Login Register

Stroud planners set to add to voices objecting to incinerator

By Gloucestershire Echo  |  Posted: November 20, 2012

Comments (0)

PLANNERS in Stroud look set to add to protests about the Javelin Park incinerator when they meet tonight.

The development control committee of Stroud District Council is being advised to object to the residual waste treatment plant proposed at Haresfield by Urbaser Balfour Beatty.

Top of a list of seven concerns to be put before the councillors by their strategic head of development services, Barry Wyatt, is that the incinerator shouldn't be discussed until Gloucestershire's waste core strategy is finalised.

"The application should not be considered until after the planning inspector has issued his binding report following the conclusion of the examination in public of the draft waste core strategy," Mr Wyatt has recommended.

His report also said that the giant energy from waste plant would adversely affect the landscape and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

In response, UBB said it wanted to take some heat out of the argument.

Spokeswoman Julie Fourcade said the UK currently still relied on landfill to deal with residual waste, that which is left behind after reducing, reusing and recycling.

But the country couldn't carry on like that, she said.

Landfill sites were filling up fast and there were limited spaces for new ones.

"We know there are concerns over a facility in Gloucestershire, but at UBB we believe that much of the information being promoted in the county is wrong and designed to scare people.

"For example the misinformation over health impacts which are erroneous, there are energy from waste facilities already operating in the UK and some 350 plants throughout Europe which have been operating for years with no health impacts."

Ms Fourcade said: "But more than this, communities throughout Europe are already reaping the rewards of effective and local waste management, secure employment, and increasing their ability to use the heat from the plant to heat homes and businesses cheaply and sustainably."

Read more from Gloucestershire Echo

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters
  • Bonkim2003  |  November 20 2012, 7:46PM

    This discussion is irrelevant - the planning committee can only discuss planning issues - not environmental emissions, costs, etc - which are matters to be dealt with by the env agency and the county council - and not planning issues. Surprised UBB are opening their mouth in useless discussion on disjointed issues raised by public pressure groups - UBB is just the contractor, it is for GlosCC as waste managers/owners to deal with public relations and respond to matters arising - surprised UBB directors are so amatuerish in these matters - could land themselves in legal jumble if not careful.

    |   2
  • CleanAir  |  November 20 2012, 3:46PM

    Ms Fourcade says we can't carry on landfilling. We agree but we should be building a MBT unit at 15m high, costing £25 million (not £500 million) with a seven year contract which would serve our community much better but perhaps not make the millions of pounds profit for UBB which they will get from building a huge contained bonfire. Unlike most other incinerators they will not be using the heat but instead vent it to air. Come on Mr Editor of the Echo you write a few words of article and then give over half the editorial to UBB to advertise their cause - what happened to balanced comment as I don't recall Glosvain being asked for their views. Thank goodness Stroud News and Journal don't give us such one sided coverage.

  • Future2010  |  November 20 2012, 2:41PM

    What does anyone expect Ms. Fourcade to say? It is her job to promote their incinerator monstrosity. In the county where UBB are building MBT and AD facilities they will not be saying how marvelous an incinerator is! Strange how the Echo, who have in the past rarely printed any articles about this incinerator proposal, are printing this today. I noticed in the Echo today that there is an advert for a Free Public Presentation and discussion in Cheltenham on 26th November about the incinerator proposal and the problems that it would cause, perhaps that is why UBB has been given some pro-incinerator publicity (albeit under the cover of a few lines given about a Stroud District Council committee meeting).

    |   1
  • zerowaster  |  November 20 2012, 2:16PM

    Honestly, the Citizen and Echo are so biased you drive me mad! Even though the story is supposed to be about Stroud District Council, most of this article is given over to comments by UBB, and don't even relate to what SDC are saying. Stroud District Council have written a comprehensive and sensible critique and that is not published here at all. Indeed your reporter is so lazy and incompetent he/she hasn't even read the right report and is quoting from a report submitted in April! What is it with you guys? Are you just hopeless at your job or is there a conspiracy? Because you clearly have not read Stroud District Council's report, here is a summary of what they say: Development Control Committee resolves to raise the following additional objections:- 1. Despite the justification put forward by the applicants, due to its scale, height, massing and industrial character the proposed structure fails to mitigate the harm it causes to the Cotswold AONB, its setting and the rural landscape. Additionally the social, environmental and economic benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the landscape harm, contrary to Policy WCS14 of the Draft Waste Core Strategy. 2. The scale, height, massing and industrial character of the proposed structure does not reflect or contribute positively to the character and quality of the area contrary to policy WCS17 of the Draft Waste Core Strategy. 3. In arriving at a potential judgement that the benefits outweigh the costs, the County Council has not consulted upon or provided any clear evidence that demonstrates how the performance of alternative solutions (which could still be within the scope of the Draft Waste Core Strategy) have beenassessed and consequently no overarching independent sustainability appraisal exists that would provide a sound basis for decision making. 4. The applicant has determined the waste capacity of the facility based on GCC figures and their own assessment of demand, it is however inappropriate for the market to determine scale and technology where there is such a harmful impact on rural landscape, the Cotswold AONB and its setting. 5. The site constraints, including the availability of a residual heat user should determine both technology and scale. 6. Given the evidence of significant falling waste volumes (excluding garden and HRC) and the number and capacity of permitted residual waste schemes in the region, the County Council should urgently reassess the need for a facility of this type, of this scale and in this location. 7. Further information is still required in order to categorically determine if noise levels will be acceptable. 8. Further clarification is required with regard to the modelling process, as is confirmation that the EA are satisfied with the model used for the human health determinant. NOW GO AWAY AND WRITE A PROPER ARTICLE INSTEAD OF CHURNING OUT THE SAME OLD RUBBISH!!

    |   2
  • Lecorche  |  November 20 2012, 8:39AM

    Ms. Fourcade doesn't mention the recent(ish) problem on the Isle of Wight. http://tinyurl.com/cyphako Misinformation?