‘No health risk’ from Shrewsbury incinerator plans
Wednesday 28th September 2011, 10:54AM BST.
There is ‘no credible evidence’ to support claims that a new £60 million incinerator in Shrewsbury would affect the health of residents living nearby, a planning inquiry has heard.
Representatives of waste firm Veolia claim there is no basis for rejecting its plan to build the burner at Battlefield Enterprise Park on the grounds of potential health risks or issues of air quality.
Possible risks to health from toxic emissions are among the reasons given for the proposed site being rejected by Shropshire Council’s planning committee in September last year, along with concerns about the suitability of the site and its visual impact.
But at the first day of an appeal hearing yesterday, which is being held by planning inspector John Woolcock, Rhodri Price Lewis QC, representing Veolia, claimed the burner should not cause health issues.
“The advice on and the approach to health impacts was clearly set out in the Waste Strategy for England 2007 and has not materially changed since.
“That advice is in essence that there is no credible evidence of adverse health outcomes for those living near well-managed incinerators,” he said.
But Hugh Roberts, representing Shropshire Council, said public concerns should be taken into account when a decision was taken on the site.
He said: “This concern is a material planning consideration which also militates against the grant of permission.”
UK News
Most Commented
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
- 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
fascinating phrase “there is no evidence that …..”
it seems to cover a multitude of possible sins. I seem to remember a simular phrase being used in relation to mad cow disease.
how about the alternative “there is no evidence to say there won’t be a health problem”.
seems to be the only evidence that convinces the powers that be is when mortality and hospital admissions start going up.
Report abuse
Well, if Veolia are so sure regarding its green credentials, how about you build it in Becks Field, or do you think you might get a few complaints.
Report abuse
For years and years we were told that there were no health risks due to the IronBridge power station by company, government and nhs representatives.
Now it is being forced to close down because of health risks.
The same story repeats and why should we believe it when told that there are no health risks from an incinerator?
Report abuse
good point well made – well said marco
Report abuse
We suffer toxic pollution daily from cars and have for years.
The most negative aspect of this saga is the previous deal that was done with our councillors which will mean whatever the outcome we will be paying.
Report abuse
Excuse the punn, but Veolia you are talking a load of RUBBISH!
Mike
Report abuse
that is a falsehood, if it puts pollution in the air, then statistically speaking the risk of health problems is elevated, period.
Report abuse
If Veolia are so sure that incinerators don’t harm health, why didn’t they enter
a rebuttal proof of evidence against Shrewsbury resident Michael Ryan, who’s a Rule 6 party at the Public Inquiry?
Ryan is objecting on health grounds and I’ve seen his research on incinerators reported in newpapers all around the UK,
including Guernsey – but not in Shropshire as far as I can see.
Why is that?
Report abuse
Why is that!!!. Its because as a Doctor he tells the TRUTH about his research, and that is not liked in Shropshire.I know who I believe.
Report abuse
‘claimed’ the burner “should” not cause health issues.
Report abuse
They can’t keep on using Landfill sites for ever
so; where else are you going to put our rubbish?
Report abuse
maybe this is linked to the Pickles Weekly Collection story on the other page?? if the council brings in weekly bin collection they will get twice as much rubbish and then they might be able to justify such gross expenditure on this equipment
Report abuse
would veolia hav it in their back yard then please (france) no because its not safe and people would FREAK OUT
Report abuse
No health risk
there own environmental impact assessment suggests that at least one premature death per annum will result from the extra NO2 emissions but that this is within the realms of statistical uncertainty and not economically a big impact
disgusting – what price a human life
24,900 people died from air polltuion in the Uk last year – it must be stopped for the sake of the elderly and the asthmatic who are very vulnerable to even moderate rises in NO2 and PM10 levels
Report abuse
which is more of a priority – schools or a burner ? in times of austerity this is too much to spend right now and its financed with debt too, this is what caused the recession! its a terrible terrible idea and it must be refused
the council is not in the business of building plant and doing this, they should let private investors develope these things as commercially viable ventures and then just make use of theirs if and when they need too, this gives them flexibility of use too, to lock into using one for 25 years is bonkers
Report abuse
Veolia really ought to Google the Precautionary Principle before going ahead with their plans, but I’ll save them the bother by quoting from Wikepedia: ‘The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.’
Report abuse
“That advice is in essence that there is no credible evidence of adverse health outcomes for those living near well-managed incinerators,”
Is this not the wrong way round, should it not be up to Veolia to prove there are no health risks, instead they say there is no credible evidence that it will not.
The other thing is they say a “well managed incinerator” in other words there might health risks if the managment slips up and somone makes a mistake?
Report abuse
Has any one done research into the health risks of land fill sites?
Report abuse
“No significant health risk’ from well-managed landfill sites”
Mind you I had to search for it:)
Report abuse
landfill sites are generally considered a safer and greener option for waste management than incineration because landfill emissions are monitored and contained unlike say dioxin emissions from efw which are subject to a once a year random sample
Report abuse
If the waste is being made by the people of Shrewsbury then waste disposal facilities should be made in Shrewsbury to dispose this waste.
It is rather unfair that other parts of the country should have incinerators built to dispose of waste from the town of Shrewsbury.
Already Shrewsbury gets it power from Ironbridge power station with no harmfull exposure to the pollution from this power station unlike the poor people of telford.
Report abuse
Are you living on the same planet as the rest of us sunbeam? That power station was there long before the new-town of Telford had been conceived and to add insult to your self inflicted injury automated re-cycling plants have been around for over forty years
Report abuse
I take it you were asleep during history lessons?
1/Shrewsbury is registered in the Magna Carta.
2/Buildwas power station was there long before the new-town of Telford.
3/Automated re-cycling plants have been around for over forty years.
4/When you spell Telford, use a capital as it is Thomas’s surname.
Report abuse
not only are the dioxins put out by incinerators harmful to health but they can be deadly, this should not be allowed
Report abuse
It is a fact that it does cause air pollution, other wise they wouldnt be measuring it and testing it would they, the question is whether or not that air pollution is sufficient to kill anyone or not which is debatable because if youare healthy its ok but i guess old people might be at risk
Report abuse
utter tosh from veolia
incinerators are the single biggest cause of dioxin in the environment today, the dioxins can bioaccumulate so they get concentrated more and more the further up the food chain you go, and oh guess what? whos on top of the food chain? oh yes its HUMANS
doh!
WARNING! Please dont drink the milk from any cows that graze this area especially if you are pregnant
Report abuse
isnt that what they said about nuclear power and cigarettes in the 60′s ?
dont beleive their lies
Report abuse
i live in oswestry, so i got to be honest i dont care
Report abuse
People may be interested to learn that any plant and equipment proposed to be installed in any “Energy From Waste” scheme is subject to very stringent guidelines imposed by the Environment Agency.
If the Functional Design Specifications of the equipment fails to meet the EA requirements, then a) it can’t be installed anywhere in the country, which means b) a better solution will be found. For example, there is a massive CHP (Combined Heat & Power) plant on the outskirts of Northampton very close to an Aquadrome and residential areas. The plant is powered by human waste product so to speak, and the odour control plant is, believe me, very effective. It meets and / or exceeds EA Regs, you see.
It’s called Consent Tightening, and means that – for example – the river Severn is not awash with excessive phosphorous or B.O.D.
HTH :)
Report abuse