Councillors reject Shrewsbury Battlefield incinerator plans
Thursday 2nd September 2010, 7:52AM BST.
Controversial plans to build a £60 million waste incinerator in Shrewsbury have been thrown out – to the delight of campaigners.
Members of Shropshire Council’s strategic planning committee yesterday voted unanimously to reject Veolia’s development as rapturous applause broke out among the 70-strong public gallery after nearly four hours of debate.
An artist's impression of the proposed waste incinerator at Battlefield
Campaigners were concerned about possible health risks if the development was allowed at Battlefield.
Councillor Joyce Barrow said: “I don’t actually have a problem with the site but it’s the health risks I have a problem with.”
But their joy may be short-lived as Veolia bosses today said they were considering appealing the decision.
Donald Macphail, managing director for Veolia Shropshire, said: “The decision by Shropshire Council to refuse our planning application is a huge disappointment.
“But we have a strong application and we will now consider the merits of an appeal to the Secretary of State.”
A furious row erupted at the meeting after Nick Taylor, the council’s assistant director for strategy and development, said members of the planning committee did not have to take notice of “irrational fears” concerning perceived risks to public health.
The meeting had to be adjourned for a short period to restore order and at one point Shrewsbury MP Daniel Kawczynski, attending on behalf of the protesters, was warned by a solicitor he could be thrown out after interrupting Mr Taylor.
Councillor Jean Jones proposed councillors should reject the plans for several reasons.
These included two main points – that it was unacceptable to have a mass burner as this had been excluded in the local waste plan, and the impact on the visual landscape of an incinerator next to the historically significant Battlefield site.
The proposal was carried unanimously.
Most Commented
- New look of Shrewsbury town centre revealed
- Letter: Nonsense on climate change
- Trapped! Shoppers stuck on car park for hours in snow
- Leader: Council prayer slot now being threatened
- Performance-related pay for Shropshire Council staff
- Leader: Sixty glorious years of much-loved Queen
- Olympic mascots Wenlock and Mandeville snubbed over appearance fees
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
Well done Shropshire Council for making the right decision!
I am sure there are lots of very pleased Shrewsbury residents today!!!
Report abuse
horah for common sense!
Report abuse
GOOD NEWS lets hope they respect local decision making and let it lie now, there are other alternatives such as better recycling services and food waste collections for AD which would achieve such high levels of recycling that there would be no issue with landfill targets
Report abuse
Great decision !!!
Report abuse
wow
Report abuse
Fantastic news! Well done to Shropshire Council for listening to local residents and those that have businesses in the area.
For once the ‘big boys’ haven’t been able to rail road the decision!
Report abuse
I think this is shocking… Let’s pay more council tax then, so that we can keep polluting the world for our children(?).
I don’t understand how anyone can even worry about ‘visual impact’ when there’s a much bigger picture there to see…
I agree, let’s work on the recycling rates, but there’s only so much you can do there. It WILL NOT alone deal with the landfill issue. Food waste collections? Sure, but don’t you realise it will have to go somewhere?? And be dealt with somehow??
I’m very disappointed. This is a step back, not forward!
Report abuse
Would you feel comfortable bringing up children next to a burner, Disappointed?
And do you think this 27-year PFI project would have given value for money to the Shropshire taxpayer?
One speaker at yesterday’s meeting said that the incinerator contract would cost us all £10m a year.
This dwarfs the £225,000 the council saved by cutting the popular weekly food waste collections in South Shropshire (see http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2010/07/30/weekly-food-waste-collections-axed-in-three-shropshire-towns/ and negative reaction below).
Surely if the council need to make cuts, it is right to cut expenditure on expensive, unpopular incinerators and concentrate resources on popular, innovative, sustainable initiatives like anaerobic digestion.
Could Disappointed also explain how we could ‘work on recycling rates’ for the next 27 years?
After all, an incinerator would totally undermine recycling for the next 27 years, wouldn’t it?
Report abuse
I wouldn’t have a problem bringing my children up next to it, no. There are no more health risks involved in living next an incinerator than there are living next to Tesco or Buckingham Palace. You’re just made to believe that there are. I grew up in a country where waste incinerators are the norm these days, and this is a country where life expectancy is among the top five in the world.
“One speaker said”? This explains the general ignorance in your post. If I told you that the earth is flat, would you accept that? Or that I’m really an alien from the planet sickofignorance? There’s more than one side to a story you know. Do you know the costs involved in landfilling, and the rates at which they increase every year? Do you realise that you and I, THE TAXPAYERS, will be paying for this decision? Value for money? Do you believe that landfilling is cheap then? And what will it cost us looking at the bigger picture, as in the future of our planet and in what state we hand it over to our children?
I’m no waste expert, nore do I procure waste contracts, but the UK recycling rates are WAY below many other countries in Europe. There are HUGE improvements to be made there yet, in the private AND industrial sector. The UK also desperately need to cut down in packaging. Toothpaste tubes DO NOT need to be surrounded by a cardboard box, and everything doesn’t have to be covered in plastics. There are masses of areas to be improved still overall.
Waste incineration is a step forward as far as I’m concerned, and an invaluable energy resource in working towards stepping away from fossil fuels.
Report abuse
Would the incinerator undermine recycling efforts and targets? Hardly. The idea with an incinerator is to incinerate what CANNOT be recycled…
Report abuse
I agree, Disappointed, that there are HUGE improvements to be made in increasing recycling rates, and in cutting down waste at source.
Ordinary people opposed to the incinerator (whom you call ‘ignorant’) have argued this point consistently.
And they have also argued rationally and cogently that an incinerator will only starve local recycling facilites in the coming 25+ years.
To the public, it is clear that massively increased recycling is a much cheaper route to saving energy and resources and reducing landfill costs than a multi-million pound PFI incinerator contract signed in camera without public consultation.
Why, in an age of public cuts when the British public is rejecting incinerators in town after town, is it ‘ignorant’ to highlight the expense of a PFI contract for taxpayers now and when we hand the payments over to our children?
And why is it ‘ignorant’ to push for a massive expansion of recycling and to point out that incinerating waste undermines recycling?
We are not going to step away from from burning fossil fuels by believing dodgy industry claims that burning waste is a green or sustainable alternative.
Report abuse
At last a sensible decision from the troughers
Report abuse
Hurrah
Report abuse
#3
Much as though I endorse everything you have written Sean, I would anticipate that this proposal will go to appeal and having been initially supported by the planners,it may be built yet.(councillors just represent their own political or personal agendas at our expense!)
The tories have made it clear that they are not truly supporters of recycling when Eric Pickles promised a return to weekly refuse collections.
Report abuse
So what are we going to do with our residual waste now? Send it to landfill I suppose… and who will pay the landfill tax (shortly to be £72 per tonne) and the fines for landfilling from the EU (at £150 per tonne). The council tax payer – that’s who. Thanks for increasing my council tax bill based on misconceptions about the health implications of energy from waste technologies
Report abuse
however by not having to buy a £60m incinerator on credit, the council will still be better off financially.
Incinerators of this size cost about £120 per tonne of rubbish, always more expensive than landfill.
the cheapest solution is to recycle more
Report abuse
Shropshire lad – its not cheaper though, thats the point, incineration is MORE EXPENSIVE than landfill (atleast when funded through PFI contracts it is)
this plant is too small to be economic, you need plants to burn around 250,000 tonnes per annum to be economic at all
Report abuse
This country is going backwards. Uninformed individuals making decisions under the guise of democracy. I fully support enhanced recycling and composting, but this alone will NOT divert all our waste from landfill. There will always be residual items left in the waste stream that will not be able to be recycled.
What happened yesterday is a commitment to continue to landfill waste, as for Shropshire there is no plan B. Highly frustrating! I look forward now to seeing an increase in my council tax.
We should be proud.
Report abuse
San Francisco already diverts 75% of its waste from landfill, and aspires towards zero-waste by 2020.
Couldn’t we be a little more ambitious in Shropshire?
Report abuse
anything which means veolia manage less waste on your behalf will save money off you council tax, the incinerator is a massive white elephant which would put your taxes UP, it is more expensive than recycling and its even more expensive than business and usual
Report abuse
A disappointing and backward decision from the council, so we are going to continue burying our waste for another generating to deal with the problems! I don’t want my taxes wasted on landfill tax.
Report abuse
Incineration vs landfill is a false dilemma,
disappointed *2.
Wouldn’t it be better -to avoid landfill tax-to expand recycling massively and aspire towards zero-waste?
Wouldn’t it be better to increase food waste collections for the Ludlow anaerobic digester rather than cutting them?
Report abuse
They want to re-cycle, or is turning peoples rubbish into electricity the wron sort of re-cycleing……..theres no pleasing some people.
Report abuse
Turning people’s rubbish (potentially valuable and re-usable material) into useless ash is not recycling, spencer.
If we as a society want to cut spending and save resources and energy, we need to adopt a zero-waste strategy, which excludes mass-burn incineration.
Report abuse
Have many of you seen the “incinerator” display in window of Wild Thyme Wholefood store, in Castlegates, Shrewsbury?
The “HAPPY TO HARM YOU” picture of an Environment Agency “worker” outside House of Commons caught my eye and then I saw the map showing infant mortality rates in electoral wards around Wolverhampton incinerator and Ironbridge power station.
Has the Environment Agency checked the data shown on the maps – or do they rely on someone else to “not do it” for them so that they can issue IPPC permits to all incinerator promoters who ask?
If the data on the maps is correct, why hasn’t the Environment Agency shut down existing incinerators and the Ironbridge power station?
Report abuse
I agree entirely, why refuse now what will only be approved later, at least we could’ve agreed it on our terms without the costs!
Report abuse
Some sense at last, well done to those against this out of date technology
Report abuse
Hi, eva.
If you had been a councillor, eva, would you have followed council officer recommendations to locate an incinerator near to the proposed Shropshire Food Enterprise Centre in Battlefield?
Report abuse
#8 AAJ I love the name, troughers.
Look at what a great position they are in.
They refuse the incinerator against planners recommendation and advice. They then look good to Joe Public whilst getting paid for it then throw their little trotters up in horror when it all gets put through at appeal.
It’s enough to make you squeal.
What a poor deal.
For us taxpayers.
Report abuse
I am absolutely delighted and not in the slightest disappointed.
I live overlooking the proposed site and would have been given no option but to bring my family up in the toxic environment it would have created. This so because my house pprice would have dropped so much as to make any move impossible – who would buy a family home there?
What I don’t understand is why does the lack of this ‘facility’ mean that we will not continue to make great strides with recycling and reduce the landfill impact?
Why would bringing back weekly collections (and I’m not supportive of this) mean that people will recycle less?
The resources which would have been available for this should be used more imaginatively to reduce landfill in a way which does not pollute and on a more appropriate site (not a NIMBY but do you think this plan would have gone so far if it was planned for Copthorne instead of Harlescott?)
Report abuse
Having been to one of these plants in Hampshire, I would have no concerns on environmental or health grounds. I’m afraid that our Councillors have once again been persuaded by the objectors to vote against their Officers’ recommendations, as they did in the debate on education a couple of years or so ago.
C’est la vie.
Report abuse
Non, c’est la démocratie!
Report abuse
but it wasnt just about health freddo, theres lots of other reasons, cost, efficiency, carbon, other environmental, aesthetics, impact on the battlefield, departing from the local plan etc etc etc
Report abuse
Congratulations Shropshire! A step in the right direction blocking an outdated, inefficient, environmentally damaging and costly white elephant.
All those are taken in by the “this plan will save £x of taxpayers money over 25 years” need to check the figures more closely. Simply increasing recycling rates by 5 – 6% more than covers the “savings”.
Also the “savings” are not really savings since it is merely the money they would have spent on landfill tax! So in no way does an incinerator save you money or lower your tax bill. However, disposing of less rubbish, recycling, reusing and reducing will.
Don’t forget to support the other people fighting against incinerators which are going on all over the country.
http://www.nywag.org (North Yorkshire Waste Action Group) has details on their links page to the online petitions to sign.
Report abuse
Blimey, the car park at the Shirehall must have been close to bursting with all those 2CVs……
Report abuse
Heh!
Indeed.
I hear that sales of cardigans and lentils have increased exponentially in Shrewsbury also…
Report abuse
Oh dear, if sales of lentils have shown a dramatic increase, then we’d better prepare for a huge increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Report abuse
Once again i hear disaster stories about incinerators killing our children, affecting our house prices and being compared to the concrete anti christ that is Ironbridge Power Station.
I’ve lived near Ironbridge for twelve years now and the house prices are among the highest in the county also i have two very healthy sports minded boys.
Which brings me to the point that, someones exagerating here and its not Veolia.
Ps, #19 we’ll start with you because if your house really does overlook the proposed site then you must live in STADCO
Report abuse
[If you had been a councillor, eva, would you have followed council officer recommendations to locate an incinerator near to the proposed Shropshire Food Enterprise Centre in Battlefield?]
Well Huw, as I am being paid a generous allowance by taxpayers,in order to look good to my voters,neighbours etc, probably not. At the end of the day why would I want appear the bad guy? The costs, should it go to appeal and Veolia win will not come out of my trough/allowance as a councillor (had I been one) but will again be paid for by taxpayers.
BTW until a few years ago when EU required adaptations had been made to the highly polluting chimney of the crematorium, it was pouring out all sorts of toxic chemicals next to SCAT.
Are the Shropshire food Enterprise at Battlefield going to diversify to offering B-B-Qs and more smoked foods if the incinerator is built there?
I don’t see this as a flippant issue Huw but you continue to misinterpret posts either purposely or because you don’t read them properly/understand them it is really quite boring.
Report abuse
So, if you had been a councillor, you would have listened to public opinion, then, eva?
Good.
Isn’t that the job of a councillor in local democracy?
Report abuse
fantastic news, that’s restored my faith in democracy, the people have spoken
public 1
profits 0
Excellent news for the environment and health this will force shropshire council to aim for 60-70% recycling now not a paultry 50% as required by pfi contracts
Report abuse
I believe Veolia have still got a contract with the council to build some kind of waste disposal system.There are other other ways of disposing of rubbish that are more environmentally friendly but more expensive.The incinerator option would have been the cheapest option for Veolia but more environmentally damaging.
A more environmentally friendly option will hopefully be adopted by Veolia if they wish to fulfill their side of the contract.
Report abuse
I am disapointed with this news. i think that it wouldn’t have hurt what was going on in the town. it’s obviously tesco’s fault for having too much non food space to make this a viable prospect for the town.
not the fact that the town on monday was dead. but then hey it was bank holiday and of course that wouldn’t bring out the tourists who may have shopped in our town or used the Wildlife centre on abbey forgate that was also closed.
Damn it shrewsbury you have you’re priorites all wrong. but hey we do live in a backward town that aint really got a clue what it is doing from one day to the next.
and who they are going to blame for the incorrect publisity that happens around the town. what a joke! I know lets have Two men go round to collect the bins from the side of the road when you only need one! oh no that’s right can’t do that can we!
Report abuse
yipee!! well done councillors – thank you on behalf of the children of harlescott and battlefield who would have had to grow up under this cloud otherwise
Report abuse
Thats really good news for the environment obviously but also for the public finances thats probably saved the need for a few rural primaries to close and hopefully means more money will be available for things like plastic recycling and anaerobic digestion which are cheaper and greener
Report abuse
good news
Report abuse
yes yes yes
this is fantastic news which will force the council to improve recycling collections instead. there is better solutions to the landfill problem than just burning the rubbish and lanffilling ash instead
Report abuse
Good.
i just wish these councillors who clearly have some sense of public mood and economics were around when they idiotic shropshire county council pawned the family silver and got their credit card out and signed up to a 27 year long PFI collection contract for the whole of shropshire!!!
Report abuse
If the people above were so much in support of an incinerator, why did they not voice their opinions either in writing or by asking to speak at the hearing? The incinerator will cost £4 million pa more than landfill, and this will raise your council tax at a time when the council is strapped for cash. The UK exports 3 million tonnes of rubbish to be burned in N europe because there is not enough local rubbish there to feed their own incinerators. There is already over-capacity in the incinerators in the West Midlands, and the Battlefield incinerator would be competing with these because there is only 74,000 tonnes pa of waste available (it has been steadily reducing each year because of people’s recycling efforts, and will continue to reduce due to plastic and food waste collections)) for the 90,000 tonne (or was it 102,000 tonne pa or 105,000 tonne pa?)incinerator. No, there are other, more pro-active and flexible technologies which are both cheaper and available and which do not involve landfill, and Shropshire Council would do well to get Veolia to look at these now.
Report abuse
It would not have been politically correct to be seen supporting an incinerator even if the supporting information showed it to be safe. Unless this situation is sorted out quickly then it will be us Shropshire council tax payers who are going to have to foot the bill to cover the 100s thousands of pounds and more in extra landfill tax while the debate goes on and on …….
Report abuse
So, Adams, should councillors not -in your view- take the health, financial and aesthetic concerns of their constituents and their democratic obligations seriously?
Would you prefer (instead of democracy) an unaccountable bureaucracy, untroubled by notions such as political correctness, which can dismiss public concerns as ‘irrational’?
Report abuse
The councillors know full well that they are destined to lose the inevitable appeal, they just wanted to save a bit of face by looking like they cared…regardless of what the appeal will cost the taxpayer.
Report abuse
totally agree with you Huw. This was the wrong development in the wrong place and there was no need for it in an area with such high recycling rates and low levels of waste. further more public health and fear of ill health and worry and stress caused by unmonitored emissions of dioxin and pm 2.5 is a material planning consideration
Report abuse
but adams it will be cheaper to recycle the waste and not burn it
Report abuse
good move
Report abuse
[So, if you had been a councillor, you would have listened to public opinion, then, eva?
Good.
Isn’t that the job of a councillor in local democracy?]
Again Huw you have not read what I said. I said ‘probably’ not ‘yes’ I would and I then gave the resons why.
I find councillors have a lack of integrity and are more often than not hypocrites. I truly feel that they should not be allowed to serve any longer than 10 years.
The public service aspect of their role has long been lost with the large increase in allowances which now amounts to an income and the political affliations can result in voting to please party members rather than being directed by intelligent debate or common sense.
I think just reading these posts Huw you can see that not all public opinion is in support of the councillors decision. As Adams has just said the councillors are not going to rock the boat and can even provide a bit of entertainment looking as if they are giving thought to their decision too. A win win situation really for them!
Report abuse
Isn’t it the job of a councillor to represent public opinion in a democracy?
If -as you say- ‘not all public opinion is in support of the councillors decision’ then why did pro-incinerator people like yourself not come to the meeting to make your case, eva?
Report abuse
This will just go to appeal and as long as Veolia can demonstrate that the use of the incinerator is in line with national policy and waste objectives and that any health risks are negligable as backed by evidence from scientific report and existing monitored sites, it will be allowed no problems. At a time when Local Authorities are strapped for cash can they afford to spend thousands on appeals for what is ultimately a lip service decision by officers.
Report abuse
i dont think so
the reasons given to turn it down are good,
its contrary to the local plan and there are a number of serious material planning considerations which mean this development is unsuitable for this site
further the applicant has failed to demonstrate need, there is simply no need for this development, veolias plan was too big it was based on every increasing amounts of rubbish and low levels of recycling, neither of which has materialised in shrosphire in the last 5 years recycling rates have rocketed whilst waste has declined massively
Report abuse
nice one
lets focus on recycling (and food waste collections) first – with a good effort it should be possible to halve the quantity of rubbish left over in shropshire easily hitting statutory landfill targets without any incineration
Report abuse
#36 Exactly the point I have been trying to make tappalch but blinkered posters like Huw cannot see the bigger picture.
I have not made any comment in support or otherwise of the incinerator but like you I can see the cost implications of Veolia winning at appeal, as with the Tesco decision.
If the councillors were putting their hands in their own pockets they may take more trouble to engage their brain when considering applications.
To refuse the incinerator on the basis of the proximity to the historic battlefield site is laughable.
I don’t remember the council insisting on the Recycling Centre in Harlescott being built in a reclaimed brick, attempting to look like a building from the last century. If they had we could have called it Guildhall 11!
Report abuse
eva, can you see the cost implications of a PFI contract, signed without democratic consultation, which will undermine local moves towards a ‘zero waste’ economy for more than 2 decades?
Report abuse
tappalch, you said Veolia will appeal and simply ensure that their approach to waste treatment is ‘in line with national policy and waste objectives.’
Perhaps you are already aware that the UK’s self-declared ‘greenest government ever’ is currently carrying out a review of its ‘national policy and waste objectives’.
Quoting from the defra site, the ‘main aim [of the Review] will be to ensure that we are taking the right steps towards creating a ‘zero waste’ economy, where resources are fully valued, and nothing of value gets thrown away.’
Correct me if you think I am wrong, tappalch, but, to my mind, the protesters (and Shrewsbury residents) are more in line with the current national policy and waste objectives than Veolia.
If Veolia is making money out of every tonne of waste incinerated for the council, what guarantees will there be for the next 27 years that Shrewsbury is moving towards a ‘zero waste’ economy, where resources are fully valued, and nothing of value gets burnt?
Report abuse
This is more important than a victory against incineration. It is a victory, no matter how small, for democracy. You’ve shown us up here in benighted East Yorkshire that not veryone has thrown in the towel.
Report abuse
This is definately the right decision, apart from anything else the proposal was contrary to the Shropshire Waste Local Plan which was agreed with considerable effort only 5 years ago, passing the scheme would have made a mockery of that process.
Veolia may want to appeal but they will find it almost impossible to get permission now so I hope that they move on and save everyone concerned time, effort and money (including Shropshire Council and their shareholders.
Incineration isn’t cheap, there’s no reason why this decision should cost anything, in fact it should save money. Shropshire is well ahead on it’s landfill targets and can keep ahead with gradual increases in recycling coupled with a continued decline in waste produced. Yes there will be some landfill but if Veolia couldn’t use the wastes from the incinerator (25% of inputs) then that would have needed landfilling and much of that would have been hazardous waste.
Report abuse
If Veolia do appeal I believe they will fail since it will set a precedent for the rest of Veolia’s rejected incinerator schemes that they have tried to get built throughout the UK.
Apparently there are other greener waste disposal schemes available but are more expensive than the original proposal.
Veolia wanted this scheme because there would be a bigger mark up in their profits overall.The other greener schemes would mean less profit.
Veolia aren’t interested in being “green”all they care about is making a massive profit.
Report abuse
All the supporters of the incinerator read this
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/incineration/alternatives-to-incineration/
Report abuse
a good decision, in the long term it is always cheaper to recycle more and not to burn everything – who knows what will be happening in 25 years time, so sign up to a long contract like that is plain stupid.
Would you sign up to a 25 year long mobile phone contract???
Report abuse
Well done to all involved in this rejection.
What a pity that the abolished south shrops members were never allowed to make a similar decision on the dispised biomass burner at Bishop’s Castle. All the same arguments were deployed and the proximity of schools and housing and AONB and conservation area made if anything a stronger case.
But beware if this goes to appeal the officers who support it and say the public are irrational will not make a good fist of supporting their pesky members awkward decision.
Members should look to appointing outside consultants who report to the committee and cut out the cancer of planning officers who take no account of public opinion. It is time for the Members to take firm control and rid themselves of officers who have little or no respect for the concept of democracy.
In the case of the Bishop’s Castle proposal officers indicated that would not accept a lawful instruction from Members to oppose the application at inquiry and their representatives short contribution to the Inquiry could be sumarised thus.
” We will agree to anything the applicant will accept”
THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT ON OUR SIDE.
Report abuse
smart move, this will save public money and therefore lower council tax all round, borrowing that kind of money and paying it back with interest is the last thing a council who wants to save money should do
Report abuse
This is a triumph of democracy
the whole contract was signed in secret and they wont release the costs as freedom of information, its a disgrace that contract and its fantastic news that the councillors have voted against it
Report abuse
#43 John
I made reference to the polluting aspects of producing upvc windows and the difficultly disposing of them a while back on this topic John.
[I wonder how many posters regarding this issue have got UVPC windows. It is this sort of unnecessary product that is highly polluting to produce and highly polluting to dispose of and need not be produced at all when wood is still the best material to use.
We should be aware of what we are creating in waste and not being hypocrites when it comes to the unenviable task of getting rid of our waste.]
•Andy
July 14, 2010 at 09:03
Outstanding off-topic rant there by someone making wooden widnow frames?
No I am not a wooden window manufacturer but upvc is banned in some EU countries for very good reasons.
[As ASIF says certain plastics cannot yet be recycled. UPVC windows for example, are actually unnecessary. Our council opposes UPVC windows in historic situations otherwise they are they are actually specified by our council in contracts.
We either stop producing stuff that cannot be recycled or we have to dispose of it somehow.]
Miriam Walton said:
[Castigating people for using PVC windows and the like is disingenous. People tend to get them because they’re the cheapest option and because they have been pushed at us in favour of more ‘environmentally-friendly’ options. But blaming the public displays the same lofty attitude that says ‘if you’re naughty and don’t recycle ‘copious amounts’ you deserve an incinerator’.]
A lot of this waste issue is about us not examining the ‘green’ credentials of what we choose to buy.
It’s not about victory and the public voice speaking out because that works two ways and there is as much public angst created when wind farms are proposed.
Whatever way we dispose of waste it will have longterm consequences so we should be as conscious of what we manufacture as we should be of incresing how much we recycle.
Report abuse
If the capital costs of this burner being built were £60 million, im glad its refused because it will save tax payers money. THINK ABOUT IT! if you borrow £60 m you pay back at least 120 right, you all understand that basic rule of finance, if you have a mortgage the bank lends you the money and profits from the loan, . With PFI the company (veolia) is also the mortgage provider, so turning this down has saved the council tax payer a minimum of £120 million just in capital costs, over 25 years that is an annual repayment of £4,800,000 per annum in interest payments on the loan before any waste gets burnt. If you think about that for 90,000 tonnes of waste to be treated a year that means your debt repayments on the plant are £53.33 per tonne!! thats without any waste getting treated! And some people suggest unlike a mortgage pfi requires the public sector to pay back as much as 5 times the original amount of the loan so it could be double or even treble this figure (the actual amounts are top secret because they would be too embarrasing for the council to release)
the people who signed up to this deal are incompetent period, they should be sacked and the whole contract should be torn up
Report abuse
good on them, there are much better options available and the planning officers report was completely flawed so it would never stand up to enquiry, they never looked properly at the alternative options of treatment technology let alone alternate plans for e.g. higher levels of recycling or sending waste to the much under capacity plants in wolverhampton, dudley, stoke and birmingham where they are literally desperate for rubbish to keep operational / cash flow
Report abuse
good im glad
Report abuse
I am delighted that the Battlefield incinerator has been rejected,lets hope that if it goes to appeal it is turned down again,for the sake of our children living/schooling in the Harlescott region. well done and thank you to all who have had a say in this.
Report abuse
so glad that commen sense has prevailed
Report abuse
hip hip – HORAY!
Report abuse
Finally a decision I agree with, the Council is starting to listen to the people who pay for it, lets hope they keep this up if they want re-electing, remember who pays for all this its us after all
Report abuse
brilliant :-)
Report abuse