www.telfordPAIN.co.uk

Telford and Wrekin Council unanimously reject Sita’s waste incinerator proposal

In an article entitled Telford & Wrekin Council rejects Granville incinerator the BBC reports from the planning committee meeting as all eight members of the Plans Board voted to reject Sita’s Granville incinerator proposal.

Telford & Wrekin Head of Planning Michael Barker took two hours and five minutes to outline his recommendations – concluding that, on-balance, councillors should reject the application.

Mr Barker claimed the incinerator is unnecessary for the treatment of local waste and that it would be bad for the look of the area. He suggested that there are better sites elsewhere in Telford.

Mr Barker believed an incinerator at Granville would prevent the council from developing the area in the way they want in the future, and that it could have an impact on Telford’s existing recycling plans.

According to BBC Shropshire’s Andy Giddings, the recommendation to councillors from council officers is to refuse Sita UK planning permission for five main reasons:
* it’s not needed for the treatment of local waste;
* it would be bad for the look of the area;
* it would prevent them from developing the area in the way they want in the future;
*it could have an impact on Telford’s existing recycling plans; and
*there are better sites elsewhere.

Robert Saunders, Co-ordinator of Telford Friends of the Earth, said:

We congratulate the Plans Board councillors for this positive decision to reject an incinerator and their comments supporting a move to far higher levels of recycling and composting.

The report made by Michael Barker, Head of Planning & Transport, highlighted the Council’s intentions to significantly increase recycling and the opportunity to treat food waste in an anaerobic digester.

We are however concerned at comments that there are preferable sites elsewhere in Telford. Telford Friends of the Earth opposes incineration at any location in Telford & Wrekin and also Shropshire.

We positively support introducing a weekly food waste collection service in Telford for anaerobic digestion – enabling the sustainable production of heat and power and also a soil conditioner that can benefit our local farmers.

The Council report highlighted the development of new anaerobic digestion capacity locally, for example at Gnosall, Staffordshire, and Harper Adams, Edgmond.

Friends of the Earth has been campaigning locally for many years to boost recycling and composting rates to levels that are already achieved elsewhere in Britain and abroad.

Please note the coverage in the Shropshire Star which anticipated the Plans Board decision.

Vision 2026
It is worth keeping in clear view the Telford & Wrekin Partnership refreshed Vision 2026 for “a sustainable green community”:

We want the Borough to lead the way as a ‘green community’ following the principle of ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’. It will be a place with the highest quality sustainable environment…and local communities are living a more sustainable way of life. Our approach to recycling and the reuse of materials will make us a national leader – a zero-waste community.

The Shropshire star is reporting Joy as burner bid is binned as:

Thousands of campaigners were celebrating today after winning their battle against controversial plans for an incinerator in Telford.

Planners last night unanimously threw out the Sita UK scheme for the waste plant saying it was in the wrong place and would ruin the landscape. The proposals were for an energy-from-waste plant to run 24 hours, seven days a week, next to the Granville landfill site at Redhill. The incinerator would have dealt with 62,000 tonnes of waste.

The Telford & Wrekin Council’s website is calling attention to planning officers’ recommendation to refuse planning permission for SITA’s proposed incinerator near the Granville Landfill Site, Grange Lane, Redhill, Telford.

The decision on the application by SITA UK Ltd will be made at a special meeting of the Council’s Plans Board on Monday 7 December 2009 at 6pm.

A report to councillors highlights a number of reasons for officers recommending the plans are refused.

These include:· The scheme would encroach into the Green Network and be visually harmful to the open character of the urban fringe;· It would have a negative impact upon the future recreation value of the area once the landfill site has been restored to landscaped green space;· The scheme has the potential to undermine Government and council objectives of minimising waste and would prejudice the progress of a preferred waste management strategy for the borough.· The proposed development would be premature to any emerging waste strategy and policies and there is sufficient capacity elsewhere in the West Midlands to process the Borough’s waste in the short term until a strategy is produced.· Even if there were a need, officers consider that there are preferable alternative sites.

SITA’s application is for a plant that would process around 62,000 tonnes of waste per year on land next to the Community Recycling Centre and landfill site at Granville. The proposed incinerator would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The Council has received over 250 letters of objection from local residents, and a petition of 58 signatures against the scheme. Objections have also been received from Friends of the Earth, TelfordPAIN local action group, local Parish Councils and MPs Mark Pritchard and David Wright. Local residents were particularly concerned about potentially harmful emissions from the chimney.
Council Leader Andrew Eade said: “The Council has to produce a waste management strategy for the borough to help reduce the amount of waste produced, increase recycling and only consider landfill as a last resort.
“EfW facilities are just one of the options and in pursuing a strategy we have said we will be looking at various technologies with the principal aims of minimising waste and maximising recycling.
“Until we do, officers consider that there is enough capacity at other waste treatment facilities in the West Midlands that could take Telford & Wrekin’s municipal waste in the short term.
“This application has helped raise many issues on the future of waste disposal for the borough and we now have the opportunity to explore all the viable alternatives in more detail.”

TelfordPAIN welcome the recent report by the Health Protection Agency (HPA) on incinerator emissions, but feel that the HPA should not be pressurised by the waste industry into stating that mass burn incineration is “ safe “. The report doesn’t so much protect the health of the population as the health of the waste incineration industry!

Report shows that incinerators do have emissions adding to local air pollution

The report shows that incinerators do have emissions which add to local air pollution, and in the case of particulates, it admits that there is still considerable scientific uncertainty as to the precise health impacts of particulate emissions, particularly the role of different sizes of particles from different sources.

Do not be “taken in” by Sita’s PR machine

Telford residents should not be ‘taken in’ by Sita’s press release. The Mass burn incineration plant proposed by Sita at Granville will cause air pollution with the associated health risks. Nano-particles released by incineration are more dangerous than those from other combustion sources – they release neurotoxic metals, dioxins and furins. These nano-particles are NOT efficiently captured by pollution control devices. They travel long distances, remain suspended for long periods of time, and enter the food chain. Telford residents will have to live with this incineration plant and it’s consequences for the next 25 years or more.

Sita’s Teeside incinerator shut down by serious fire

The report refers to “well run incinerators”. TelfordPAIN would like to ask Sita for assurances that the plant that they are proposing to built at Granville will not suffer the same fate as their incinerator plant at Haverton Hill, Teeside, which had a serious fire in August causing extensive damage that shut it down. Industry experts have advised TelfordPAIN that incinerator plant breakdowns like this can cause electrical failure within the plant which in turn can result in huge volumes of toxic pollution being released into the atmosphere. Telford residents are extremely concerned that the same does not happen here, and if it did, what measures would Sita have in place to assure local residents that they are safe from the harmful health effects of these emissions?

Sita intend burning commercial waste at Granville

Sita have made it clear to TelfordPAIN that in the absence of a contract for household waste with Telford & Wrekin Council, they intend burning commercial waste in the incinerator if they are successful in being granted planning permission. Telford residents that we speak to are extremely concerned about Sita’s plans. For Sita’s representative to say that they are “ comfortable” that a Health Impact Assessment is not required at this stage is irresponsible. TelfordPAIN will certainly continue to demand an independent Health Impact Assessment.

Professor Connett slams mass burn incineration

Professor Paul Connett, an eminent international campaigner against mass burn incineration visited the area recently to give a presentation to local campaigners. He made it quite clear from his research covering existing incineration plants in several countries that “ mass burn incineration of municipal waste causes air pollution with associated health risks, creates toxic ash which will need to be transported away from Telford by road or rail to a certified disposal site, and causes massive CO2 emissions”

TelfordPAIN continue to campaign against Sita’s outdated technology

TelfordPAIN’s ongoing campaign against incineration is focussed on demonstrating what an outdated idea incineration is – bad for the climate, bad for resource efficiency and a expensive rip-off for Telford tax payers. There are far better, healthier, more cost effective ways of dealing with Telford’s waste rather than burning it. It’s time the waste industry and their PR consultants woke up to the fact that this outdated technology has had its day.

Formed in October ’08, we are group of concerned local residents living in the Telford area who care about our local environment and the air our children breathe. Our purpose is to raise awareness and stop the construction of the proposed waste Incinerator which is to be built adjacent to the existing Granville Landfill Site, less than 2 miles north-east of Telford Town Centre.

TelfordPAIN has enjoyed good press and TV coverage since its inception and continues to campaign and look for fresh, innovative ways of getting its campaign message across to the Telford public.

But incineration makes sense – doesn’t it?
When you first hear about household waste incineration it seems like a good idea. It promises to rid Telford of leaking landfills and to produce energy as well. It seems like a win-win situation. For a municipal official beleaguered with the responsibility for a mountain of household waste coming at him or her on a daily basis it appears to offer a quick fix solution, with little or no modification of the existing infrastructure for picking up rubbish. For a council with demanding landfill targets to meet, the modern waste-to-energy incinerator looks like a perfect political escape plan.

Your own investigation will soon reveal a different story!
It is only when you spend time looking below the surface appeal of these facilities that you realise the huge backward step they represent, environmentally, socially, economically and from the point of view of moving towards a sustainable society.

The incineration of household waste produces toxins and dioxins which are hazardous to health, and toxic ash which has to be transported away to specialised dumps.

Dr. Paul Connett is a professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, USA. He has researched waste management issues with a special emphasis on the dangers posed by incineration and the safer and more sustainable non-burn alternatives for many years.Dr. Connett says, “Far from it being the universally proven technology claimed by its promoters, the incineration of municipal waste with energy recovery has been an experiment which after 20 years has left the citizens of industrialised countries with a legacy of unacceptably high levels of dioxins and related compounds intheir babies, their tissues, their food and in wild life.Moreover, as they have sought air pollution control devices to capture the extremely toxic by-products of combustion, the resulting residues have become more problematic and costly to handle, dispose and contain.”

Dr Connett argues that for "An Energy from Waste Facility", read "Refuse & Waste Incinerator" & for "Refuse & Waste Incinerator" read "Chemical Reactor"

He goes on to point out that when burning fossil fuels to generate power, the chemistry of the combustion process & emmissions is complex but understood. In terms of burning waste, then the complex chemistry varies with the waste content variation & other fuels, & so cannot be predictable. Further, the combustion process & temperatures break down the many complex molecular structures present in waste, which can & do recombine to form new compounds not originally present in the original waste.

Together, we can make a difference!Join our campaign to stop the Telford incinerator!

To read more from Dr Paul Connett, click here.

David Wright MP has revealed figures showing a massive scale of opposition to the incinerator proposal at Granville. He is working with local opposition group Telfordpain on the issue.

The Telford MP has conducted a postal survey in Priorslee and St.Georges and has received 412 responses, a substantial return and letters are still arriving at his office in Dawley at a rate of 10 to 15 a day.

Out of those surveyed 79.1% said they were opposed to the incinerator plan and a massive 95% want a comprehensive health impact assessment.

David Wright MP said
“I sent out a very balanced letter to local residents asking for their views on the Granville energy from waste incinerator and they have responded with a resounding no to the proposal.

“I am giving people until after Christmas to send back their surveys and then I will be presenting my findings to borough council planning chiefs who have assured me that they will take the responses into account during their deliberations.

“The message from the people of Priorslee and St.Georges is clear – we don’t want the incinerator here!”

IMMEDIATE ACTION IS REQUIRED BEFORE THIS ‘SPECULATIVE’ PLANNING APPLICATION FROM SITA LTD IS CONSIDERERED BY THE COUNCIL. PUT YOUR OBJECTIONS IN WRITING!

STEP ONE.

Help us raise awareness - start spreading the word - tell all your friends, family, work colleagues and neighbours action is needed today to have your objection considered for this planning application!

STEP TWO.

Put your objections to the Principle Planning Officer Kate Stephens who is dealing with this planning application (Ref W2008/1083). Objections should be presented either by email or in writing.

E-mail: Kate Stephens

Write: Miss K Stephens, Planning Officer, Major Projects, Telford & Wrekin Council, Darby House, TF34LB

Please ensure that you submit your own planning objections. As a guide but not for direct inclusion your objections may be based on the following;


*Objection towards the potential human health impact:
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.

*Objection to the lack of public awareness and consultation for this Major Development: – Duty to Notify as per Statement of Community Involvement.

*Objection to the increase in heavy traffic in local area: Resulting from both waste being delivered and residue being removed from site.

*Objection to the increase in noise levels and distasteful odour

*Objection towards 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).

*Objection towards non-compliance with the National Waste Strategy: The May 2007 National Waste Strategy encourages Local Authorities to use anaerobic digestion for biodegradable waste. This is based on recent research demonstrating “that anaerobic digestion has significant environ-mental benefits over other options including incineration. The building of a waste incinerator is bound to have a detrimental impact on recycling and composting rates.

*Objection to the lack of Need: No convincing evidence of need is provided by the applicant. In fact, the figures provided by the applicant demonstrate that any incinerator would have to rely upon either Waste imported from outside the County, in violation of the proximity principle, and/or upon Commercial and Industrial Waste.

*Objection on the potential to pollute waters: Serious concerns regarding the prospect of irreversible damage befalling the aquifer (drinking water) and the potential contamination of ground water and fisheries. A more cautious approach to protecting water safety should be adopted.

*Objection based on the impact towards Nature Conservation: Inadequate attention has been given to the application’s potential negative impacts on local nature habitats and biodiversity.

*Objection over the lack of coordination with neighbouring Local Authorities: The Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes to RSS (July 2008) Policy 37 require waste planning authorities “to make provision for waste management capacity equal to the amount of waste generated and requiring management in their areas”. Planning for overcapacity cannot be justified as either prudent or sustainable. Unsubstantiated assumptions about the availability of suitable residual matter should not be allowed to form the basis of a decision on this planning application. Sita have failed to provide credible evidence of need for this facility.

*Objection to the proposal on aesthetic grounds: Such architectural exhibitionism is obviously out of place in the site’s rural location. A 65m flume would spoil the local country environment asthetics.

*Objections to ground instability: Anecdotal and photographic evidence suggests there has been significant ground shifts in close proximity to the proposed site, and former mine workers report the presence of shafts, seams and tunnels located beneath the proposed site. No evidence has been supplied to suggest that these have been investigated, and no mitigations have been proposed. The proposals are therefore inadequate to deserve planning permission.

*Objection on employment grounds: Recycling has the potential to create ten times as many jobs as the proposed waste incinerator.

STEP THREE.

Sign and return MP Mark Pritchard's petition


STEP FOUR.


Register your e-mail address with us for further updates and keep on returning for updates.