Campaigners pin hopes on European legislation to halt Gloucestershire incinerator
ANTI-incinerator protesters are pinning their hopes on European legislation to de-rail approval for a £500million rubbish burner.
Today Gloucestershire Vale Against Incineration (Glosvain) released its independent report from waste consultants which it says shows the incinerator plans for Javelin Park, Haresfield are 'deeply flawed' and don't comply with UK and EU law.
-
Artist's impression of the proposed Gloucestershire incinerator
The group says the report by Ynys Resources shows Gloucestershire County Council has 'seriously overestimated future waste requirements'.
It says the report shows the incinerator contravenes EU and UK law because it would not pre-treat waste, burn toxic waste such as batteries, would create eight times more hazardous waste than goes in to it, and is so inefficient that it's not classified as waste recovery but disposal.
NEW PROMOTIONS put out each calender month! Dont miss out!
Terms: Terms and conditions are when order is complete in full 5% discount will be given with this voucher!
Contact: 01452 223149
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
That would mean what remains from the burning process is on a par with landfill, at the bottom of the waste hierarchy - against EU and UK law.
Urbaser Balfour Beatty, which has been chosen to build the plant by the council, disputes Glosvain's claims on health and pollution and says UK still relies on landfill to deal with waste left after reducing, reusing and recycling.
And Stan Waddington, the council's waste champion, has said the facility will save up to £190million over the next 25 years, and 'will be clean and safe'.
The planning application is expected to be considered by the County Council's planning committee in February.
7 Comments
by Future2010
Monday, February 11 2013, 9:27AM
“The contractors are building an environmentally friendly alternative solution elsewhere in the UK, but GCC wanted an incinerator. MBT and AD is the best option.
Ref. the comment about: making full use of the heat generated by burning waste. There are no plans to utilise the heat from this incinerator, it would be ejected into the atmosphere, this would increase global warming and keep the birds warm.”
by North Glos EPC
Thursday, February 07 2013, 5:16PM
“I've noticed several comments over recent months voicing opposition to this incinerator and I completely understand why anyone might not want such a place on their doorstep. But at the risk of a few red arrows what alternative approach to waste are the opponents suggesting?
An incinerator making full use of the heat generated by burnt waste, and with a clean exhaust seems a reasonable alternative to more and more landfill to me.
Now I understand that there is bound to be an argument regarding just where to put this thing but I'm having a little trouble understanding the whole idea of having one or not at all.
I don't live near Javelin Park but isn't that an industrial unit area? Perhaps better there a reasonable distance from the city than in more residential areas or blighting the countryside?
So my question is if not an incinerator then what?
And however we deal with waste, where?”
by zerowaster
Thursday, February 07 2013, 12:41PM
“Bonkim - I think you have missed a point here. Not surprising really as this report in the Citizen is pathetic - there was much better information in the BBC's coverage on radio and TV.
Anyway, this report by experienced waste consultants is independent and does not represent GlosVAIN's views. It was reviewed and all figures checked by Prof. Chris Coggins, who is a known supporter of incineration, having signed the pro-incineration manifesto fro Energy from Waste UK in 2011. Go and read the report - you can download it from the GlosVAIN website.”
by Future2010
Wednesday, February 06 2013, 8:55PM
“Judicial Review will certainly be an option.”
by Bonkim2003
Wednesday, February 06 2013, 7:57PM
“Desperate attempt - Disposal yes of the trash we produce - and the energy recovered will displace fossil fuel - hence greener than landfill.
The emissions will have to meet EU/UK regulations, all told Glosvain's views on the hazardous waste created is not supported by any technical evidence.
If they are so sure why don't they take the Judicial review route?”
by gruesome
Wednesday, February 06 2013, 6:20PM
“Don't hold your breath!”
by CTFCScout
Wednesday, February 06 2013, 5:50PM
“Don't pin your hopes on Europe doing us any favour.
It's as good as done, and will cost £15m of our tax if it doesn't go ahead.
No, I don't want it to go ahead, but I also don't want the taxpayers to be f---ed by this.”