Report by waste consultants says Javelin Park incinerator not needed

Stroud News and Journal: A to-scale view of the proposed Javelin Park incinerator from Haresfield Beacon. The image was produced by Haresfield resident and architect Humphrey Cook A to-scale view of the proposed Javelin Park incinerator from Haresfield Beacon. The image was produced by Haresfield resident and architect Humphrey Cook

AN INDEPENDENT report produced by a team of waste consultants says the need for an incinerator at Javelin Park is not proven and the proposal potentially breaches EU law.

Ynys Resources Ltd says more modern and environmentally friendly alternatives to mass burn incineration should be considered such as mechanical biological treatment and advanced thermal technology.

In a 46-page report, the Welsh waste consultancy firm says the proposed incinerator is so inefficient that it qualifies not as an energy recovery facility but as a waste disposal option - on a par with landfill.

The consultants also say the facility would burn a considerable amount of recyclable material and would create around eight times more hazardous waste than was put into it.    

"If Gloucestershire were to invest in flexible pre-treatment facilities...  capital expenditure would be lower, recycling figures increased, hazardous waste arisings would remain level and opportunities for more efficient use of fuel and heat could be found," the report says.

Ynys also calls into question the business case underpinning the project, saying 'rather than providing service and financial certainty, the proposal represents significant risk to Gloucestershire County Council'.

The report, commissioned by the protest group GlosVAIN, says GCC could be liable for annual £1 million penalty payments by 2020 because of the terms of the contract.

GlosVAIN chairman, Sue Oppenheimer, said the report provided 'conclusive evidence' that the Javelin Park incinerator was the wrong solution adding that the group was now considering submitting a complaint to the European Commission.

"Stroud District Council's report on the landscape and visual impact of the scheme has already shown that the visual impact would be unacceptable," she said.

"The report from Ynys Resources complements this by showing that the incinerator is the wrong technology and too big to meet Gloucestershire's needs.

"We sincerely hope that GCC will now take note and refuse planning permission for this disastrous proposal."

Responding to the report, county councillor Stan Waddington, GCC's cabinet champion for the project, said: "The bottom line is that this report is fundamentally flawed and full of misinterpretations and inaccuracies.
 

"It is being labelled independent, but we have to be clear that it has been paid for by a campaign group which has made no secret of the fact that it is completely opposed to the plans.
 

"The fact that neither the campaign group nor the report's authors contacted the council to ask any questions or check any facts is extremely suspicious.
 

"If they had contacted us, we would have been able to point out the many errors this misleading report contains."

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:58pm Wed 13 Feb 13

green4go says...

"..it has been paid for by a campaign group which has made no secret of the fact that it is completely opposed to the plans.", so is not independent says Stan. So he believes that, "he who pays the piper calls the tune", even when it is professional consultancies of impeccable repute. Logically then, all the consultants he has paid with our money, have been dancing to his tune as well and their opinions are suspicious and not independent. Libeling independent professional consultants suggests the man is completely out of rational arguments in favour of his monstrous legacy. This desperado must go on May 2nd.
"..it has been paid for by a campaign group which has made no secret of the fact that it is completely opposed to the plans.", so is not independent says Stan. So he believes that, "he who pays the piper calls the tune", even when it is professional consultancies of impeccable repute. Logically then, all the consultants he has paid with our money, have been dancing to his tune as well and their opinions are suspicious and not independent. Libeling independent professional consultants suggests the man is completely out of rational arguments in favour of his monstrous legacy. This desperado must go on May 2nd. green4go
  • Score: 0

12:02am Thu 14 Feb 13

Anti Incinerator says...

GCC pretend that if we had contacted them, they would have provided us with the information, and they say that the fact that we didn't approach them is "extremely suspicous". Yet we have asked them for information on numerous occasions and not received it - sometimes because of supposed "commercial confidentiality" and sometimes because of plain bloodymindedness. Often they only cough up when we make a formal Freedom of Information request, and then they wait till the 21st day (the legal limit) to give us the information. Our consultants would have been strung along, just like we have been, with no additional information released, and the only outcome would have been a delayed report. That's why we didn't go to GCC to ask them to help us - we knew they'd hinder us instead! So who do you think is suspicious?!
GCC pretend that if we had contacted them, they would have provided us with the information, and they say that the fact that we didn't approach them is "extremely suspicous". Yet we have asked them for information on numerous occasions and not received it - sometimes because of supposed "commercial confidentiality" and sometimes because of plain bloodymindedness. Often they only cough up when we make a formal Freedom of Information request, and then they wait till the 21st day (the legal limit) to give us the information. Our consultants would have been strung along, just like we have been, with no additional information released, and the only outcome would have been a delayed report. That's why we didn't go to GCC to ask them to help us - we knew they'd hinder us instead! So who do you think is suspicious?! Anti Incinerator
  • Score: 0

7:50am Thu 14 Feb 13

bobirving says...

As a member of Gloucs Friends of the Earth Network, I totally agree with both of the above comments. We have had our own consultant working on the effect of this proposed incinerator who required Gloucs CC's predictions for the tonnages of waste that the county would be producing over the life of the incinerator and was refused this on grounds of 'commercial confidentiality'. I get the impression that Gloucs CC are saying that there will be a substantial rise in recycling in the county, up to 70%, but assuming much lower volumes of recycling in predictions for the incinerator. Another alternative is that they are assuming that waste will be imported from elsewhere. As it has been estimated that there will be excess incinerator capacity in the south west area by the time this facility would come on line, this is optimistic. Because such incinerators must operate continuously to be economic, Gloucs people could find themselves paying extra for it to stand idle.
The process of incinerator also creates highly toxic dioxins, which must be stored somewhere. I understand that Gloucs CC say that these will be not be stored at Bishops Cleeve in the county but transported across country to Peterborough, presumably leaving a trail of dust across the country.
As a member of Gloucs Friends of the Earth Network, I totally agree with both of the above comments. We have had our own consultant working on the effect of this proposed incinerator who required Gloucs CC's predictions for the tonnages of waste that the county would be producing over the life of the incinerator and was refused this on grounds of 'commercial confidentiality'. I get the impression that Gloucs CC are saying that there will be a substantial rise in recycling in the county, up to 70%, but assuming much lower volumes of recycling in predictions for the incinerator. Another alternative is that they are assuming that waste will be imported from elsewhere. As it has been estimated that there will be excess incinerator capacity in the south west area by the time this facility would come on line, this is optimistic. Because such incinerators must operate continuously to be economic, Gloucs people could find themselves paying extra for it to stand idle. The process of incinerator also creates highly toxic dioxins, which must be stored somewhere. I understand that Gloucs CC say that these will be not be stored at Bishops Cleeve in the county but transported across country to Peterborough, presumably leaving a trail of dust across the country. bobirving
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree