Friday, 29 March 2013

CARDIFF INCINERATOR FIGHT GOES TO HIGH COURT

CARDIFF INCINERATOR FIGHT GOES TO HIGH COURT

Cardiff campaigners against a giant incinerator at Trident Park, between Splott and Cardiff Bay, have renewed their fight at the High Court.

Acting on behalf of local residents, environmental law firm Buxton's of Cambridge have submitted fresh applications to stop building work on the site by multinational corporation Viridor.

In particular, Cardiff Against the Incinerator (CATI) campaigners want a High Court judge to quash the recent decision by Cardiff Council not to enforce planning consent conditions after six months of unlawful work on the site. Their original submission has been reformulated in the light of recent council decisions.

CATI chair Robert Griffiths today accused the Cardiff Council of undermining the law by allowing building work to proceed without the necessary permits and permissions.

'The whole planning permission process has been an undemocratic shambles. The wishes of local people and businesses have been ignored and councillors have tied themselves in knots as officials have tried to steamroller Viridor's scheme through the council', he declared.

CATI have already secured agreement from the High Court for a swift judgement on its application to halt building work and enforce planning conditions on the company.

But now campaigners have to raise £3,000 towards the costs of the court challenge.

'We are confident that local residents and businesses will respond generously to our appeal, knowing that an incinerator presents major health, safety and environmental hazards', Mr Griffiths insisted.

He dismissed recent claims by Viridor and Cardiff Council that the scheme could bring extensive and cheap piped hot water to the city as 'a pipe dream full of hot air', pointing out that similar pledges have rarely materialised in relation to other incinerators across Britain.

END

1] The request to the Cardiff High Court lodged on 26^th March is for the following:

a) An order quashing the grant of subsequent applications approval dated 25 February 2013;

b) A declaration that the decision of the Council to treat the subsequent applications approval as retroactively permitting the unlawful works and rendering enforcement action inexpedient was unlawful;

c) An order requiring the Council to reconsider enforcement action against the unlawful works;

d) An order directing the Council to issue an enforcement notice and/or stop notice prohibiting further continuation of unlawful development;

[2] 25-year contract for £600million between the 5 Local Authorities, of which Cardiff will pay ~£250 million. The Council voted through the Labour Cabinet recommendation, without referring it to the Scrutiny Committee and with Labour and Tory groups supporting it en bloc.

[3] Entirely unsuitable for the Splott and Cardiff Bay site on grounds of lorry traffic, flood risk, hazard to health and processing hazardous ash. It's also unsuitable for use of the huge quanities of waste heat, because the claims for a city-wide pipe network are unviable fantasy, not part of a full district heating scheme meeting the big seasonal variations in demand.

Appeal for our Community Legal Action fund

Please contribute to our £3,000 legal action fund. You can do this by:

Making a donation by cash or cheque (made payable to 'CATI') and sending it to CATI, 58 Janet St., Splott, Cardiff CF24 2BE.

Donation to an accredited CATI representative (who will have proper ID).

Phoning David Prosser on 029 20791993 (h), 07504 323422 (m) or emailing us at cardiffagainsttheincinerator@gmail.com to arrange a visit.

Paying online into our account (The Cooperative Bank, Sort Code 08-92-99 Account No. 65423583) or at the Bank in High Street, central Cardiff.

Paying online via PayPal at www.ukwin.org.uk (add “for CATI/Cardiff” in the comment box on second page, called 'Review Donation').

Notes to editors:

[1] The applications to the High Court have been submitted by Richard Buxton and Partners on behalf of local resident Pauline Ellaway.

[2] The case will be heard in Cardiff and a judgement is expected within the next six weeks.

[3] The applications are to quash as unlawful the decisions of Cardiff Council on February 13 and 25, 2013, retroactively permitting unlawful work and declaring enforcement of planning consent conditions 'inexpedient'; and to issue a court order requiring the council to reconsider its actions and whether to an enforcement and/or stop notice in relation to unlawful development at Trident Park.

[4] Robert Griffiths can be contacted on 07790 8841337 (m) and Pauline Ellaway on 07837 346114 (m) 029 20318519 (h)

High Court challenge lodged to stop work on Splott incinerator site

By James Al-Mudallal, WalesOnline
Mar 29 2013

Thursday, 21 March 2013

Viridor phoney plan to heat homes

Headlines in the Echo today are misleading..this is a PR stunt to get community support and shore up other applications elsewhere. The story goes..
"Incinerator to heat Cardiff homes and offices under ambitious new plan"

Using the heat from waste incineration is an essential part of the energy recovery process and as a result the Government has specifically excluded waste plants that do not use Combined Heat and Power systems from its Renewable Energy classification.

The document entitled ‘heat plan’ submitted by Viridor makes no firm plans for heat utilisation and describes an inadequate attempt to identify and recruit heat customers. Their undertaking a single cold call letter is inadequate.

Viridor’s so-called heat plan implies that CHP is being or will be delivered at both this and other of their incineration plants. However they have no heat customers for this proposed incinerator.

The plant is the wrong design for supplying heat, with demand varying through the day and far higher demand winter than summer. It's designed for 24/7 burning, year-round. But the map shows no steady industrial heat demand, just possible users of offices etc. whose heat demand is very seasonal.

Viridor have a poor track-record of lining-up heat customers for their plants. They have planning permission for one plant in Exeter, with no heat customer – despite being located on/adjacent to an industrial estate. Their plant in Slough is under construction, with no intention to supply heat at the outset. The Derriford Hospital incinerator referred to in their ‘heat plan’ is not comparable to the current application being a small clinical incinerator recieing waste from and returning heat to the hospital. (Derriford is also in Plymouth not Exeter as stated in the document!)

A reading of Viridor’s applications across the UK show that these descriptions of how they ‘could’ supply heat in Exeter and Slough are repeatedly used to bolster their applications, yet they have failed to sign up a customer in all the time they have been planning these proposals.

It is notable that in November 2009 when they submitted this application they were saying in regard to the Exeter incinerator that “discussions with … potential users are to be held”. Their application to East Lothian Council in May 2008 also used the Exeter example. This would seem to be somewhat disingenuous that the are always about to talk to users and certainly if that is their track record it is clearly not successful in gaining heat customers. More detailed and thorough work is required on this ‘plan’ before the application can be determined.

There is a poor history of retro-fitting CHP to EfW incinerators. Incinerator operators will say in applications that heat delivery is possible, but in practice, it is rarely delivered. It is worth noting the SELCHP – South East London CHP was built under just these circumstances and they have never secured a heat customer despite being in a very built up area of London.

Viridor are still facing a legal challenge from CATI.

Monday, 11 March 2013

Lab rams through privatisation Prosiect Gwyrdd/incinerator 25yr contract

At the Council meeting on 28^th, the P Gwyrdd contract for Viridor (25 years, £600mM total, £250 million from Cardiff) was rammed through. The Splott Councillors absented themselves - Luke Holland away ill, Gretta Marshall and Huw Thomas failed to use their rights under the Localism Act to speak representing their electorate (and didn't use the normal 'dispensation' to speak against Labour group decision). They quit the meeting, leaving Cllrs Goodway and Govier with their commitment to P Gwyrdd free to ram though the approval of Viridor as preferred bidder (contract to be finalised in June or July). No-one spoke in objection over the 'grave misconduct' by Viridor whose unlawful building allows the Council to rule out this company.

Cllr McEvoy objected he'd been unable to view the documents because of the special 'security' that requires Cllrs to use particular computers in the Council office, or to pour through a foot-high pile of printed documents there. He opposed approval, talking of health risk, and saying Plaid favours alternatives to waste incineration. Deputy Leader Ralph Cook dismissed this with “I'm no environmental fundamentalist”. The Council had settled the issue in a debate in 2009 (which McEvoy had accepted). Bumbling Cllr Govier said they had no predisposed ideas on health effects, incinerators are cleaner than landfills and it saves landfill costs of £400M over 25 years, net saving of £157M.

The chair of the Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Derbyshire in discussion prior to the meeting, excused their failure to scrutinise this highly costly proposal and lengthy commitment because of the short-time allowed for decision (in contrast, the VoG held an extraordinary Scrutiny Committee on it). A recording of the meeting is on the Council website.

Following the majority approvals of Viridor's planning application on 13^th February, Richard Buxton law firm are expanding their High Court action to cover a challenge to these new decisions, challenging the Council head-on this time.

-------------------

False and Biased claims by the Project

Prosiect Gwyrdd's Press Release of 7 March quotes Cllr Russell Goodway, Chairman of the Joint Committee for Prosiect Gwyrdd,as saying:

“The new Joint Committee which was formed following the May local elections has ensured that the project has been scrutinised in detail...”

The Minutes of the Joint Cttee give no evidence of detailed scrutiny, not in the Cttee or in officer reports. The first two meetings (July and Sept) were held in secret with no public Minutes, under the false claim that they were briefing meetings alone.

Cllr Goodway refused to meet with critics, asserting that the “incineration ship has already sailed” (14 October 2012, letter to R Hepworth/SNIC).

Cllr Govier met with CATI – his reply of 7^th Sept. shows he was misinformed on the waste prevention/reduction target set by the Welsh Government in July. He writes their "figure quoted of 1.2% pa is based on the national figures for Wales" so PG disregards it for figures based on the 5 partnering authorities... and the predicted population growth". This shows he's not aware that 1.2% is a target and that waste increases from population increases is a separate factor. Over the 30 years, 1.2% pa aggregates to a 30% reduction in waste flows, much more than PG's 20% maximum flexibility.

Prosiect Gwyrdd's Press Release of 7 March claims savings of £500 million to the partnership as compared to landfill over the 25 years. This is a fictitious figure, dependent on the exaggerated projections of waste, low recycling rates and disregarding the Welsh waste prevention target.

Welsh waste prevention target.

This is set for LA municipal waste at 1.2% p.a., though recent reductions have been faster and the overall waste reduction target for Wales is 1.5% pa. PG conceals this target, mentioning only targets “set in law” in the Press Release.

They falsely write:

The Project will supply a Guaranteed Minimum Payment to Viridor, based on a waste tonnage that has been predicted on achieving the Welsh Government waste targets. The waste projections over the contract term are based on current recycling rates, future recycling rates and population growth over the contract term.

Note: this is untrue – the tonnage was derived ignoring the waste prevention target.

Hazardous nature of bottom ash

PG write:

Claims are made by campaign groups against incineration that the ash from this process is ‘toxic’. The Environment Agency advice on IBA is that it can be recycled and they are developing a quality protocol to ensure this waste is diverted from landfill.

This is misrepresentation. Incinerator bottom ash is well-known to be 'toxic' rather than 'inert' as Viridor and the incineration industry claim (Atkins report to Cdf Council, Sept'13). The Environment Agency agrees (Atkins report and Dr Allen at the Viridor Liaison Cttee) that the ash is potentially 'hazardous' waste (under European definitions) and has to be tested.

The Environment Agency has been “developing a quality protocol” for IBA for several years; there is no indication that any protocol with emerge, indeed the argument has moved to registering IBA under the REACH chemicals legislation.

Hazards to Health

PG refer only to the 'Health Protection Agency' finding of 2009 and earlier. They ignore the evidence accepted by the PG Scrutiny Committee from Prof. Howard and others, giving updated information and covering wider scientific evidence than the HPA. They also ignore that the Senedd Petitions Committee accepted similar evidence from Prof. Howard too, and concluded that further studies are needed.

Thursday, 7 March 2013

Cardiff Lab council privatise waste in 25 yr contract

Gretta Marshall

At the Council meeting on 28^th, the P Gwyrdd contract for Viridor (25 years, £600mM total, £250million from Cardiff) was rammed through. The Splott Councillors absented themselves - Luke Holland away ill, Gretta Marshall and Huw Thomas failed to demand their rights under the Localism Act to speak representing their electorate (and didn't use the normal 'dispensation' to speak against Labour group decision). They quit the meeting, leaving Cllrs Goodway and Govier with their commitment to P Gwyrdd free to ram though the approval of Viridor as preferred bidder (contract to be finalised in June or July). No-one spoke in objection over the 'grave misconduct' by Viridor whose unlawful building allows the Council to rule out this company.

Condem Cllr Boyle asked 'whether process was transparent clear fair inclusive process?'

Cllr Goodway claimed that it was transparent in every respect and that the joint scrutiny had concerns they would have been 'ventilated in this chamber'!

Neil McEvoy

Cllr McEvoy objected he'd hadn't time to view the documents because of the special 'security' that requires Cllrs to use particular computers in the Council office, or to pour through a foot-high pile of printed documents there. He opposed approval, talking of health risk, and saying Plaid favours alternatives to waste incineration.

Ralph Cook NOT A
'environmental fundamentalist'

Deputy Leader Ralph Cook dismissed this with “I'm no environmental fundamentalist”. The Council had settled the issue in a debate in 2009 (which McEvoy had accepted). Cllr Govier said they had no predisposed ideas on health effects incinerators are cleaner than landfills and claims it saves landfill costs of £400M over 25 years, net saving of £157M.

Cllr Derbyshire 'no alternatives' & 'we are where we are and on that basis we have to go for it' After all the claim made by Cllr Goodway is that Cardiff Council discussed this Prosiect Gwyrdd/Incinerator in 2009.

Pages