Sponsored by
Fury over incinerator ahead of crunch talks
CAMPAIGNERS have reacted with fury after plans for a controversial incinerator were recommended for approval ahead of a crunch meeting.
Politicians are set to rule on a bid by energy firm Waste Recycling Group (WRG) to build a 300,000-tonne-a-year incinerator near Calvert.
A report released ahead of a County Hall meeting on Tuesday has described the application as ‘the most important this committee has ever had to take’.
Vale MP John Bercow yesterday revealed he has written to communities secretary Eric Pickles calling for a review, and said the battle is ‘far from over’.
Mr Bercow told the Herald: “The incinerator and its 315ft chimney would produce thousands of tonnes of hazardous waste that would have a devastating impact on the local environment and up to 30,000 people in Buckinghamshire.
“Furthermore, the local transport infrastructure is not sufficient to cope with the additional traffic.”
He said he had requested Mr Pickles reviews the scheme, stating: “I consider this battle to be far from over, and I will continue to campaign with (campaign group) SAVI and local people against this damaging proposal.”
District councillor Jackie Phipps, Conservative. also hit out, stating: “A lot ofthe arguments against HS2 apply to this application as well, yet the county council is opposing HS2 and supporting this.”
And county councillor Michael Edmonds, Conservative, said: “I shall be trying to persuade my colleagues not to approve it.
“I think there’s no proven need for it. My biggest concern would be that this is a facility being provided in the north of the county to facilitiate the whole of the county.”
A 139-page report from County Hall planning officer David Periam has ruled that there is a need for the plant, which would be at Greatmoor Farm and the Calvert Landfill Site.
Mr Periam concluded: “The application will inevitably impact most greatly on those living in and around the application site and on the routes to and from it and on the local enviroment. I have sought to examine those potential impacts above and in most areas have concluded that the impacts are acceptable or can be made so through the provision of conditions attached to any planning permission.”
Aylesbury Vale District Council has objected to the bid.
Tuesday’s development control committee meeting will be held at Stoke Mandeville Stadium, in Guttman Road, at 10am.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Aylesbury
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 18 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 24 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 14 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
towndweller
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 03:44 PMInteresting ......I wonder why the "moderator" has kicked in.....? Bucks Herald ??
towndweller
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 12:37 PMHmmm not all quite as black and white as colinjones suggests and it also seems strange the Cement Industry are environmental villians wanting to cut costs etc and yet consuming plus 1m MTS of waste per annum - all under the same WID imposts................... REF www.letsrecycle.com..Incineration According to Defra forecasts made under the Labour government, energy from waste is expected to account for 25% of municipal waste by 2020 but less than the 34% by 2015 which was anticipated in 2000. The majority of this would be through traditional incineration and energy recovery which is widely seen within the waste management, local authority and banking sectors as the most proven and reliable technology. Incinerators, sometimes referred to as mass-burn or direct combustion, usually have a role within a local authority strategy in the UK which requires a specific level of recycling and residual waste going for incineration and energy recovery. This is driven largely by the need to divert material from ladnfill – the UK has long-depended on sending residual waste to landfill rather than for energy recovery through incinerators. Opponents of plants suggest that incineration will reduce recycling but the waste management sector would counter this by saying that there is room for growth in recycling rates and that some materials are recovered from the incinerator ash. One of the UK’s largest energy from waste plants will open this year on the south side of the river Thames at Belvedere, London. This, as with many other plants, will be by an incinerator process using a moving grate, which works on the principle akin to the penny machines found in amusement arcades where coins can tumble down a layer and fall off. The incinerator grate sees the waste continually entering and being burnt on it and residues in the form of ash falling down at the end. Moving grate Moving grate processes have the advantage that pre-treatment of the waste is usually not required. Much of an incinerator plant is built around emissions reduction and pollution abatement and control. Typically abatement plant will be installed which will consist of flue gas recirculation with the input of ammonia or equivalent. The flue gases are neutralised by scrubbing in a solution of lime and water. Activated carbon injection systems can also minimise flue gas emissions. The gases also pass through bag filters. Incinerators are regulated under the Waste Incineration Directive which is implemented through Environmental Permitting Regulations in England and Wales. Health impacts The issue of health impacts still emerges as a topic of debate for new incinerators and some other energy from waste facilities. The plants are regulated by the Environment Agency and have to meet the requirements of the Waste Incineration Directive. Defra has noted that to the UK Health Protection Agency, the incineration of MSW accounts for less than 1% of UK emissions of dioxins, and are significantly less than the amount of dioxins released into the atmosphere on bonfire night or from accidental fires. The combined emissions of nitrous oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10) and volatile organic carbon (VOC) from the all of the UK’s EfW facilities are significantly lower than that emitted by transport and other major industries. The Environment Agency has said that the Waste Incineration Directive (commonly known as WID) aims to limit the risks that waste incineration poses to the environment and human health. The Agency states: “There are a large number of waste incinerators in England and Wales, ranging from small laboratory incinerators to large operations that burn household waste. Incinerators burn waste at very high temperatures, which turns the waste to ashes. The directive also applies to co-incinerators, such as combustion plants and cement works which burn waste as a fuel. Some wastes are exempt from the requirements of the directive.” It adds: “Waste incinerator operators have improved their environmental performance greatly in recent years. They used to be the largest producers of harmful substances called dioxins, but these days, they're among the lowest. New rules like the Waste Incineration Directive aim to keep up these improvements, so we limit the risks that waste incineration poses to the environment and human health.” Concerns Some critics of energy from waste and especially incinerators would disagree with this view on health concerns. One of the main groups opposing energy from waste plants is the UK Without Incineration Network. It argues that the incineration of household waste: • Depresses recycling and wastes resources • Releases greenhouse gasses • Is often forced through against strong public opposition • Relies on exaggerating future quantities of waste instead of strongly increased recycling and composting • Creates toxic emissions and hazardous ash • Poses significant health risks
Oldkingkole
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 08:00 PMNIMBY's and FRISBY's Fine Right In Someonelses Back Yard? The hearing today has posponed a decision. That is because the quantities of waste were uncertain and the FRISBY's from the south of the county had forced a burden on all by wanting it driven all the way up on the counties roads That was to be done with a team of 25 drivers hauling 40 tonne lorries day in day out up and down 8 times a day. A grotesque solution. it is not true that the protesters have no realistic answer to the waste problem. They have for 6 years been promoting clean economic alternatives. But the council got into bed with WRG years ago and will not, even on Valentines day, make any effort to look out from under the covers at better solutions.
ColinJones
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 07:58 PMWith respect, RedKite, every unit of electricity generated by a waste to energy plant will be one less unit generated by fossil fuelled power stations. That's because it is written into law that National Grid has to buy every unit that waste to energy plants generate. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. .Secondly, if you claim to know anything about cement producers using secondary fuels you would know that environmentalists have been implacably opposed for decades to burning waste to produce cement. A dedicated waste to energy plant allows far more control over what is burnt, when, what with, and at what temperature. All the cement manufacturers are trying to do is cut their energy bills. They have absolutely no interest in the environment and will do whatever they can get away with. To Johnny Heartbreaker I would say you only have to look at RedKite's response to realise that some people oppose absolutely everything on principle. For RedKite to suggest as an alternative (burning waste to produce cement) something that is so vehemently opposed by other objectors and protestors lacks any credibility at all. In the 1980s I was involved in the dismantling of a waste incinerator in Sheffield which was designed to supply a district heating system in a very large council estate. The incinerator was closed because it was unsafe and a hazard to health. Since those days, incineration has been developed much further and is now a safe and environmentally sound option for disposing of waste that would otherwise have gone to landfill. Waste is no longer burnt, it is incinerated at very high temperatures which destroy everything that is harmful. There is a very small residue of stable ash which is easily disposed of. But the major bonus of the new technology is that the energy produced by the incineration process is used to generate clean energy. The law dictates that National Grid must buy this energy and make a corresponding reduction in the energy generated by burning fossil fuels. So it's winwin. Plants like the one proposed for Calvert operate safely and economically across Europe and are considered as a strong contribution to cutting the previously insatiable demand for landfill and generating low carbon green electricity. Why not here? The professional objectors will be along in a few minutes with the same old answers and no viable alternatives.
RedKite
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 05:13 PMFor the record I was an objector to the Arla development, I have never objected to an Aylesbury by-pass.... and I question the value of the proposed waste to energy plant and if Aylesbury Vale is my back yard that makes me in some eyes, a NIMBY. Firstly the construction and running of this 300,000 MT pa waste to energy plant will have absolutely no significant impact whatsoever on the UK’s coal fired electricity generation – that is a real non-argument in my opinion. In reality this type of project is a glossed up incineration plant trying to justify its development. For information normal coal fired power stations cannot act as incinerators as they do not burn at high enough temperatures to deal with the “nasties” contained in the plastics, papers, rubber etc AND the organic waste disposals (hospital waste etc) that will also be introduced. They also do not have the material handling systems to be able to handle RDF (Refuse Derived Fuels) and SLF (Secondary Liquid Fuels)...both containing heavy metals, toxins etc. I do not in principle object to managed and logical change but I do object to imposed inconsiderate change particularly when impacting on the environment and the communities. There are far more logical locations for this type of development but they would cost more money (or be less profit generating), they are called Brownfield sites and are of higher profit margin potential for the developers than over development of Greenfield agricultural sites developed under a change of use banner ie agricultural to industrial (such as Arla). In answer to previous questions – yes this waste can be used to generate energy as a fuel in other established industries, already licensed as co-incinerators under the WID (waste incineration directive)....they are established and existing combustion and cement plants which burn waste as a fuel at approx 4-500 degrees higher than power stations and additionally encapsulate the toxic waste ashes into the cement clinker....a double benefit. A waste to energy plant still has to dispose of the concentrated toxic ashes. The cement industry has been developing this RDF & SLF burn technology over the last 5-10 years and has already considerably reduced its coal burn requirements globally. Solid Fuels Power plants opt for the Biomass fuel alternatives primarily due to burn temperatures and WID licensing issues and still also have an ash disposal issue to deal with after burn.
Johnny Heartbreaker
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 03:18 PMHaving read all the comments posted prior to mine perhaps, for me at least, the most salient question (and one raised by Colin Jones) surely has to be: Is there a viable , workeable and sustainable alternative method of turning waste into energy, which would satisfy both sides in this debate? I would be interested to read others commentsthoughtssuggestions on this question.
ColinJones
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 12:24 PMJR, you need to look at the people who object to, and protest against anything new. They tend to be the same people. Some of the people who protested against the by-pass are among those who objected to against the Arla dairy scheme. Some of the same people are objecting to the waste to energy scheme at Calvert. They just object, object, object to any change. It doesn't matter how beneficial that change is, they just object on principle. Had the by-pass gone ahead, it would have been built by now and Aylesbury would have been relieved of much of its through traffic. Tring Road would certainly be a better place to live. But thanks to objectors, the much-needed by-pass didn't get built and the residents of Tring Road and other parts of Aylesbury have to suffer the daily onslaught of heavy traffic and its consequences. Now they are objecting to the waste to energy scheme. The trouble is, they object but never consider what will happen if the scheme does not go ahead. The landfill sites are almost full and no new ones are available. EU Directives mean that we have a landfill tax that is rising year on year. We have to find an environmentally sound alternative to landfill, and the waste to energy scheme is it. But the objectors will still object, object, object without ever providing any viable alternative.
JR
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 09:32 PMAnd how do you work that one out Colin? And #5, the air quality is so poor around the Tring road that my neighbours were forced to move so their kids could play in their garden without using inhalers. I believe there are now 3 areas around Aylesbury where the air quality is so poor that AVDC have been forced to produce an action plan - Tring Road (around the junction with Oakfield), Friarage road and the gyratory.
ColinJones
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 08:35 PMThe people who complain about "toxic air on Tring Road" may well be the same people who objected to the proposed Aylesbury by-pass in the 1990s. The result of their protest was more "toxic air on Tring Road".
WhatsThePoint
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 02:16 PM"Toxic air on Tring Road!" Oh you do make me laugh JR, exaggerating everything as if AylesburyAVDC couldn't possibly get any worse and you personally suffer at every turn. Although Aylesbury's toxic fumes do seem to make their way onto these comment sections most days, especially when new businesses are coming to town.
RedKite
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 06:24 PMRight on cue Colin Jones...it's the Nimby's....... yeah right. The most efficient form of electricity generation with lowest (greenest) emissions is Nuclear Power. Please enlighten us with how much generation kwh you consider this incinerator will contribute with 300,000 MTS per year of waste and at what cost. The majority of coal fired power stattions are 1,000 - 2,000 MW plus.....Drax is 3,600 MW...........what level of contribution to the countries needs do you think these waste to energy plants will contribute...............Just how much of a gate fee will AVDC pay WRG to take this waste....it does not come free. Local Authorities are just waking up to this fact and just how much London waste do you think Bucks and surounding counties are dealing with ?
ColinJones
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 02:25 PMWhat the selfish NIMBYs conveniently ignore is that the alternative to the waste-to-energy plant would be environmentally much worse. If the refuse went to landfill it would generate far more potent greenhouse gas emissions and take up storage space that we are rapidly running out of. So there is a huge benefit in terms of reducing greenhouse gases and additional benefit in avoiding further damage to the environment with new landfill sites. . In addition, the waste will not just be incinerated, it will be turned into energy, resulting in a reduction in fossil-fuelled electricity generation and a further reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Anyone who genuinely cares about the environment and about reducing the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change should enthusiastically support this proposal.
JR
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 01:24 PM"bring on the wind turbines next they'll replace the trees nicely." Especially if they paint the masts brown and the vanes green ! How about they build the incinerator in the bowels of pooley's folly? The lift shafts would make great chimneys and any toxic fumes would add very little to the toxic air we already have to suffer along the Tring Road.
RedKite
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 11:08 AMWhere have we heard all this before....oh yes ARLA Aston Clinton development...not wanted by the community but imposed by AVDC....and this a much smaller project...........This council does not listen to the people they are supposed to represent. Oh but yes they're only Nimby's...isn't that what will be said.............. Let's ignore the Environmental destruction, overloaded infrastructure, local community destruction, increased traffic movements (and this is only a small fraction of what Arla will bring), town centre decay, loss of facilities...........but hang on they're creating half a dozen jobs aren't they........bring on the wind turbines next they'll replace the trees nicely.
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.