saving both money and ourcountryside."
The way to achieve this is by diverting waste from landfill. The practice is not only destructive to our landscape and environment but the taxation on landfill alone currently costs us over £7 million per year. This tax is increasing at an alarming rate and will have almost doubled by 2013. If we don't act now the Surrey taxpayer could be paying as much as £13m annually in landfill tax alone within four years, so our goal is to avoid putting any waste in landfill by then."
The council's new approach to waste will concentrate on reducing the amount of waste Surrey produces, encouraging people to reuse things where they can and recycle as much as possible after that. The new plans will lead to a reductionin the amount of household waste dealt with every year by 35,000 tonnes, enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall 14 times. As a result the county will be making substantial savings in waste disposal costs by 2013. Minimising waste alone will result in estimated savings of £3.5 million per year in disposal costs.
Cabinet Member for the Environment Lynne Hack said: "A key element of the county council's new waste vision is an Eco Park, which would be the first of its kind in the country. It would incorporate a range of waste treatment facilities, an innovation centre to look at and develop the latest technologies and an education centre open to all. "The proposed location is the existing waste management facility at Charlton Lane, Shepperton, which has been in waste management use for many years.
The buildings would be designed sympathetically to fit in with the surrounding area and would look much more attractive than the existing development. There would be a reduction in traffic compared with the existing operation."
The Eco Park would include an anaerobic digester and a gasifier, which would be half the size of the EfW plants originally envisaged for Capel and Trumps Farm." In a gasifier, waste is heated to produce a gas, which can then be burned cleanly at high temperatures to provide energy in a similar way to natural gas. Anaerobic digestion is a natural treatment by which food waste is broken down producing gases, which can be converted into energy. Last year 100,000 tonnes of food were thrown away in Surrey. The council is already working with the district and borough councils on separate food collections, which should be operating throughout the county by the time the digester is ready.
Because of successes in minimising waste and increases in recycling, Surrey requires much smaller plant than the proposed EfW incinerators. Together the gasifier and the anaerobic digester would treat 100,000 tonnes of waste per year, a considerable reduction from the 270,000 tonnes proposed for the EfWincinerators. They would produce enough energy to power 10,000 households, which equates to one fifth of the houses in Guildford. This 'green' energy would be sold to the national grid. The new Eco Park plans would cost £50m, significantly less than the £200m it would have cost to build two EfW incinerators.
Local residents would of course be consulted during the planning process and their views taken into account. Dr Povey concluded: "We are currently recycling about 47% of our waste; our target is to be recycling around 70% by 2013, which will put us among the best performers in the world. By taking this new approach and with this flexible use of new technologies we will be a world leader in dealing with waste. This strategy will reduce the carbon impact and cost less than previous solutions, making it the best value for money for the taxpayer."
Revealed: What Veolia wanted to be kept secret
Nottinghamshire PAIN (People against Incineration) has won a major victory against Veolia in the High Court. Like Safe Waste in Shropshire, they made a request to view the actual figures contained in the Waste Contract with Veolia to see if Nottinghamshire people were getting value for money. Unlike Shropshire Council, Nottinghamshire was willing to let Shlomo Dowen (campaign member and co-ordinator of UKWIN) see the books. Veolia promptly put an injunction on Nottinghamshire Council to stop it. Read the rest for yourselves.......
(However, Shropshire Council has deferred allowing us to see THEIR books until the outcome of the Nottingham case was decided. We are still waiting, Laura Rowley, Head of Resources!)
We also want to know why there is a £2.6 million discrepancy between payments made to Veolia under the Waste Contract and the total of Veolia's 12 monthly invoices. We discovered that just by examining the papers we were allowed to see!
Tuesday, October 06, Nottingham Evening Post
TAXPAYERS in Notts paid nearly £22m to have their household rubbish disposed of in the last financial year.Figures – which also show we threw away 420,000 tonnes of municipal waste last year – have come to light after a High Court battle won by eco-campaigners who wanted full details of Notts County Council's £850m PFI deal with Veolia Environment Services.
Campaigner Shlomo Dowen, from People Against Incineration (Pain), hopes the information may yield evidence he can use at a public inquiry today into plans for an incinerator at Rainworth, also to be run by Veolia.
Mr Dowen, 47, of Forest Town, said he initially made the request because he wanted to find out how many tonnes of waste Veolia has billed the taxpayer for in Notts – and to investigate if we are overpaying. He insists that Rainworth is the wrong site for an incinerator.He said: "It's the wrong site and the wrong technology. "This is a green field site that's to be restored to heath land and would be included as the Sherwood Forest Regional park. "The proposal was put forward at a time when waste in the county was increasing year after year. But in the last eight years the quantity of waste has actually fallen rather than risen, so it's no longer needed."We feel more should be done to reduce our waste and to recycle the compost we waste." We would rather see Notts County Council invest in an anaerobic digester for kitchen waste and taking weekly collections of food waste," he added.
Figures obtained by the Evening Post about the 26-year PFI contract show last financial year it cost the Notts taxpayer:
£32.14 to deal with compost per tonne/unit.
£29.66 to deal with rubbish for landfill per tonne/unit when collected from a person's home.
£36.34 to deal with rubbish for landfill per tonne/unit when collected from a tip.
£59.75 per tonne/unit to deal with recycling collected from a person's home until December 2008. This cost then dropped to £23.07 per tonne/unit once the £14m Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) opened near Mansfield.
Veolia wanted to keep secret the financial details of its contract with Notts County Council for commercial reasons. The council said it wanted to release the details and brought the High Court case last week. Its legal costs will be met by Veolia.
Mick Burrows, council chief executive, said: "We take our responsibility towards our tax-paying public very seriously and being honest, open and transparent is fundamental to that responsibility." We work with many contractors and are very sensitive to commercial interests. However, as a public body, we must ensure we comply with the law and are transparent and accountable."
Broadly speaking, the district and borough councils are responsible for collecting rubbish. The county council is responsible for arranging for the disposal of waste. It also provides the household waste recycling centres, commonly known as tips.The public has the right to inspect the council's accounts during one month every a year.But Veolia took out an injunction against the council releasing the details after it emerged that Mr Dowen was set to obtain copies of the contract. The Audit Commission and Mr Dowen submitted evidence to the High Court in London as "interested parties" and Mr Justice Cranston found in favour of making the details public.
(However, Shropshire Council has deferred allowing us to see THEIR books until the outcome of the Nottingham case was decided. We are still waiting, Laura Rowley, Head of Resources!)
We also want to know why there is a £2.6 million discrepancy between payments made to Veolia under the Waste Contract and the total of Veolia's 12 monthly invoices. We discovered that just by examining the papers we were allowed to see!
Tuesday, October 06, Nottingham Evening Post
TAXPAYERS in Notts paid nearly £22m to have their household rubbish disposed of in the last financial year.Figures – which also show we threw away 420,000 tonnes of municipal waste last year – have come to light after a High Court battle won by eco-campaigners who wanted full details of Notts County Council's £850m PFI deal with Veolia Environment Services.
Campaigner Shlomo Dowen, from People Against Incineration (Pain), hopes the information may yield evidence he can use at a public inquiry today into plans for an incinerator at Rainworth, also to be run by Veolia.
Mr Dowen, 47, of Forest Town, said he initially made the request because he wanted to find out how many tonnes of waste Veolia has billed the taxpayer for in Notts – and to investigate if we are overpaying. He insists that Rainworth is the wrong site for an incinerator.He said: "It's the wrong site and the wrong technology. "This is a green field site that's to be restored to heath land and would be included as the Sherwood Forest Regional park. "The proposal was put forward at a time when waste in the county was increasing year after year. But in the last eight years the quantity of waste has actually fallen rather than risen, so it's no longer needed."We feel more should be done to reduce our waste and to recycle the compost we waste." We would rather see Notts County Council invest in an anaerobic digester for kitchen waste and taking weekly collections of food waste," he added.
Figures obtained by the Evening Post about the 26-year PFI contract show last financial year it cost the Notts taxpayer:
£32.14 to deal with compost per tonne/unit.
£29.66 to deal with rubbish for landfill per tonne/unit when collected from a person's home.
£36.34 to deal with rubbish for landfill per tonne/unit when collected from a tip.
£59.75 per tonne/unit to deal with recycling collected from a person's home until December 2008. This cost then dropped to £23.07 per tonne/unit once the £14m Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) opened near Mansfield.
Veolia wanted to keep secret the financial details of its contract with Notts County Council for commercial reasons. The council said it wanted to release the details and brought the High Court case last week. Its legal costs will be met by Veolia.
Mick Burrows, council chief executive, said: "We take our responsibility towards our tax-paying public very seriously and being honest, open and transparent is fundamental to that responsibility." We work with many contractors and are very sensitive to commercial interests. However, as a public body, we must ensure we comply with the law and are transparent and accountable."
Broadly speaking, the district and borough councils are responsible for collecting rubbish. The county council is responsible for arranging for the disposal of waste. It also provides the household waste recycling centres, commonly known as tips.The public has the right to inspect the council's accounts during one month every a year.But Veolia took out an injunction against the council releasing the details after it emerged that Mr Dowen was set to obtain copies of the contract. The Audit Commission and Mr Dowen submitted evidence to the High Court in London as "interested parties" and Mr Justice Cranston found in favour of making the details public.
HOW TO OBJECT TO THE BATTLEFIELD INCINERATOR
Veolia's incinerator at Chineham, Hampshire, viewed from nearby fields.
Veolia's planning application for a 90,000-ton incinerator at Battlefield is now under consideration by Shropshire Council's planning department.
The registration number is: MS2009/0125/SY and can be viewed at: http://planning.shropshire.gov.uk/PlanAppDisp.asp?RecNum=59315
The hearing, which will be before the new Unitary Authority's Planning Committee, is not expected for several months.
The consultation period officially ends 30 April but you can still object to the proposal, if you have not already done so.
If you feel that you need more information, you can write a very short note or card with your brief reason for objecting and reserve the right to add more details later on. The earlier you write, the better.
Objections should be in writing and delivered by letter or email to:
Mr Malcolm Bell, Head of Planning and Development Control, Shropshire Council, Shirehall, Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/index.nsf/contact?opennavigator&id=planning.921AC90983D3B05880256D9E0031E5D7
REMEMBER TO INCLUDE THE REGISTRATION NUMBER.
If you want to email an objection to us, we will deliver it for you. Just make sure it has your name and full home address on it: safe_waste_shropshire@yahoo.com.
Here are some planning considerations which will be taken seriously by the committee when considering this application.
You can use any or all of these points or, of course, use your own!
Your fears about pollution and dangers to health:
Incineration does not remove waste, it converts it into another form (gas, particulates, ash) and these new forms are typically more hazardous. The fine particulate (less thanPM2.5) pollution, which is typical of incinerator emissions, is an important contributor to heart disease, lung cancer, and an assortment of other diseases, and causes a linear increase in mortality. Particulates from incinerators will be especially hazardous due to the toxic chemicals attached to them. Other pollutants emitted by incinerators include heavy metals and a large variety of organic chemicals. These substances include known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, and substances that can attach to genes, alter behaviour, damage the immune system and decrease intelligence.
Modern incinerators produce fly ash which is much more toxic than in the past, containing large quantities of dioxin-rich material for which there is no safe method of disposal, except vitrification, a method not being used in the UK.
The dangers posed by the disposal of 3,600 tonnes toxic fly ash and the need for transportation of huge quantitites (22,500 tonnes per year) of polluted bottom ash away from the Battlefield site.
The large carbon-footprint of an incinerator
The negative visual impact of a large plant next to the historic Battlefield site and which will also be clearly seen from the town and neighbouring residential areas
The flawed process leading up to the application - lack of Council scrutiny, the 'democracy deficit' in the processes leading up to the awarding of the contract and the poor level of consultation
Fears that incinerator emissions might affect people's health including yours and that of your family
The mismatch between actual falling waste figures, actual rising recyling figures and the claimed need for an incinerator
Concerns that the future costs of such a project could be ultimately borne by the council tax-payer as has happened in other areas such as Nottingham and South Wales when projected costs have fallen short of reality
The lack of consideration of cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives to incineration such as MBT, anaeorobic digestion and plasma-gasification.
The decision to depart from the Shrewsbury Waste Local Plan which precludes 'mass burn incineration' at the Battlefield site
The implications of the transport of hazardous waste from the incinerator near to residential homes and the increased number of lorries visiting the plant at a time when Peak Oil is nearing or has already been reached.
The proximity of an incinerator to the new food enterprise park
The increase in noise levels and distasteful odour
Non-compliance with the waste hierarchy: The proposal does not comply with the waste hierarchy, in that waste incineration should not be used in preference to waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting (including anaerobic digestion).
Help the Campaign
Help us raise awareness - start spreading the word - tell all your friends, family, work colleagues and neighbours.
Lobby all candidates for the new Shropshire Council. Whatever they say, they are allowed to give an indication of their views on incineration and it is important that they understand the need to inform themselves properly, take note of public opinion (strongly against incinerators) and take the appropriate action to stop this proposal.
Please take action TODAY to have your objection considered for this planning application!
Register your e-mail address and/or address with us for further updates and keep on returning for updates to http://www.safewasteshropshire.co.uk/
Ways to help stop the Battlefield Incinerator:
Write to your local councillor/s
Distribute leaflets
Donate money to the campaign
Write to the local press
Veolia's planning application for a 90,000-ton incinerator at Battlefield is now under consideration by Shropshire Council's planning department.
The registration number is: MS2009/0125/SY and can be viewed at: http://planning.shropshire.gov.uk/PlanAppDisp.asp?RecNum=59315
The hearing, which will be before the new Unitary Authority's Planning Committee, is not expected for several months.
The consultation period officially ends 30 April but you can still object to the proposal, if you have not already done so.
If you feel that you need more information, you can write a very short note or card with your brief reason for objecting and reserve the right to add more details later on. The earlier you write, the better.
Objections should be in writing and delivered by letter or email to:
Mr Malcolm Bell, Head of Planning and Development Control, Shropshire Council, Shirehall, Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/index.nsf/contact?opennavigator&id=planning.921AC90983D3B05880256D9E0031E5D7
REMEMBER TO INCLUDE THE REGISTRATION NUMBER.
If you want to email an objection to us, we will deliver it for you. Just make sure it has your name and full home address on it: safe_waste_shropshire@yahoo.com.
Here are some planning considerations which will be taken seriously by the committee when considering this application.
You can use any or all of these points or, of course, use your own!
Your fears about pollution and dangers to health:
Incineration does not remove waste, it converts it into another form (gas, particulates, ash) and these new forms are typically more hazardous. The fine particulate (less thanPM2.5) pollution, which is typical of incinerator emissions, is an important contributor to heart disease, lung cancer, and an assortment of other diseases, and causes a linear increase in mortality. Particulates from incinerators will be especially hazardous due to the toxic chemicals attached to them. Other pollutants emitted by incinerators include heavy metals and a large variety of organic chemicals. These substances include known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, and substances that can attach to genes, alter behaviour, damage the immune system and decrease intelligence.
Modern incinerators produce fly ash which is much more toxic than in the past, containing large quantities of dioxin-rich material for which there is no safe method of disposal, except vitrification, a method not being used in the UK.
The dangers posed by the disposal of 3,600 tonnes toxic fly ash and the need for transportation of huge quantitites (22,500 tonnes per year) of polluted bottom ash away from the Battlefield site.
The large carbon-footprint of an incinerator
The negative visual impact of a large plant next to the historic Battlefield site and which will also be clearly seen from the town and neighbouring residential areas
The flawed process leading up to the application - lack of Council scrutiny, the 'democracy deficit' in the processes leading up to the awarding of the contract and the poor level of consultation
Fears that incinerator emissions might affect people's health including yours and that of your family
The mismatch between actual falling waste figures, actual rising recyling figures and the claimed need for an incinerator
Concerns that the future costs of such a project could be ultimately borne by the council tax-payer as has happened in other areas such as Nottingham and South Wales when projected costs have fallen short of reality
The lack of consideration of cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives to incineration such as MBT, anaeorobic digestion and plasma-gasification.
The decision to depart from the Shrewsbury Waste Local Plan which precludes 'mass burn incineration' at the Battlefield site
The implications of the transport of hazardous waste from the incinerator near to residential homes and the increased number of lorries visiting the plant at a time when Peak Oil is nearing or has already been reached.
The proximity of an incinerator to the new food enterprise park
The increase in noise levels and distasteful odour
Non-compliance with the waste hierarchy: The proposal does not comply with the waste hierarchy, in that waste incineration should not be used in preference to waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting (including anaerobic digestion).
Help the Campaign
Help us raise awareness - start spreading the word - tell all your friends, family, work colleagues and neighbours.
Lobby all candidates for the new Shropshire Council. Whatever they say, they are allowed to give an indication of their views on incineration and it is important that they understand the need to inform themselves properly, take note of public opinion (strongly against incinerators) and take the appropriate action to stop this proposal.
Please take action TODAY to have your objection considered for this planning application!
Register your e-mail address and/or address with us for further updates and keep on returning for updates to http://www.safewasteshropshire.co.uk/
Ways to help stop the Battlefield Incinerator:
Write to your local councillor/s
Distribute leaflets
Donate money to the campaign
Write to the local press
HOW BIG WOULD THE BATTLEFIELD INCINERATOR BE?
'A giant landfill in the sky' - Chineham incinerator picture by Safe Waste in ShropshireYou can get an idea of the huge size of the proposed 90,000 ton Battlefield incinerator with its 80 metre (200 feet) high chimney by looking at this picture of Veolia's incinerator in Chineham, Hampshire. It is the same size and of a similar style to the proposed Battlefield incinerator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)