Anti-incinerator DVD lanched at public meeting in Gloucestershire
Concerned residents crowded into a public meeting in Stroud last night for the launch of a new DVD - the latest strategy in the growing fight to halt the county council's plans to build a giant £500 million incinerator on the outskirts of Gloucester.
Produced by campaign group GlosVAIN, The Towering Incinerator states its case against the controversial incinerator proposed for Javelin Park, near Haresfield. This follows the county council's decision on Wednesday to award a 25-year contract to Urbaser Balfour Beatty to build and run the giant waste disposal plant, despite strong opposition from the likes of NHS Gloucestershire, Stroud District Council and the Cotswold Conservation Board, on health, environmental and financial grounds.
Chairing the meeting at The Old Town Hall Meeting Room in the Shambles was GlosVAIN's Sue Oppenheimer - a staunch campaigner against the incinerator since it was first proposed by the county council in 2007.
Save up to 20% on your flat roof this May with this voucher.
Learn how a GRP Roof can benefit your house today!
Call our adviser's for a free quote today
0800 644 6323
Terms: Terms & Conditions Apply.
Contact: 0800 6446323
Valid until: Tuesday, May 28 2013
"I first became involved because I live quite near the proposed site," she said. "Also, I am chair of the parish council in Standish, so I couldn't just sit back and let this happen. We at GlosVAIN didn't realise three-and-a-half years ago, when we said that we had to do something about it that, in three-and-a-half years' time, we'd still be trying to do something about it."
An audience of more than 100 watched as The Towering Incinerator stated its case. Many were visibly shocked as the film, complete with 3-D graphics, demonstrated the sheer size of the proposed incinerator and the visual impact it would have on the Gloucestershire skyline.
Stating that the planning height limit on this site, set by the Secretary of State, is 15.7 metres, the film went on to inform the audience that this set limit is the height of the smallest part of the incinerator. Intended to protect the view to and from the Cotswold Escarpment, it claims that the proposed incinerator is more than three times this limit, with a chimney measuring 70 metres.
The film's graphics - which are to scale and produced using information made available by Urbaser Balfour Beatty - and commentary offered a stark insight into just how large the incinerator would be in comparison to neighbouring Blooms garden centre, and was seen to dwarf St Peter's Church at Haresfield and Gloucester Cathedral.
"The incinerator would be a large industrial power station - probably the tallest structure to be built in Gloucestershire since the nuclear power stations at Berkeley and Oldbury," the film claimed."You can see the sheer immensity of the building when compared with Gloucester Cathedral at 69 metres, St Peter's Church at Haresfield (28 metres) and Blooms Garden Centre.
"Why are Gloucestershire County Council proposing to allow this? We believe it's because the council owns the land and has no concerns for the natural beauty of the area. It's not suprising that the Cotswold Conservation Board, Natural England, Stroud District Council and the Campaign to Protect Rural England have all strongly objected to this incinerator, because of the visual impact."
At the point at which the commentator stated "the county council claims that this will be a landmark building acting as a gateway to Gloucestershire," the crowd erupted into laughter - summing up the general feeling of bemusement and cynicism shared within the meeting house over the county council's plans.
The film also highlighted the possible risks posed by the incinerator to the local environment and the health of those living and working within its vicinity, claiming: "It [the incinerator] will be there for at least 25 years, producing large amounts of CO2 and contributing significantly to climate change. If you live within a 25-mile radius of Javelin Park you could be adversely affected by the toxic plume from the chimney, which contains dioxins, mercury, heavy metals and cadmium."
In summing up, the film went on to claim: "The business case for this incinerator has collapsed. It will not save money and will be more expensive than alternatives. The inflexible 25 to 30-year contract won't adapt to future change and the incinerator could become redundant due to more recycling and technological advances.
"Future EU legislation will mean we have to recycle and compost, rather than burn waste - the incinerator would become an expensive white elephant."
When the film finished, Ms Oppenheimer asked the stunned audience: "So, what are your initial reactions to the scale and impact of this incinerator?" "Shocked... horrified" came the overwhelming response.
Surprisingly, the overriding concerns voiced in the ensuing debate focussed not on the potential health hazards posed by the incinerator, but more on the potential financial risks to the county's council tax payers.
GlosVAIN states that the incinerator will cost £500 million, paid for by taxpayers - representing one of the largest contracts the county council has ever entered into, and that there are "serious concerns about the council's financial calculations and forecasts of waste production". "The council claims that, over the 25-year period, they will save £150 million, as compared to continuing to use landfill. However, the council's forecasts of waste production are seriously flawed and we estimate that it will in fact cost the taxpayer as much as £105 million. However, it will provide huge profits for the contractor and their bankers."
Stroud district councillor, David Drew, present at the meeting, said: "Stroud District Council is unanimous in its objection to this proposal. We would like to get this decision by the county council called in by the Secretary of State. The county council has failed to consult with any of the district councillors over this matter, and has made no attempt to engage in any kind of consultation process.
"Because of this lack of consultation, it's taken a long time for the general populus to realise the impact this incinerator could have. People have not got angry yet.
This is a crass decision on the part of the county council, and if this incinerator does happen, it will be the biggest financial disaster faced by the council tax payers of Gloucestershire."
* GlosVAIN's new DVD, The Towering Incinerator, is now available to view on its website at http://www.glosvain.info
Comments
by Ysedra
Sunday, September 16 2012, 12:00AM
“I've just noticed... 'lanched'.”
by Bonkim2003
Saturday, September 15 2012, 9:36PM
“Ysedra - food waste collection is the costliest/tonne and least efficient - it would probably be O.K in large urban areas where the quantities can be substantialand combined with catering/food processing industry waste make some sense if combined with anaerobic digestion - but in relatively small quantities, and in vessel composting mixed with garden waste - it is ridiculously expensive and means little for the environment. The residual waste would be O.K if collected weekly but of course when fortnightly, people not only get bad smells - but also maggots, etc, - just think of the additional water, and energy needed to keep the bins clean. Check with your council if they have carried out an environmental balance - emissions - arising from the multi-bin collection systems, and in vessel composting. Then ask them to balance the collection, transport, and processing costs against emissions and landfill tax saved saved if any, and cost savings if they went back to weekly single bin collection + a few strategically located recycling sites.
.”
by Ysedra
Saturday, September 15 2012, 2:45PM
“I think we're on the same page, Bonkim. I want people to think more about what they buy, and how wasteful it is in terms of packaging and durability ('life expectancy'), and a good guide to that is what ends up in their black bin week after week.
One thing about the food caddies is that they make the black bin smell a lot nicer, or at least less nasty...”
by Bonkim2003
Saturday, September 15 2012, 11:08AM
“Ysedra and GlosAnarchy - what is the point of spending £200 or more to collect something to recycle to save £70/te landfill charges? The multi-bin collections cost an arm and a leg, average over £100/te to collect and on top of collection and transport costs, in vessel composting of food and garden waste for example cost over £50/te.
Best to collect the lot in one bin or bag, and sort out the more valuable materials at a sorting facility, and send the rest to a waste to energy plant - which then returns 400 Megajoules worth of energy back which otherwise would save equivalent fossil fuels. Whether you bun the waste quickly (in an EFW) or allow it to rot naturally, the carbon balance is the same as far as the environment is concerned - worst if landfilled where it produces methane - even there sealed landfills is a good solution producing landfill gas and electricity - check what happens at Hempstead.
We can do with the misguided discussion from pseudo-environmentalists who do more harm than good - ultimately best to consume less, produce less waste, and cause the environmental pollutants. Waste contractors are minting money at the expense of misguided councils, and the public that do not challenge sufficiently.”
by Ysedra
Saturday, September 15 2012, 9:37AM
“Ironically, it is the 'next to nothing' (residual waste) that is supposed to go into this incinerator, but poor recycling will lead to plenty of stuff that could have been diverted going in, and the council will make excuses about that as well, re cost of sorting.
The questions about how to stop stuff from becoming residual waste in the first place, aren't being asked.”
by GlosAnarchy
Saturday, September 15 2012, 9:05AM
“The reason we need the incinerator is that YOU yes YOU don't recycle enough of your waste and generate way too much. There is next to nothing that can't be recycled, what we need is for people to get of their backsides and recycle.
Only complain about this incinerator if you recycle all that you can, if you don't then you are part of the problem rather than the solution!”
by adeuk01
Saturday, September 15 2012, 7:50AM
“well we can have an incinerator or more landfill. both produce more CO2... build the thing and lets get rid of landfill!”
by Haw-thorn
Friday, September 14 2012, 5:56PM
“Lets call it Flaming Nora!”
by Bonkim2003
Friday, September 14 2012, 12:33PM
“Ysedra - some valid points in your post carbon dioxide scrubbers - if mankind survives it will evolve organs at the exit from our lungs to scrub the CO2. In the mean time CO2 is extracted and piped to deep holes - and the cost/feasibility for small installations just not practical - think about it the waste materials will generate the same quantity of CO2 even if it is just left to oxidise/decompose under natural conditions - the earth survives on the carbon cycle - so a non-question except for large coal fired stations. Are we planning to shut down all industrial installations that emit CO2?
Clean Air - Some one pointed out yesterday MBT was floated by the previous Labour administration at Glod CC but what do you do with the output material - RDF (refuse derived fuel) - burnt in an incineration plant or sent to landfill. MBT is to be combined with a plasma incineration plant at Bristol - the overall emissions, etc, no different but overall higher combined cost.
To be effective waste plants need to be large (economies of scale), and collection systems need to be designed together with the treatment system - regrettably GlosCC has not done that. Environmentally Glosvain is on the track and whatever they do - the deed is done and the EFW will be a reality.”
by youknowsit
Friday, September 14 2012, 12:27PM
“Burn it is better then landfill, get real people.”