Rallying call to save Royal British Legion clubs
- Today's leader
Veolia to appeal over Battlefield incinerator refusal
Wednesday 9th February 2011, 7:00PM GMT.
An artist's impression of the proposed waste incinerator at Battlefield
Waste firm Veolia today announced plans to appeal against a decision to refuse planning permission for a controversial £60 million incinerator in Shrewsbury.
The company said it believed it had a “strong” application and was determined to get the decision made by Shropshire Council’s strategic planning committee last September overturned.
Veolia claims its proposed burner at Battlefield Enterprise Park could generate enough power to supply 10,000 homes, as well as reducing the amount of waste going to landfill to just five per cent.
The planning committee rejected the plans after members said it was unacceptable to have a mass burner as this had been excluded in the local waste plan.
The committee also felt it would have a negative impact on the visual landscape with incinerator next to the historically significant Battlefield site.
But Donald Macphail, managing director for Veolia Shropshire, today said: “The decision in September by Shropshire Council to refuse our planning application was a disappointment. But we have a strong application and after careful consideration we have decided to appeal.”
Sponsored Links
UK News
Most Commented
- Shropshire Council will face £8m redundancy bill
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- The Bleak Old Shop of Stuff doesn't raise a smile
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
i thinks its disgraceful that the council allowed them to appeal (effectively on their behalf) against the councils planning department, its madness which costs the taxpayer more both ways
Report abuse
Sack the idiot who allowed them to appeal at our expense if the ordinary man or woman wants to go to a tribunal they have to fund it themselves it’s not as though veolia are a charity but the tax payers are.
Report abuse
i agree the people who signed up to this contract should be sacked
Report abuse
this scheme is going to cost taxpayers millions for years to come, an intelligent council would have stopped this ever going to appeal, now they have to pay the appeal costs and pay back the debt on a pfi credit card for years to come, its stupid to pay so much for a new plant when the wolverhampton incinerator is begging for extra waste to burn at the moment, can these people not see the logic in sharing facilities to save each council money?
Note to keith barrow – we are supposed to be paying off the national debt not taking out new loans!!!!
Report abuse
yeah close down a school to pay for an unwanted un safe burner
nice one shropshire council, youre really listening to people arent you
Report abuse
Why cant these people take no for an answer, dont thet understand that the incinerrator is no wanted and is definately not the answer to the problem
Report abuse
If the Council is so skint why is it spending £60,000,000 on an incinerator, surely there are more pressing priorities right now like care homes and vulnerable people
Report abuse
i cannot believe the council was so stupid to allow them to appeal, there is a real danger they may win in which case shropshire council will have to pay them over half a billion pounds over the next 25 years to rent this on a PFI hire purchase arrangement, the credit card interest rates of PFI are proven to cost 5 to 6 times more than buying things normally, at any time its wasteful, when people are losing their jobs its frankly criminal to waste so much money on something which is illegal in the local plan and not wanted or needed locally
Report abuse
local politicians are nimbys on all wind farms and renewables they always say no yet they spout hot air on carbon and recycling and stuff but vote against renewables
Report abuse
this IS NOT a renewable technology Wyn
Report abuse
Would you call turning useful waste into useless ash a ‘renewable’ technology, wyn?
People don’t want their money to be spent on incinerators. We want massively expanded recycling services and ‘zero waste’ targets.
In 1998/99 the rate for recycling in Shropshire was a pitiful 7.8%. Between April 2009 and March 2010, it was 50% and rising. We have a some way to go, but we have come a long way in just over 10 years.
Surely that shows it is more than ‘hot air’, wyn, doesn’t it?
Report abuse
Although I’m in agreement with what you say here, repeating someone’s name back to them whilst trying to get your point across is the typographical equivalent of poking them in the chest with your index finger.
Report abuse
Thanks for the feedback, Jake. In a previous discussion you said I was a ‘poor ambassador for the Greens’ and that I was pushing a ‘hare-brained tree hugging loony lefty liberal idealist’ agenda.
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2011/01/05/letter-does-weather-prove-global-warming-is-a-myth/ #15 + #20
If responding to someone with their name is such an egregious breach of etiquette, could you let readers know what your words were the typographical equivalent of?
Report abuse
This should be stopped. Shropshire don’t want this. It will be used for commercial waste too!
Do you have any idea what will be burned in it?
We are good at recycling in Shropshire but we really need to stop producing so much waste in the first place. I can forsee Veolia shipping waste into the county if we can’t feed this beast.
Keep our air clean please. other areas have succesfully prevented these incinerators from being built. Veolia are a private company and have their own interests at heart.
Report abuse
Difficult one for Demanding Dan to play the eco card on this one again after wanting the Buildwas Power Station to continue burning coal beyond 2015.
Report abuse
Just what exactly is going on in this town?
Kingsland, Port hill and the Mount get flood defences, a theatre and a hunk of eye candy called the primodorial leap that can only be appreciated from the balcony of the theatre at great local cost.
The equally hard working, taxpayers of Harlescott end up with a £60m eyesore of an incinerator right between their place of abode and the Shrewsbury battleground, a place of immense historical importance dating back to 1403.
Why not build it in a less populated area like Snailbeach where the landscape has already been wrecked by years of mining.
Where does STCRA stand on this? They made enough fuss the other week regarding the aesthetics of the boathouse, which incidentally is on the other side of the river. STCRA constitution, section (2) paragraph (1).
Report abuse
I assume you don’t live in Snailbeach, i also assume you didn’t mind too much when a Railway track, bypass and business park were built on your place of ” immense historical importance “.
Report abuse
A deep breath and a longer fuse before you use the keyboard wouldn’t go amiss. No, I don’t live in Snailbeach, neither do I live near a railway line, a main road, bypass, business park, town or suburbia for that matter. I don’t as it happens agree with the construction of this proposed incinerator full stop, as it is just an excuse to spend money and breed complacency regarding recycling, however your concerns regarding my welfare and those that do are duly noted.
Report abuse
And thanks for offering to donate your incinerator to the people of Snailbeach
Report abuse
controversial!!!
So much for “localism”
elected local politicians make a decision for the people and then an unelected planner from london gets to decide!!!
Report abuse
Absolutely stunned – cannot understand the decision of the council to allow and pay for this appeal – why would they waste our money in this way for something that it is clear is not wanted nor indeed needed.
Too late to try and sell my house now – who would choose to buy a property near to an incinerator?
Report abuse
madness
I quote Liam Byrne, Labour Treasury Sec.
“THERE IS NO MONEY LEFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Report abuse
controversial politically and it will be going up in election year 2014 then!
Report abuse
[Veolia claims its proposed burner at Battlefield Enterprise Park could generate enough power to supply 10,000 homes, as well as reducing the amount of waste going to landfill to just five per cent.]
Is that the hot air you are referring to Huw?
I’m not sure exactly what wyn is saying but it is true nobody wants renewables either.
The company will have been in months of planning over this. The planning committee councillors then cost us loads of money to look good to their voters and eventually after loads of expense the incinerator gets built.
That is our democracy at work, apparently.
I can hear a heavy googling noise from the direction of Huw.
Report abuse
The ‘hot air’ wyn spoke about turned out to be more substantive than he suggested.
Do you deny the very real increase in recycling here in just a few years, eva?
If -as eva says- ‘nobody wants renewables’, then why did renewables account for 60% of newly installed capacity in Europe and more than 50% in the USA in 2009?
‘Democracy at work’ is politicians LISTENING to their constituents and acting accordingly.
All of our general election candidates, except the UKIP and BNP candidates, were against the incinerator, because they listened to the voters, and could see which way the wind was blowing.
The planning committee councillors voted to reject the burner, because they listened to the voters and perhaps because they read the local waste plan.
Ignoring the public is not sustainable in the long term, as Hosni Mubarak is discovering.
And burdening the Shrewsbury public with appeal costs at a time when services are being cut is not going to endear the Veolia brand to Shrewsbury.
Report abuse
Lets get the thing built before land fill sites in Telford are full. (not long now)! Us in Telford can then send the same amount of rubbish back to Shrewsbury thats been sent here over the years.
There is an up side to this. At least we’ll get to call your town the “Scab of Shropshire” for a change.
Report abuse
im flabbergasted at the lack of respect for the public opinion shown here
Report abuse
as a proud Ludlovian, with a beautiful clean medieval market town with a reputation for high quality food and agriculture all around, i can say categorically that i am perfectly happy for all my rubbish to be taken away and dumped on Shrewsbury,
Keep Ludlow Tidy
send it all to Shrewsbury – ha ha!
Report abuse
I can’t say I’m surprised, there were no material reasons why it should have been refused. Expect Shropshire council to have to pay out a large amount in costs.
Report abuse
‘No material reasons’?
Does massive public opposition not count, Grey?
Report abuse
Here you go
It was proposed by Dr J E Jones and Seconded by Mr T Durnell that the application be refused for the following reasons (on being put to the vote the motion was carried, with 10 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions):
(a) That the proposal constitutes a departure from the Shropshire Waste Local Plan as the Plan excludes the use of a mass burn incinerator for the site and that the reasons given do not outweigh the presumption against mass burn.
(b) That the proposal would have an adverse effect on the nearby historic Battlefield site and would be out of character with the surrounding area due to the height and scale of the building, the 65m chimney and associated plume. It is not considered that the design or proposed landscaping would be sufficient to overcome the visual impact particularly on the Battlefield site and that the reasons put forward by the applicant do not override the relevant development plan policies, in particular GP1, GP2, HE13 and PP55.
(c) The facility would have an adverse effect on the movement of waste further up the waste hierarchy as is required by the Waste Management Policies and revised Waste Management Framework Directive.
(d) That there is significant public concern about the perceived health effects of emissions from the proposed facility and as such the proposal is considered to be contrary to PPS10.
(e) That ash and flue gas residues would need to be transported from the proposed site to disposal or reprocessing facilities outside Shropshire against the objective for communities to take responsibility for their own waste contrary to PPS10.
Report abuse
If the opposition is based on non material reasons then no, it doesn’t count.
Report abuse
I can see the logic of your argument if Shrewsbury were a technocratic dictatorship.
But it’s not; it’s a democracy.
And the health concerns, worries about PFI costs and environmental aspirations of people living here cannot be blithely dismissed as ‘non-material reasons’.
Report abuse
But the opposition is based on “material reasons” see dia above.
I also do not agree anyway that public opinion should be dismissed in such a cavalier fashion by only allowing consideration of so called “material reasons” material defined by what, the project or peoples concern for their health or their environment? This country is supposed to be a democracy and that by definition is a bottom up and not a top down movement.
If the people of Shrewsbury do not want this and have convinced their representatives that should be the end of the matter.
Report abuse
Have you changed your mind about incineration, Ken?
In our last conversation about it ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/latest/2008/12/30/uk-waste-policy-is-tax-scam/ ) you seemed to be saying that we should stop recycling and start burning rubbish. (See whole thread, in particular #66)
Report abuse
I think the discussion was more nuanced than you imply Huw, I did not argue that I supported incineration only that the press were reporting that the recycling system was not at the time dealing with all of the rubbish and that much of the sorted “recycled” material was in fact sent to either landfill or China for disposal and that the argument with regards to recycling was displacement activity as the whole point is to reduce emissions from landfill.
But I do not see what any of that has to do with the point I make here about the democratic choice of the people of Shrewsbury being “material” to the placement of this incinerator; in that I agree with you. I also agree that recycling has its own merits separate from the landfill debate.
Report abuse
Ken you said, ‘I did not argue that I supported incineration’
Really?
See the final paragraph of http://www.shropshirestar.com/latest/2008/12/30/uk-waste-policy-is-tax-scam/ #28
KA: ‘Would it not therefore make simple common sense to link these two problems and use the waste to produce electricity.’
See also #34 (4th paragraph)
KA: ‘One would have to assume that incineration is just another way of getting rid of unwanted or unusable waste. I would agree that if this were not also associated with energy recovery this would be a destruction of recourses, it would not achieve anything meaningful.’
See #66 (penultimate paragraph)
KA: ‘You say you are against incineration. Why, when if attached to energy production it can complement recycling and create an alternative method of meeting our energy demands?’
See #70 (3rd paragraph), where you say,
KA: ‘I do not give a monkeys that creating power from waste breaks the circle of your important idea of wealth being re-formulated to be re-used.’
I think you would have to be using a highly nuanced definition of the word ‘nuanced’ not to see that your contributions were consistently anti-recycling and pro-incineration, Ken.
Report abuse
What should ordinary people think when the pro-incinerator camp has to deny it is pro-incinerator on these threads?
Report abuse
Quite right, and now within context of the national press reports of a failing recycling system and the imperative to reduce emission from landfill. As I made clear at the time a scam was being perpetrated as the sorted material was not being recycled but incinerated sent to China or landfill because the material was counted as recycled at the point of collection and not if actually recycled.
Funny I would have thought that would have been of interest to the Greens apparently not!
But again this has nothing to do with the present thread.
Report abuse
It is of interest to Greens to see accurate information being put out into the public domain, and to highlight and challenge misinformation.
When those, who in previous threads have voiced support for incinerators and opposition to recycling, try to make out now that they agree with the Shrewsbury public, then the shifting sands need to be highlighted.
Report abuse
You have an uncanny knack of continually misrepresenting and then making open or veiled accusations of dishonesty based on nothing more than your own misinterpretations! You are never in fact engaging in debate but rather Green propaganda, as you do not reply to my points but you own misinterpretations.
I have not said that from an ideological position I support incineration nor have I said I oppose recycling.I have said that the recycling was not (according to national media reports) at the time working and could not cope with the levels of material and that recycling was not driven by demand for the recycled products, but by the level of waste.
Therefore as the the imperative is to reduce emission from landfill we would need to consider alternatives and not be boxed in by the displacement activity of recycling within this context. That says nothing about the desirability to reduce waste or the merits of increased recycling. And it says nothing about the democratic choice of the people of Shrewsbury.
If the Greens were interested in accurate information being in the public domain, they would have openly and noisily opposed the scam of counting recycled material as being recycled at the point of collection, when much of it was not recycled, but either incinerated sent to China or landfill. Or perhaps you actually believe that something has been recycled when it is in a separate box on the pavement? Please try to be consistent with your own arguments instead of misrepresenting mine.
Report abuse
The imperative, as you have said, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfill.
Why?
Because our society takes the warnings of climate scientists seriously.
You, on the other hand, don’t, Ken.
You prefer to believe UKIP’s Lord Monckton, who says the world is not warming, sea levels are not rising, ice is not melting, polar bears are not threatened, the oceans are not heating, there is no ocean acidification, that climate scientists are lying and that there is a conspiracy.
If my accusations of dishonesty have been veiled, then I apologise. They should have been far more open. I don’t believe what you are saying.
Otherwise, if climate change is not -in your view- a problem, why should we be reducing greenhouse gas emissions from landfill?
Report abuse
So again! Why do the Green not openly oppose such scams as counting material as recycled at the point of collection even though much of it it is not actually recycled but incinerated sent to landfill, China or Africa for disposal, often by open air burning. These practices do not reduce the overall Co2 levels do they? All they do is to reduce the public’s belief in recycling, it is not the messenger you should oppose it is the content of the message.
Report abuse
“Otherwise, if climate change is not -in your view- a problem, why should we be reducing greenhouse gas emissions from landfill?”
First it is not “climate change” that always changes always has and always will.
I question the over the top alarmists computer scenario scaremongering that is based on nothing more than a dubious scientific hypothesis advanced by a politically centred system where the leading scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda. I question the IPCC political system continually producing corrupt findings that can be used as justification to impose massive new energy taxes.
As to why we should reduce gas emissions from landfill, that is not a question for me! My point is that as this is the policy and as it is based on reducing Co2 levels we should not loose sight of the imperative of the policy, which is to reduce emissions from landfill. Counting material collected as recycled and then later sending it to landfill, incinerators, China or Africa is not meeting the objectives of the policy and is not reducing Co2 levels is it.
So the question to you Greens is if we are supposed to be reducing emissions from landfill in order to reduce Co2 levels why do you support a system that does neither?
Report abuse
Sorry I do not mean why do Greens support Recycling that is obvious, I mean why do you support the scam which has been created by counting at the point of collection.
Report abuse
To prevent wasteful incineration, avoid waste going overseas and expand recycling, we need massive investment in recycling facilities in this country.
I would say that the vast majority of people opposed to this expensive incinerator would support this move.
Another benefit of this refreshingly unnuanced approach is that you don’t have to tie yourself in knots saying it’s imperative to cut emissions while trying to maintain that emissions don’t matter.
Report abuse
You have avoided the question; why are the Greens supporting the failed system of counting material recycled at the point of collection? This is not reducing Co2 levels, and not fulfilling the objectives of the policy. Would you not be better advised and better placed as the Green Party to point out the failure in the system and try to get it changed rather than pretending it does not exist and attacking those who point out the problem. What has happened is the legal requirements and fines imposed in order to reduce landfill has actually resulted in more incineration and more waste going overseas we are not reducing Co2 levels by sending so called recycled material to Africa where it is burned in the open air.
Report abuse
they turned it down for several valid reasons including the height of the chimney, the visual impact on the historic battlefield site, the health concerns which even if they might not be proven are accepted by planning law as a material consideration because of they reduce peoples quality of life and give rise to concern, they also commented on the fact that this was a departure from the Waste Local Plan which specifically ruled out mass burn incineration on this site and for the whole county and they also highlighted that it was not an environmentally sustainable option because it departed from the waste heirarchy which government policy requires councils to use to develop their waste plans and also i think they were concerned about the ash and the pollution residues being shipped out of the county for disposal and waste from telford and stafforshire having to be shipped in to make up the shortfall in waste which kind of undermined their whole point about waste being treated in the county of origin
Report abuse
what about the fact that its UGLY, thats not differnt from some chav in your street putting in UPVC windows, it ruins the view and effects your area so its not allowed, thats called the law, its called planning, thats why its not allowed for veolia to park a spaceship in the middle of a medieval battlefield on the edge of a lovely market town
Report abuse
Aesthetic qualities are subjective, there are no protected landscapes nearby and the immeadiate surroundings are large format plastic style sheds and offices, its not like its in the middle of a conservation zone.
Report abuse
What about the Food Enterprise Park, Grey?
Report abuse
dont worry its not real money they’re spending its PFI, so its more of a loan really, forget about it, our grandchildren can pay it off later somehow hey
Report abuse
The authorities have been trying to get the public to reduce the amounts we send to landfill, in our case we can get away for a month without the bin being emptied, so have those that crow about the incinerator yet do nothing to reduce their ‘trash footprint’ only managed to shoot themselves in the foot?
Report abuse
What is the best way for the authorities to reduce our trash footprint, Brian?
Expand recycling massively, push for zero-waste targets and increase public education about reducing waste?
Lock Shrewsbury into an expensive, unpopular PFI contract, decided on without public consultation, using an outdated technology for the next 25+ years and refer to all opposition as ‘irrational’?
The Chancellor George Osborne has joined the campaign against an incinerator in Cheshire because he thinks it is a threat to the “environment and people’s quality of life” (see Independent, Tuesday, 28 December 2010).
When even senior government ministers are opposed to incinerators, shouldn’t we all -Veolia included- be researching the viability of the more popular -and cheaper- alternatives?
Report abuse
There is some evidence that Veolia have funded the Israeli occupation in Palestine I believe, what chance they also help fund the MP’s expenses to get favours on this kind of thing too? our democracy is rotten
Report abuse
Or is it because he’s the local MP for Tatton in Cheshire. He hasn’t got a problem with Incinerators Huw, just the one in his backyard.
Report abuse
Do incinerators cease being a threat to the “environment and people’s quality of life” when they move to someone else’s backyard?
Is this the big idea that the big society is just itching to get behind?
Of course not.
Up and down the country, wherever incinerators are proposed and opposed, enthusiasm for zero-waste alternatives is growing and politicians and waste companies are having to play catch-up with public aspirations.
Report abuse
So why are a few of the posters on here suggesting that its the location thats the problem and recommending that it be built in other areas, eg Snailbeach, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Birmingham.
Nobody in Shrewsbury is concerned that its electricity is produced by a power station on the outskirts of Telford because it doesn’t directly affect them, but when Veolia want to build an incinerator which produces electricty in Shrewsbury everyone crys foul.
Report abuse
An increasing number of people in Shrewsbury ARE concerned about where their energy comes from, spencer, and certainly wouldn’t see electricity from an incinerator as ‘green’ or ‘renewable’.
These people buy energy from suppliers like Good Energy or Ecotricity because -to tackle climate change- we need to support genuine renewables like wind.
As for those who want it sited elsewhere, I suggest you ask them their reasons.
Greens are opposed to incinerators as a matter of national policy and voted against the re-branding of EfW as ‘renewable’ energy in the European Parliament on 13th February 2007.
Greens are pushing for massive expansion of recycling, zero-waste targets, anaerobic digestion and want to introduce taxes on packaging and plastic bags.
Report abuse
For the economically illiterate people at Shropshire council and the hard up taxpayers who pay their wages, I would like to highlight that national independent waste experts WRAP have published a report into the costs of waste management.
http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/2010_Gate_Fees_Report.5976477b.9523.pdf
In it they found that the cost of managing a tonne of rubbish was,
- £24 for composting
- £57 for AD
- £70 for landfill
- £92 for incineration
- £138 for the ones the size of the planned incinerator in Shrewsbury
So the taxpayer has to pay nearly 6 times as much for burning than if they did greener options like composting, and even with landfill its more cost effective by 100%!
No wonder Veolia want to appeal
Report abuse
Why were Shropshire Councillors not shown these figures before they voted on the incinerator contract?
Report abuse
I always find it so amusing that Mr Peach et al are so adept at name-dropping when the need arises.
Would this be the same Mr Osbourne that has been vilified by the same public for his attempts to reduce the national debt?
Two differing subjects I agree but ‘the cause’ is not enhanced when commentators pick and choose which bits they want to believe and ignore the rest.
Report abuse
I was not vilifying Mr Osborne, BK. I was writing approvingly that senior members of the government are catching up with public opposition to incinerators.
Mr Osborne is saying the right things in Tatton because local public opinion has been impossible to ignore and he understandably wants to be a responsive local MP.
However, Conservative policy on incineration is contradictory.
Local MPs are campaigning against something which their party colleagues voted FOR in the European Parliament.
On Tuesday 13th February 2007 Conservative MEPs voted to PROMOTE INCINERATION as part of the EU-wide Waste Framework Directive.
Philip Bushill-Matthews, our local Conservative MEP, then wrote an article in the Shrewsbury Chronicle on February 22nd 2007 praising this move towards more incineration.
This contradiction needs highlighting to ensure that Shrewsbury’s victory in rejecting the incinerator does not become a defeat in someone else’s backyard.
What we don’t want in Shrewsbury should not be foisted on someone else.
And to ensure that this does not happen requires change at the policy level.
Report abuse
…which goes to prove that if they agree with you then they are the best thing since sliced bread and if they don’t they should face the ducking stool as modern day witches.
The trouble is most campaigners, anti and pro, will only see one side of the argument, are you now saying that because there is an anti in the govt camp you can now trust them to come to the right decision as far as you are concerned?
Personally I would prefer to get somebody completely neutral to decide, but that will never do will it unless they come down on the ‘right side’?
Report abuse
Perhaps I didn’t make my point clearly enough, BK.
Apologies.
Most MPs want to be seen to be responsive to local public opinion, and I would imagine that 99% of the public think that is a good thing for democracy.
George Osborne’s opposition to the Tatton incinerator may go against what Conservative MEPs voted for in the European Parliament but it is a pretty strong indicator of how strong local opposition to the incinerator is in Tatton.
People in Tatton most probably don’t support everything the Chancellor is doing at the moment, but I bet they are glad that they have an MP who is listening to their concerns about an important local issue, rather than dismissing them as ‘irrational’ or ‘non-material’.
Report abuse
this is a stupid application, there is no NEED, that is fundamental to planning, shropshire councils own website admits it only landfills about 70,000 tonnes of rubbish a year and this figure is going down every year, some of this is not even combustable, so there is only about 60,000 tonnes at most available to burn
on that basis how does veolia justify the NEED for a 100,000 tonne a year burner?
it cant
its a stupid hair brained vanity project, a white elephant like the millenium dome it will eat taxpayers money for years
Report abuse
i am completely in support of Shropshire councils strategic planning committee, they were right to turn this down, it goes against the Waste Local Plan, Veolia can appeal all they like (at the Councils expense) they arent going to get this through in a month of Sunday, its not allowed by virtue of local planning policy
Report abuse
i cant understand why the council is wasting public money on an appeal against the councils planning decision, whoever wins the public loses, this is an outrage, my taxes are hard earned they should be spent more wisely, no one wants an incinerator in a medieval tourist town it will scar shrewsbury and ruin the local farming businesses around that area, i pity the people who own the Battlefield 1604 shop which overlooks this site and trys to trade as high end, fresh, clean beautiful local food. I completely understand if they sue the pants off the council over this, and guess what that means, yes, more of my taxes up in smoke!
Report abuse
yet again, shropshire county council demonstrates how out of touch it is with local people and yet again further evidence if it were needed of its utter financial mismanagement and addiction to tax and spend, i seriously think that there are just hundreds of fatcats there everyday thinking about nothing other than sucking in my hard earned cash to cover the cost of more borrowing and more projects which seem to have no actual benefit to local people and are just to give them another project to manage because they are bored and love spending taxpayers money badly
Report abuse
stupid stupid stupid council
Report abuse
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE IDIOTS WHO SIGNED THIS CONTRACT GET SACKED, ITS JUST STUPID TO THINK YOU WILL GET VALUE FOR MONEY ON A 27 YEAR CONTRACT,
WOULD YOU TAKE OUT A 27 YEAR MOBILE PHONE CONTRACT? WHAT ABOUT LOCKING INTO BRITISH GAS FOR YOU ELECTRICITY FOR 27 YEARS, NO? DIDNT THINK SO, BECAUSE WHEN YOUR SPENDING YOUR OWN MONEY YOU USE YOUR BRAIN AND GET THE BEST VALUE.
WHY CANT SHROPSHIRE COUNCILS PROCUREMENT EXPERTS USE THEIR BRAINS TOO?
Report abuse
if the council has any sense it would be looking into cheaper, cleaner, greener technologies such as MBT like they are doing in Cheshire, this would reduce council tax and be better for the environment
Report abuse
i think there are other things the council should be focusing on right now with the recession, this is just wasteful of taxpayers money, there are plenty of incinerators in the area e.g wallsall, coventry, birmingham, wolverhampton, stoke if they want to incinerate send it there and the taxpayers of shropshire need not incur the capital cost of the construction project nor the local impact of the facility
Report abuse
Come on. we have to move forward in life, burning OUR waste is the only way forward, so why not use the energy to heat homes or put it into the national grid. IF we dont the council tax will rise and then you will all be griping again.
When the landfill sites are full, where do you intend putting the YOUR waste, answers please!!
Report abuse
the cheek of it, this french company has been told no by our locally elected planning reps, why wont they forget about it, no one wants a rubbish burner in their town its not safe, its not clean, it will undermine recycling services and its too expensive, its ugly and sin, it will ruin the view and it will create lots of traffic shipping in the rubbish from all over the county and beyong, also its a deprature from the local plan which specifically prohibits incineration in shropshire
Report abuse
I realised years ago it was pointless relying on a Council taking notice of many many objections when all our neighbours objected to a pub putting a ‘beer garden’ on their car park which backed on to all our rear gardens. We all objected as democracy allowed but the pub still got its planning permission. No doubt many others have suffered the same astonishment when objecting against planning that has a severe negative affect on their living.
As for Veolia it only cares about income and obscene profits all dressed up in a nice comfy friendly portfolio and will definitely take rubbish from surrounding authorities, another foreign multi-national that would never have this in their back garden.
Report abuse
according to defra statistics published in Annex E of the Waste Strategy the cost of incineration is over £120 per tonne, landfill on the other hand is currently £48 per tonne.
Technologies like Anaerobic Digestion and MBT are likely to be around £60 per tonne. This is fact published by the government in the national waste strategy, with that in mind, how does this pfi financed project deliver best value for the taxpayer?
Report abuse
In Europe where they incinerate alot, the cost of waste management per household is more than double that of the UK.
So how is incineration a best value option again?
Report abuse
shropshire council burning our money yet again
Report abuse
crazy
financially its just crazy
Report abuse
surely it must be cheaper or the Council wouldnt want to do it would they?
They’ve always spent our money on the cheapest and best solutions in the past have they not?
The statistics may show its more expensive but thats only on total cost per tonne. I assume the council was clever enough to write a contract where it will make millions back in electricity to offset these extra costs?
Also the cost is from PFI, so its not actually costing them anything is it, see PFI is free money from the private sector who gift it to us for free dont they?
Why would borrowing the money as a loan ever cost more than building it yourself?
Report abuse
I would like to thank Huw Peach for solving my insomnia issue
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Report abuse
I know just how you feel!
Report abuse
i do think its crazy that the officers at the council have convinced their members than burning rubbish is an environmental sustainable or safe or cost effective option, it is none of these, in general it is twice as expensive as landfill and it is proven to give off harmful emissions of fine particles (less than ten microns) which go unmeasured and do alof of harm to our lungs long term
Report abuse
i think people should be motivate to recycle more by this scandal, public money is being wasted by the council, the best way to help save money and make this incinerator redundant is to all recycle more
Report abuse
Huw: I note you mention historic contradiction (24) between the conservative MEPs voting and apparent present conservative national policy. The Tories were less than happy to discover their MEPs were acting almost as an independent party in Brussels, that was the reason Cameron – in order to become leader – was forced to promise that Tory MEPs would leave the EPP Grouping in the EU parliament and be compelled to follow policy decided at national level.
The EU is however not friendly to national polices based on public opinion, in fact it is often directly opposed, considering National public opinion to be against the interest of the Union. They have even invented a new derogatory word for democratic choice “POPULIST” and feel that National leaders show weakness if they regard public opinion.
The main parties are not not being honest and open about their own polices, in that they promise things that are no longer within the remit of the British Parliament, then later when faced with the reality of the EU law quietly drop the proposal.
As spokesman for the Greens who you say want to “see accurate information being put out into the public domain, and to highlight and challenge misinformation”, would you therefore like to explain exactly how they would ensure that they did in fact:
“Replace the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)”
nb. To avoid confusion I have deliberately excluded the part which says what the GREENS would do to replace CAP as it is the scrapping of CAP v EU law that is the important point here.
Please do not misunderstand, I believe most people would agree to scrapping CAP, large landowners like Prince Charles who benefit greatly excluded of course.
Report abuse
I will side-step your CAP red herring, Ken, but would like to follow up on
what you said about Conservative MEPs
acting almost as an independent party in Brussels.
I would argue that lobbying of MEPs in Brussels by waste companies moved them away from the interests of their constitutents at the grassroots.
Would you agree?
Report abuse
Strait answer, I would agree that lobbying of MEPs in Brussels by waste companies moved them away from the interests of their constituents at the grass-roots.
Not only waste companies but all big international conglomerates lobby at the seat of government, the interest and the wishes of the people coming a poor second place, as this system of government removes our power to control our own government in many areas, because they are bound not by the wishes of their own electorate but by rules made in Brussels where we have no voice and the lobbyists have the ear of the policy makers.
Which is why I posed my of topic my question with regard to CAP it really goes to heart of the political problems we face in this country where even the political parties do not seem to understand they are not free even in government to follow their own manifestos on which they were elected.
Report abuse