Hundreds of people packed into Buckland Village Hall so that two consultations had to be held telling villagers about the potential for a waste incinerator being built near their homes under the Buckinghamshire County Council's Waste Development Plan Document.

College Road, near Aston Clinton, has been allocated as a preferred location for a number of waste facilities including the controversial Energy From Waste facility which would require an incinerator with a chimney between 100 and 120 metres tall.

A new protest group has been formed – Aylesbury Chiltern Resistance to Incinerator Development (ACRID) – which is warning people that the consultation period is nearly over for residents to submit their views to BCC. The closing date is August 3.

ACRID wants people not just from Aston Clinton and Buckland to get involved in the protest, but also from surrounding villages that they say will be affected by smoke and fumes if the plans are approved.

At the meeting last Thursday residents reacted angrily to the proposals saying that they felt Aston Clinton had already been put upon enough as it is with the possibility of more than 9,000 homes planned for the south of Aylesbury.

Nigel Hayward, chairman of ACRID, said: "We believe these plans are unsound and we are very disturbed that BCC has done little to make them known. We are concerned that these are not the actions of a council supposedly accountable to its citizens.

"BCC has also chosen a curious time to hold their consultation. The schools have just broken up and many people will be away on holiday. Only they can say whether that is a coincidence.

"What is clear is that the incinerator will be a blight on the landscape, lead to considerable traffic congestion on the A41 with hundreds of heavy lorries visiting the site each day and despite assurances from manufacturers will be a potential health risk."

Bill Chapple, deputy leader of Bucks County Council and district councillor for Aston Clinton, said that while he had to adhere to BCC's final decision, he would continue to fight the corner of the people he represents.

He said: "It's obvious by the number present that it's a tremendous concern to the people I represent.

"People are still thinking about incinerators that were around 20 years ago. Nowadays they are much more effective and what would be coming out of the incinerator is a cloud of steam.

"However, I will do my very best to put forward the views of the people I represent and I will take the issues up through the summer period on their behalf."

We want to know what you think about the proposals - click here to send us your thoughts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of your comments so far:

I am writing to you to express my opinion that it is sheer madness to commit precious council resources in an extensive procurement exercise for the putative construction of an Energy from Waste incinerator at College Road near Aston Clinton BEFORE a full independent and impartial review of the health risks have been undertaken. This is particularly so given that there is controversy about the health risks of such incinerators.

Rather than writing an "Angry of Buckland" letter, I have chosen an alternative form of satirical expression.

Dr Alan Taylor C.Phys., M.Inst.P.

I preface this with a quotation from Tolkein.

Three rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,

Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,

Nine for Mortal Men Doomed to die,

One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne

In the land or Mordor where the shadows lie.

One Ring to bind them all, One Ring to find them,

One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

A Midsummer's Nightmare

Dramatis Personae:

Puck and Ariel two who patrol the cusp of the dreams of humanity.

Ariel: Hail fellow! Well met!

Puck: And of you, though sore vexed am I, … this night…

Ariel: Friend what stew brews in your cauldron of dreams?

Puck: There, 'tis broth, most bitter. Fool was I to look again in the Palantir of time.

And, there to see most horrid.

Ariel: Pray do tell…

Puck: Seems the Dark Lord and his minions bring the very fires of Mordor to darken the Vale.

Ariel: How so?

Puck: There saw I, many wagons clogging our lanes and the tower of Isengard darken the skies 'bove College Road. To spew poisons. Next, 'spitals busy with the ague such enough to test the sawbone's limit.

Ariel: Then must stand 'gainst the hordes of Mordor and stand here in Middle Earth. Else the darkness will reign and then will rain 'pon us.

Puck: Aye. Seems, there in none 'mongst Mordor's number as would stand. The shade of silver holds fast their tongue in a quiet most profound. And where there is silence, secret fish will, in time, e'r be found.

Ariel: What irks thou most?

Puck: 'Tis the very pretence of it all. So many knaves do wave a flag most green soon to be made brown in a Chymical wedding of business large and profits cut in pounds from close the heart.

Ariel: What then cans't we do?

Puck: Make protest 'fore too late. Else swallow pills less tender and perhaps in a manner that is, quite French. Must write NO! upon the skies.

Ariel: And?

Puck: To dream a dream of our bucolic Vale as yet un-blighted by circles aromatik and toxin dioxin vapours, where fires leave the very ashes of hope to be buried still 'neath the land. Yes, to dream of hedgerows and fields and peace. To dream of a place that is still England and where 'tis reason that wears the crown and not, the shilling.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sir

I am deeply concerned by statements made by David Carroll, BCC's Lead
spokesman for Waste. In his letter supporting the council's proposed
incinerator, he states that dioxins produced by the incinerator account for only 1% of total dioxin emissions and suggests that everyday activities such as cooking and heating account for 18%.

I would suggest Mr Carroll compares like with like. Dioxin output from
everyday activities is spread over the whole country. The proposed
incinerator will produce dioxins 24/7 in a small localised area. This
clustering of dioxins in a concentrated manner is what makes them so
dangerous. As the World Health Organisation has declared, there are no safe levels for exposure to dioxins, therefore I can only conclude that BCC's decision to promote the incineration of waste is fundamentally flawed and extremely irresponsible.

If Mr Carroll and BCC fail to understand this basic fact about the
concentration of Dioxins how can we trust their judgement other measurements that are a threat to our quality of life.

Yours sincerely

Richard Cornish

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your leading letter last week 'Our consultations over waste policy' from David Caroll spokesman for Waste Bucks County Council tries unconvincingly to make the case that the county council has done everything possible to communicate it's proposals to use Incinerators as a method of dealing with the disposal of waste, including seriously considering College Road North, Aston Clinton as a possible preferred site for such a massive incinerator plant burning night and day 365 days a year, not only burning Bucks County waste but waste to be transported to the plant from all over the country.

If this is true Mr Carroll how come Cllr Bill Chapple (county Councillor for Aston Clinton and deputy leader) claimed publicly to a meeting of more than 600 people in June 2007 at Buckland Village, that he knew nothing of the proposals until just a few weeks before? He actually apologised to the meeting 'for not knowing'. So if your deputy leader of the Council didn't know what your plans were, what chance did the general public have?

Perhaps it might help if you started calling a spade a spade. How many of your 'average person in the street' knows what EfW Plants are? No wonder no one knew until recently what your real plans were.

It seems to me it wasn't until your Summer Edition of BUCKS TIMES do you actually make it clear in plain speaking terms what Bucks County waste were really up to, when you actually spell out your 'EfW' waste jargon to the public. Quote 'Energy from Waste (EfW) facilities are commonly called incinerators'. Oh really! Most people didn't know that! And whilst we are on the subject of clear communication perhaps you could explain to the public why massive sections of The Cabinet Minutes dated 15 January 2007 when the above proposals were discussed in detail have been 'Classified Confidential' and completely blanked out.'

Is this what you call open government Mr Carroll and open communication? I think the vast majority of Aylesbury Vale residents might have another name for it.....'COVER UP'!

Simon Icke
Aston Clinton Resident and Member of ACRID
(Aylesbury Chilterns Resistance to Incinerator Development).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Carroll,

I have to take issue with what seems to be your pro Energy for Waste emphasis.

You say the policy has been well documented through your Web site. I searched your site for any reference to "Waste Incinerator" in mid June – no hits were returned.

There were no obvious links on any part of the BCC WEB site in relation to EfW. At the end of June a Google search resulted in a hit for the full consultation document – a link buried in your site.

I believe that even if your consultation has been as wide as you claim, the release of the information to the public has been at least "understated", with Bucks CC constantly underplaying the impact of such a facility.

If you took a moment to stand on the Upper Icknield Rd overlooking the Vale you would understand our opposition. Do you really want to blight this beautiful Valley?

Your statement that 99.8% of vapour emitted is Carbon Dioxide, Water and Nitrogen assumes the facility is properly maintained- what happens if the scrubbers fail during operation, one accident and dioxins could blight a large area of the Vale. What about the plant's Carbon footprint?

The Incinerator will be run by a licensed private company, the more waste they burn the more money they will make; within months waste could be imported from London and beyond.

Your traffic counts would fade into history.

EfW currently accounts for one less than 1% of Dioxins-if so lets not add to it.

BCC's and the governments mission to replace the use of Landfill over the next 5 years should be one of increased recycling and educating us and the supermarkets in reducing the amount of packaging we buy with our food, toys and household goods. If we reduce the source of the problem we reduce the need for a solution.

If we are successful in our opposition and you re-educate rather than imposing a further regional planning disaster on us I will be the first to light a firework in celebration.

J. P. Sainsbury
Buckland Village

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objection to proposed Aston Clinton incinerator

I would like to object in the strongest terms to the Bucks County Council proposed waste incinerator plant at College Road North, Aston Clinton, just off the A41 bypass near to the Hertfordshire/Buckinghamshire border for the following reasons:

Water Resources are close by: natural streams, Grand Union canal, Aylesbury Arm canal, Tring Reservoirs, Bear Brook all risk contamination from this site, especially as this area is on a natural flood plain and since the A41 bypass was built there has been increased flooding in the fields close by.

To place such a site so close to the border of Hertfordshire shows no respect for the people of this County to contaminate their airspace with Bucks County waste fumes! The town of Tring, Hertfordshire is less than three miles away from this proposed site. Tring Reservoirs are less than two miles away. An area of outstanding natural beauty and the natural habitat for thousand of wild birds.

It is also too near the villages of Aston Clinton and Buckland. When the wind is blowing in the wrong direction the risk to people's health must be very high. The site would be less than 3 miles from Aston Clinton primary school, where seemingly there is already a high incidence of asthma amongst young children. The fumes from this site can only make things a whole lot worse for these young asthma sufferers at the school and other people in the village with breathing problems.

There is no landfill site within 16 miles of this site and local roads are inadequate and not suitable for heavy Lorries passing to and from the site through quiet residential villages.

It seems someone in Buckinghamshire County waste management has a grudge against the people of Aston Clinton. First we had to suffer the stress of the first 'air brain scheme' on the old A41 which resulted in massive protest and the ridiculous proposal being rejected. But not satisfied with the terrible stress caused to Aston Clinton residents, Bucks County come up with another 'air brained scheme' to again upset Aston Clinton residents.

Probably one of the few good things that John Prescott did whilst in office, was to improve the quality of the lives of Aston Clinton residents when he gave approval to the Aston Clinton A41 by pass, when he was transport minister. It seems ever since the bypass was built Bucks County Council have done everything possible to blight the lives of the good people of Aston Clinton and cause them maximum stress. What is it the Bucks CC waste managers have against the village of Aston Clinton?

I believe when the MOD realise that the proposed 75 metre chimney (which will be on top of a 45 metre building) is directly in the flight path of Halton Airfield this crazy proposal will be blown out of the water.

And when it is, questions need to be asked of our political representatives. How on earth did they allow the people of Aston Clinton and surrounding villages to be harassed yet again such a short time after the previous waste site fiasco on the old A41 near the centre of the village, knowing the anxiety this caused to so many residents. Are these people truly representing the electorate's interest or their own?

Regards

Neil Dallas

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letter to Martin Tett, Cabinet Member for Srategic Planning, Bucks County Council

Dear Mr Tett,

Comments relating to BCC Waste Development Plan Document (WDPD) Preferred option stage representation form PAW4

I write with regard to your proposal of a potential incinerator site at College Road North, Aston Clinton.

I do realise there MAY be a need to meet the energy from waste strategy as outlined in the DEFRA mission strategy. I realise that burning landfill rubbish MAY be a viable way to generate electricity from waste.

However, I disagree with your proposal in the strongest possible terms of siting the incinerator in College Road placement for the following common sense reasons:-

a) After what must be many years of selling Buckinghamshires landfill capacity at a rate of 9 parts other areas to 1 part Buckinghamshire's waste the County Council has managed to almost reach capacity of landfill space.

You have treated this with greed as a business. I think if any other business had made this error of over capacity then they would need to pay for an alternative solution out of their own pocket. Instead the problem will become ours, the local population to presumably keep running or increase your rubbish handling capacity.

In which we are likely to have to pay with ours and our family's health, quality of life, quality of environment and financially through our council tax.

b) I (and my family) have a right to breath clean air and the threat of toxic emissions will remain a real and present danger, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, for twenty five years.

c) I strongly object to your putting the commercial interests (as minuted in the Buckinghamshire County Council Cabinet meeting of Monday 15 January 2007) before the health, economic or environmental security of the people who live in Aylesbury Vale and neighbouring counties. The manner in which you have sought to restrict public access to appropriate information and the limited time you have given for my response precludes you from making a considered and reasoned judgement on this matter.

d) The potential haulage routes for the many heavy goods vehicles which would be required every day will adversely affect the road safety in the village/town where I live with all the accompanying noise and pollution.

e) The increase noise pollution throughout Aylesbury Vale has not been considered with lorries taking the waste in and out of the proposed Aston Clinton site

f) The reduction in the value of the area for tourism, leisure industry and all of us who enjoy the quality of our lives represents a material loss to me and once destroyed cannot be replaced.

g) It is completely inappropriate to propose the College Road location. Not only will it ruin the countryside for generations to come, the valuable recreational and wildlife assets close by will be damaged to the point of destruction. This is not a legacy I want to pass to my children.

h) Potential health risks from airborne carcenogens and dioxins for ourselves and Herts population.

Aston Clinton Primary school is less than 2 miles from the site and local nursery's are also in the area.

We chose Aston Clinton for its quality of life and rural beauty to live in and raise a family. I, nor my children will thankyou for the increase in Asthma and cancers that are prevalent in incinerator areas.

i) Create endless road transport requirement to take in and remove the waste ash to landfill and further processing plants. Given the capacity required it will require continual movements of hundreds of trucks a day (and night). Itself having a major carbon footprint impact and surely undoing most of the good of energy creation.The good road link you mention only covers the A41 from London direction and the last 500m of your journey's from Aylesbury. All other transport will be on A and B roads impacting heavily on local residents.

Would be detrimental to the local environment through:

j) Local water courses are nearby and given that the area is a known flood plain a great potential for pollution of the local water courses. The potential for flood and therefore water course pollution for many miles is huge.

k) The impact to the environment and to human health in the event of a failure at the plant could have a catastrophic affect on all the people of Aylesbury Vale. Water Resources are close by: natural streams, Grand Union canal, Aylesbury Arm canal, Tring Reservoirs, Bear Brook all risk contamination from this site and could carry toxins including heavy metals such as Cadmium and Mercury into the heart of Aylesbury town. In addition to existing residential areas PCBs and Dioxins could affect the 9000 planned new homes to be built to the south of Aylesbury.

l) Reservoirs are close by - Wilstone Reservoir, a site of SSSI is close by as is Halton Reservoir.

During construction of the bypass Badgers and Greater Crested Newts and Barn Owls are all recorded in the College Rd site area. In Herts, tring reservoir is only 2 miles away and all this will culminate in destroying the natural habitat of thousands of wild birds and other wildlife.

m) Airborne contaminants and gasses will drift in the prevailing winds generally in the direction of surrounding villages and Herts. Not very Neighbourly at all I think - perhaps a reason for siting it on the edge of Bucks?

Tring and Halton particularly are in an elevated posiiton - surely this will negate some of the advantage of the
high chimney and increase the toxic nature of their airspace over if they were lower.

n) There is already a high incidence of asthma recorded in youngsters in the area and this will only add to the problem. Several day nurseries and Aston Clinton junior school is less than 1 mile from the site. I don't want you to contaminate the air our children breath in and affect their health.

o) The locality is known for its tourism and enjoyment of the outdoors:-
Golf courses, fishing, canal holidays and businesses, the Chilterns mountain bike track, Wendover Woods and other local beauty spots and outdoor centres enjoyed by thousands every year are likely to suffer greatly.

All support local businesses and the enjoyment of the local population. All will be undermined by your error of placement.

p) You have selected a site right on the edge of a registered and long established area of natural beauty.

The tall chimney and giant plant required for such an operation will be extremely unsightly and totally out of character for the plain which is viewed from all angles from higher vantage points from Wendover and
Ellesborough round to Dunstable downs direction (within the area of natural beauty).

In short it will be a blot and an eyesore on the landscape and negligent to place it here. It will be also be detrimental to the intrinsic value and beauty of the locality as well as devaluing the area visually and financially in business values through tourism, leisure and private property values.

q) The area is primarily green field and even buying agricultural land and using your 'special' stamp of approval to change it to industrial land (nicely increasing the value for yourselves in the process) will ruin a beautiful landscape.

r) Overall CO2 footprint of the process and transport:

The site is not near existing landfill site for the disposal of the waste ash by-product meaning it would have to be trucked out again by road. This should be added into the carbon footprint equation of the whole process.

This whole process including all transport should be evaluated and calculated for sustainability including all construction and implementation carbon emission impact and compared to other sites by a neutral body prior to deciding which site is most suitable.

s) The scheduled ancient monument at Vatches Farm cannot be screened from such a large structure.

t) I see it as no coincidence that your team at BCC has clearly made the decision to bring out the bad news under the rug in the busiest two weeks for families in the year with a reduced deadline and demanding the replies on online forms and your proposal which require major searching out on your website.

Frankly you are our servants - public servants, we elect you, pay your wages through our taxes and I feel much aggrieved at your underhand way of attempting to conceal the proposal on the back of the housing programme and in the busiest two weeks of the year when most families are away on holiday.

Is this your idea of a democratic service to your community? If you were a business you wouldn't be in business.

u) After the long and costly exercise of Public Hearing over the HWRC (Household Waste Recycling Centre) in 2005 (Second draft policy 14) where the public inspectorate's report stated due to environmental issues the College Rd North site was NOT totally suitable for the purpose due to road access and proximity to housing and that BCC should re-look at other options.

I cannot believe we now have a situation where BCC deem it a good idea for not only a HWRC but as a site for a giant incinerator as well as an industrial complex with other waste management plants including a bio-thermal incinerator and rubbish sorting area where there was no mention of any of this before.

Are BCC really trying their hardest to make this area the rubbish processing area for the whole of Bucks, Avon, London and the whole of the south of England or do they just see the hard cash to be gained from thecontracts involved and reselling the electricity on at the expense and detriment of local inhabitants.

If an incineration system is the only solution:-

A site should be sought for an incinerator that is modern enough to emit nothing but steam.

The steam should be decanted of every ounce of its heat energy before being released into the atmosphere to have minimal environmental impact.

Fundamentally the plant and incinerator should be built on a landfill site with some capacity. This is obvious because the incineration process leaves 30% ash of which around 5% needs immediate landfill facility.

Then no movement other than conveyor belt is required to landfill and carbon emissions are saved.

The site would ideally have existing land transportation links ideally by rail as the carbon emission impact of rail over road for the same volume is vastly reduced. Less carbon emission again.

This is especially prevalent as 90% of current Bucks landfill is moved from as far as Avon, Bristol and London.

If this was all by road the emissions would be huge and nothing less than foolhardy negation of the DEFRA strategy to minimise carbon emissions and energy conservation. The emissions impact of all existing contracts transport method needs to be factored into the carbon footprint equation when deciding the most appropriate site.

An existing site such as Calvert with both existing landfill capacity and rail links already serving your customers and contracts seems a more obvious and less impactive / more sustainable solution. Even if the landfill becomes totally full then a rail (or road) link could be transferred to another landfill site, still with a lower carbon footprint than moving all by road from the start.

The site then should affect and offend fewer residents as its primary purpose is already established.

The net result would be reduced carbon emission in the whole transportation and processing because of the rail and existing landfill proximity justifying a much more sustainable future as well as less emissions and impact on the UK and global warming.

Surely a much better and more sustainable solution for everyone!!! or am I just being sensible here???

In summary, I ask that you give full consideration to the points made above and reject this proposal now.

I look forward to your reply

Yours faithfully

Nigel Hayward

Chairman of ACRID

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letter to Martin Tett, Cabinet Member for Srategic Planning, Bucks County Council

Dear Mr Tett,

We are writing in connection with the Aylesbury Vale Incinerator and its proposed siting in Aston Clinton. We would like to object in the strongest terms to this proposal for the following reasons.

We have a right to breath clean air and the threat of toxic emissions will remain a real and present danger, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, for twenty five years.

The impact to the environment and to human health in the event of a failure at the plant could have a catastrophic effect on all the people of Aylesbury Vale. Water resources are close by; natural streams, the Grand Union canal, Tring Reservoirs, the Aylesbury Arm canal and the Bearbrook all risk contamination from this site.

These could carry toxins including heavy metals such as Cadmium and Mercury into the heart of the town. In addition to existing residential areas PCB's and Dioxins could affect the 9000 new homes planned for the south of Aylesbury.

We strongly object to your putting the commercial interests (as minuted in the Buckinghamshire County Council Cabinet meeting of Monday 15 January 2007) before the health, economic or environmental security of the people who live in Aylesbury Vale and neighbouring counties. The manner in which you have sought to restrict public access to appropriate information and the limited time you have given for our response surely precludes you from making a considered and reasoned judgement on the matter.

The potential haulage routes for the many heavy goods vehicles which would be required every day, as there is no other form of transport available to access the site, would adversely affect the road safety of the village with all the accompanying noise and pollution.

The reduction in the value of our property and quality of life represents a material loss to us which we do not feel can ever be adequately compensated.

It is completely inappropriate to propose the College Road location. Not only will it ruin the countryside for generations to come, the valuable recreational and wildlife assets close by will be damaged to the point of destruction. This is not a legacy that we want to pass on our children.

In summary, we ask that you give full consideration to the points we have raised in this letter and reject this proposal now.

Colin and Susanne Smith
Weston Road
Aston Clinton

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing in connection with the Aylesbury Vale Incinerator (EfW Plant) and its proposed siting in Aston Clinton at College Road North. I would like to object in the strongest terms to this proposal for the following reasons:

a) I have a right to breath clean air and the threat of toxic emissions will remain a real and present danger, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, for twenty five years.

b) The impact to the environment and to human health in the event of a failure at the plant could have a catastrophic affect on all the people of Aylesbury Vale. Water Resources are close by: natural streams, Grand Union canal, Aylesbury Arm canal, Tring Reservoirs, Bear Brook all risk contamination from this site and could carry toxins including heavy metals such as Cadmium and Mercury into the heart of Aylesbury town. In addition to existing residential areas PCBs and Dioxins could affect the 9000 planned new homes to be built to the south of Aylesbury.

c) I strongly object to your putting the commercial interests (as minuted in the Buckinghamshire County Council Cabinet meeting of Monday 15 January 2007) before the health, economic or environmental security of the people who live in Aylesbury Vale and neighbouring counties. The manner in which you have sought to restrict public access to appropriate information and the limited time you have given for my response precludes you from making a considered and reasoned judgement on this matter. What happened to open Government?

d) The potential haulage routes for the many heavy goods vehicles which would be required every day will adversely affect the road safety in the village/town where I live with all the accompanying noise and pollution.

e) The reduction in the value of my property and quality of life represents a material loss to me and my family and from experience we will not be adequately compensated.

f) It is completely inappropriate to propose the College Road location. Not only will it ruin the countryside for generations to come, the valuable recreational and wildlife assets close by will be damaged to the point of destruction. This is not a legacy I want to pass to my children or grandchildren.

PLEASE NOTE:

g) This is an area of outstanding natural beauty, such a massive waste plant (EfW Plant) and chimney would totally destroy this beautiful landscape. Just go and stand and look over the Vale from the Ridge on the way to Halton Village from Stablebridge Road Aston Cinton and take in the amazing existing view, then imagine a massive waste plant (EfW Plant) together with a 75 metre smoking stack right in the middle of what you can see. It's unbelievable that Bucks County Council can even consider such an obnoxious proposal. And they are supposed to be an environmentally green caring county council, what a sick joke this now seems. The fact they can even consider this outrageous proposal is proof that they are anything but! They are at best irresponsible vandals of the countryside who are trying to ruin the quality of life for thousands and thousands of local people. In my opinion Senior Local Government Officers in Bucks County Waste Department should be sacked for the anxiety they have caused to so many. (For the second time in three years for the people of Aston Clinton) Never in recent history have so many people been so offended and outraged by so few people from Bucks County Council, County Counsellors and Senior Officers alike are responsible for this outrageous proposal it seems.

In the forthcoming General Election and County Council Elections I will do everything in my power to make sure the electorate don't forget this proposed vandalism of the Aylesbury Vale countryside. And bring those responsible to account.

Reject this proposal now!

Yours faithfully
Simon Icke
Aston Clinton Resident


------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing in connection with the Aylesbury Vale Incinerator and its
proposed siting in Aston Clinton. I object in absolutely to this proposal for the following reasons:

a)My family & I have a right to breath clean air and the threat of toxic emissions will remain a real and present danger, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, for twenty five years.

b)The impact to the environment and to human health in the event of a failure at the plant could have a catastrophic affect on all the people of Aylesbury Vale. Water Resources are close by: natural streams, Grand Union canal, Aylesbury Arm canal, Tring Reservoirs, Bear Brook all risk
contamination from this site and could carry toxins including heavy metals such as Cadmium and Mercury into the heart of Aylesbury town. In addition to existing residential areas PCBs and Dioxins could affect the 9000 planned new homes to be built to the south of Aylesbury.

c)I strongly object to your putting the commercial interests before the
health, economic or environmental security of the people who live in
Aylesbury Vale and neighbouring counties. The manner in which you have
sought to restrict public access to appropriate information and the limited time you have given for my response precludes you from making a considered and reasoned judgement on this matter.

d)The potential haulage routes for the many heavy goods vehicles which would be required every day will adversely affect the road safety in the village/town where I live with all the accompanying noise and pollution.

e)The reduction in the value of my property and quality of life represents a material loss to me and from experience will not be adequately compensated.

f)It is completely inappropriate to propose the College Road location. Not only will it ruin the countryside for generations to come, the valuable recreational and wildlife assets close by will be damaged to the point of destruction.

In summary, I ask that you give full consideration to the points made above and reject this proposal now.

Yours sincerely

E Timms
The Greenway
Tring

------------------------------------------------------------------------



FOOLING THE PUBLIC
Following the Public Inquiry in 2005 when College Rd North was safeguarded for a HWRC the Inspector stated in his report " that the identification of a site for a household waste recycling centre at Aston Clinton has been by far the most controversial policy of the MWLP".

Local residents fought hard and fair throughout the Inquiry and understood the need to develop further household and recycling facilities to cope with the population increase, however at no time either before, during or after the Inquiry was there a whisper from BCC regarding an Incineration site at Aston clinton.

All the crucial issues including traffic/visual impact together with other vital environmental factors in the second draft Policy 14 were assessed and based on, what we were led to believe, the concept of a household waste recycling centre, and not a facility for the recovery of energy from waste using an Incinerator, therefore how can BCC justify their plans without having proved publicly that their preferred site is an appropriate location for a Incinerator particularly as this is so controversial and was not included in their assessment and presentations at the Inquiry.

I cannot believe that BCC did not have plans for an Incinerator in their sights at the Inquiry and are therefore guilty in my opinion of withholding vital information in order to safeguard a site at Aston Clinton,and in doing so misled and fooled the public, and indeed the Inspector,surely this conduct should be formally investigated ?

BCC have also consistently delivered sensitive/ highly controversial information in a cowardly fashion both by their timing and by second hand measures via Parish Councillors.

What hope is there if the people that have the power to shape our lives in this increasing dangerous world, are so dishonest! This must not be allowed to happen again.

Marguerite Phillips
Aston Clinton

------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to some of your letters last week, I would like to respond to comments made by residents and their concerns about the consultation. There are no definite plans for an Energy from Waste (EfW) plant at College Road North, since the consultation is about identifying potential sites for all types of waste facilities. If proposals for an EfW plant did emerge, they would be subject to consultation, as with any planning application.

The Waste Development Plan Document (WDPD) sets out a framework for how the 2.3 million tonnes of waste produced by households and business in the County each year can be responsibly managed. Around 270,000 tonnes of that total is household waste.

Contrary to what has been said, an Energy from Waste facility would have the capacity to process up to 250,000 tonnes of waste a year, not 2.5 million. This represents about a 10th of the total waste which Buckinghamshire manages every year

The County Council agreed in January 2007 to begin work procuring an EfW plant to recover value from household waste. This was well documented on our website, through the local media and in the winter edition of Buckinghamshire Times, and further articles appeared in the Spring and Summer editions. Our officers also attended local committee meetings in January and April to answer questions from Parish Councils on this topic.

The consultation is not about EfW, but rather the legally required plan that shows we have the capacity to deal with all waste for the next 15 years, safeguarding areas which could be used for waste facilities. We wrote to all County Councillors, and District and Parish Councils in April advising them of this important consultation. This was followed by a second letter in May. The consultation has been given the full 6 week time period, not 2 weeks as was stated

Posters were also distributed to GPs surgeries, disability groups, libraries and all County Council buildings on 5 June to publicise the consultation. Following Cabinet approval on 18 June, briefings were held for all County, District and Parish Councillors and the media. This was also well documented on our website, and attracted extensive coverage on both local radio and in newspapers.

We held public exhibitions across the County during June and July, whilst schools were still in session, inviting the public to have their say. The WDPD has been available since 22 June on both our website or by calling us on 01296 382822

To respond to some of the specific comments, we have carried out extensive research into the thermal treatment of waste and found that modern plants are both safe and clean. The chimney or 'stack' at such facilities is approximately 65m tall and 99.98% of the vapour emitted comprises carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen. We have also conducted traffic counts that suggest that additional traffic movements would be negligible, in many cases less than 1% of existing traffic.

All current research suggests that pollutants released by EfW facilities are insignificant compared to other everyday activities. EfW facilities account for less than 1% of dioxins emissions, whilst domestic sources like cooking and burning coal for heating account for 18%, and bonfires and fireworks constitute 14%.


Yours sincerely

David Carroll

Lead spokesman for Waste

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following A Public Inquiry in 2005 when College Rd North was safeguarded for a HWRC the Inspector stated in his report " that the identification of a site for a household waste recycling centre at Aston Clinton has been by far the most controversial policy of the MWLP".

Local residents fought hard and fair to examine BCC 's waste management proposals and understood that there will be a need to develop further household, and recycling facilities. At no time before ,during ,or after the Inquiry was there any whisper from Bcc concerning Incineration with energy recovery at Aston Clinton.

All the crucial issues including traffic and visual impact,and many other vital environmental factors in the second draft Policy 14 were formulated and based upon the concept of a household waste recycling centre and not a facility for a Incinerator therefore how can BCC justify their plans without proving publicly that their preferred location is appropiate for an incinerator?

I cannot believe that BCC did not have plans for an Incinerator in their sights at the Inquiry and are guilty in my opinion of misleading and withholding vital information in order to safeguard a site at Aston Clinton, and this conduct should be formally investigated.

BCC have chosen again to deliver sensitive/ highly controversial information in a cowardly fashion both by their timing and by second hand measures to inform the public via parish councillors.

Marguerite Phillips
Aston Clinton

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Summers,

There are many reasons to object to the proposed Vale incinerator. The risks to public heath are well documented, and the potential for the Grand Union Canal to become the next Union Carbide or Buncefield is not as far fetched as it may first appear.

There is another threat here however, the insidious threat to local democracy and abuse of due process. For example why is the proposal hidden as a three letter acronym in an 143 page document of many thousands of words? Why are there so many factual inaccuracies relating to the 'EfW' (Incinerator) in 'Buckinghamshire Waste Development Plan Document'? How can a Councillor who is obviously already sold on the idea truly represent the opinions of the community he purports to represent? Why does the community have just a few days to register their objections, at a time when all of the publicity has been around the proposed new housing developments in Aylesbury? Why does this period coincide with the start of the School holidays when many people are away? and why does the speculation as to weather contracts have already been signed by the council remain unanswered?

No one would want a chimney the height of Nelson's column belching out potentially toxic fumes across the Vale if they had a real voice. No one would vote in District and Parish Councillors if they knew the true degree of their capitulation. No one would agree to burning waste 90% of which will not even originate from Bucks.

So once again it is left to the ordinary people to play catch up, to make their voices heard with few resources and little time.

Nick Vince
College Road
Aston Clinton

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Editor

I would like to object in the most strongest terms to the propose Bucks County Council proposed waste incinerator plant at College Road North, Aston Clinton, just off the A41 bypass near to the Hertfordshire/Buckinghamshire border for the following reasons:

Water Resources are close by: natural streams, Grand Union canal, Aylesbury Arm canal, Tring Reservoirs, Bear Brook all risk contamination from this site, especially as this area is on a natural flood plain and since the A41 bypass was built there has been increased flooding in the fields close by.

To place such a site so close to the border of Hertfordshire shows no respect for the people of this County to contaminate their airspace with Bucks County waste fumes! The town of Tring, Hertfordshire is less than three miles away from this proposed site. Tring Reservoirs are less than two miles away. An area of outstanding natural beauty and the natural habitat for thousand of wild birds.

It is also too near the villages of Aston Clinton and Buckland. When the wind is blowing in the wrong direction the risk to peoples health must be very high. The site would be less than 3 miles from Aston Clinton primary school, where seemingly there is already a high incidence of asthma amongst young children. The fumes from this site can only make things a whole lot worse for these young asthma sufferers at the school and other people in the village with breathing problems.

There is no landfill site within 16 miles of this site and local roads are inadequate and not suitable for heavy lorries passing to and from the site through quiet residential villages.
It seems someone in Buckinghamshire County waste management has a grudge against the people of Aston Clinton. First we had to suffer the stress of the first 'air brain scheme' on the old A41 which resulted in massive protest and the ridiculous proposal being rejected. But not satisfied with the terrible stress caused to Aston Clinton residents, Bucks County come up with another 'air brained scheme' to again upset Aston Clinton residents.

Probably one of the few good things that John Prescott did whilst in office, was to improve the quality of the lives of Aston Clinton residents when he gave approval to the Aston Clinton A41 by pass, when he was transport minister. It seems ever since the bypass was built Bucks County Council have done everything possible to blight the lives of the good people of Aston Clinton and cause them maximum stress. What is it the Bucks CC waste managers have against the village of Aston Clinton?

Simon Icke, Long Plough, Aston Clinton

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Sir (letter to local councillors),

I am appalled to hear of the plans to site an incinerator in Aston Clinton. The 120 metre chimney will be clearly visible from my sitting room. This is the height of 12 houses. It will operate 24/7.

As well as the obvious effect on our quality of life the reduction of the value of our property will be substantial and will severely affect our retirement plans.

As locally elected representatives do you really believe you have the right to impose this on the community without discussion. I have not received any information from the council and only heard of the plans this week from a neighbour!

Aylesbury was recently voted one of the better places to live in the country. Soon it will be known as the INCINERATOR TOWN !!!!! Who in their right mind would want to live anywhere near. How will you attract companies to the area. Where will their executives live. Presumably where you do!

Clearly your research is woefully inadequate. Access roads are poor and in any case if waste has to be burned (there is no shortage of landfill in the UK) then shouldn't rail transport be involved also. The existing landfill sites you refer to are miles away in Calvert and Newton Longville wherever they are. Traffic will be driven off the bypass in order to avoid congestion and heavy lorries and the villages will be once more dangerous polluted places to be. We have also noticed that Bearbrook regularly floods the surrounding area and could easily be contaminated.

What an appalling state of affairs. Only recently plans for a tip right in the village were turned down and now an attempt is made to get plans passed for something far worse without informing the electorate!

Yours Appalled


Mr A T Spruce
Aston Clinton


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re the comments about consultation period for incinerator being held at a funny time. The consultation period of 2 weeks for an incinerator that in the councils own study states "the planning will be contencious and public opposition will be heavy" stinks of complicity. They have only given a period of 2 weeks at a time that it is known there will be the least amount of people able to comment (holidays) with little or no advertising and in comparison the proposed expansion of aylesbury has had plenty of previous awareness, gets a six week consultation with displays in the main shopping precinct in Aylesbury.

In addition Bucks cc have made it complex, if not impossible, to comment as any response has to be on a form adhering to limited ways in which to object stating paragraph, verse and section of the lengthy report to which your are commenting. I am led to beleive that if you do not reply on the form in the correct manner then buckks cc will ignore any concerns and comments you have.

Also these forms and consultation period are also for all comments from goverment bodies such as the environment agency and if they miss the deadline they miss their oppurtunity to comment. In this day and age what goverment agency has the recources to read and research a 150 page report and comment within 2 weeks?

All this for an incinerator that will have a capacity to process 10 times the waste that the whole of buckinghamshire produces and has to be fed - these incinerators cannot just work at half capacity they have to be fed fuel which means that the mere concept does not promote recycling as the council will need our waste to feed the incinerator.

Aylesbury residents beware - all of you will see it where ever you live in aylesbury a 600 foot stack belching fumes wont be missable.

Object now - write to your MP,Bucks CC who ever can make a difference

Nigel Pinder
Aston Clinton


------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read with alarm your coverage of a proposed incinerator located in College Rd, Aston Clinton. This whole issue has emerged so quickly that the opportunity for residents to respond is limited to just a few days. How many people go on holiday for 2 weeks at this time? Surely Bucks CC are behaving irresponsibly as their aim must surely be to to consult with local people with the facts.

There are important issues. Where is all this waste coming from and how is it going to get to the site? Whose houses are thousands of HGV's going past? What are the emmisions from an incinerator and is is reasonable for local villiages to be blighted in this way. Are there any further enviromental concerns? Is is right that an incinerator be located on such a low lying area which was officially on flood alert last week?

Have Bucks CC investigated the impact of an incinerator on its own residents?

Tony West
Aylesbury Road
Aston Clinton

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed site could lead to 10's of thousands of lorry transports a year as there are no direct rail links to the site. Access to the A41 would require substantial rebuilds.

The location on this side of the county makes no sense as most lorries would have to come through a congested Aylesbury and surrounding villages to reach the site

The location of the site will be visible from anywhere in or overlooking the Aylesbury Vale A 200M chimney on top of a 30M building? Once a commercial license is granted the plant turns into a private venture which makes money out of burning as much waste as possible -this will lead into rubbish being imported from outside the county e.g. London. Bill neglects to mention that if the scrubbers at the plant should fail toxins could be emitted across the Vale of Ayesbury.

There are watercourses subject to polution close by -Bear Book flooded Aylesbury as recently as last month.

Bucks CC should be ashamed at the way this process has been handled so far- it appears as though they have tried to bury the incinerator plans in a vast array of planning documentation. Because of thid ACRID have effectively only had two weeks to try and raise awareness before the deadline of 3rd of August.

Jon Sainsbury
Buckland Village