Labour wont support Pauline in Splott against the Incinerator

Two Candidates support CATI against the Incinerator
Splott By-election.  
Only UKIP and TUSC candidates - Brian Morris and Katrine Williams @Katrinewilliams - are concerned to oppose the Viridor waste Incinerator, bringing wastes from over S-E Wales to burn in our city.  
 The Lib-Dems started the project and Labour continued it with Tory support; all want to give Viridor a long-term contract to burn the city's waste, despite the toxic fumes, waste lorries trucking through the city and huge tonnages of incinerator ash with toxic dust.  Apart from Neil McEvoy for Plaid, Cardiff politicians rubber-stamped a Viridor contract of several £100 millions for 25-years.  Extraordinary irresponsibility with Council funds, and in contracting for tonnages far higher than expected to be produced in future years. Result of brown envelopes or blind party-voting?  

CATI hasnt heard anything from @EdwardStubbs the labour candidate who works for a Islwyn Labour AM Gwyn Price. As soon as Labour got into office they voted to privatise residual waste Prosiect Gwyrdd - without any scrutiny, locking Cardiff into payments for burning waste for the next 25 years in a PFI style contract. Labours Gretta Marshall, Luke Holland and Huw Thomas all failed to vote against it. Surprise! Russell Goodway is chair of the 5 council Prosiect Gwyrdd group. 

No support either from FibDem Jamie Matthews @JamieMatthews84 or Tory Daniel Mason 
Nearby Bayside Estate resident Pauline Ellaway, supported by CATI, is taking Cardiff Council to the Cardiff High Court on 17-18 December.

Party	Candidate
Independent	Elys John
Conservative	Daniel Mason
Lib Dems	Jamie Matthews
UKIP	Brian Morris
Labour	Edward Stubbs
TUSC	Katrine Williams

Council chief blunders in citing Sheffield’s city incinerator

Cllr Michael is on risky ground in referring to Sheffield’s city incinerator (in Echo of 3rd Oct.) 

Bad emission levels – the worst in England - were tolerated by that Council until Greenpeace staged an occupation in 2001, raising public consciousness and forcing its closure.  The replacement incinerator operated by Veolia does have problems and cannot obtain enough waste from the permitted waste area.

This has lessons for Viridor’s incinerator in Cardiff.

Veolia assured Sheffield Council in 2002 they would make up any shortfall in domestic waste from local C&I (commercial and industrial) waste, to justify a new 225 000 tpa incinerator compared with the old 125 000 tpa (tonnes per annum).   How wrong they were!  In 2010 Veolia required permission from the Council to import waste from outside the Sheffield waste area.  In 2012 Veolia sought permission to import waste from even further, into Nottinghamshire, as waste reduction measures in Sheffield were successful and recycling rates in commerce and industry rose.

Likewise, Viridor assured Cardiff in 2010 that they would make up any shortfall in domestic waste from C&I waste from S-E Wales.   They failed to provide any assessment, but comparison with the Sheffield-Rotherham-Chesterfield-Nottingham area suggests that Viridor too will fail.

Cardiff was so keen to get an incinerator that they allowed a 350 000 tonne pa monster, over 50% larger than Sheffield’s.  Viridor are unlikely to find sufficient waste to fuel it, so will return to Cllr Michael’s planning committee for permission to import waste from afar, just as in Sheffield.

What a blunder, Cllr Michael, to refer to Sheffield city’s incinerator!

Planning Committee split on Enforcement Action against Viridor

January 9^th Cardiff Planning Committee split on Enforcement Action against Viridor

In July the Council “invited” Viridor to stop construction on its Trident Park site after starting construction work without permissions to build. Following CATI's objections, they had to submit subsequent applications to meet “pre-commencement conditions” . These were published by the Council for consultation in July and public objections have held them up ever since. At the time, the council said publicly it would take “robust enforcement action” if building started before the applications were resolved, but they did not put the question of enforcement action to the planning committee till 9 January, following pressure from the Environmental law firm Richard Buxton.

Despite strong arguments from Councillors for action, the Commnittee vote was tied 4:4 and so they decided to defer the matter rather than approve the officers' report.

As YourCardiff  reports, the council’s head of planning, Phil Williams, told committee members that although Viridor had continued with the unauthorised works wwhich is unlawful, council officers did not think enforcement action was appropriate because the detailed plans, including the pre-implementation conditions, were due to be discussed at the next planning committee meeting in February, and the issue could be resolved then.

All three ward members for Splott – Councillors Gretta Marshall, Huw Thomas, and Luke Holland – told the committee that they believed enforcement action should be taken to stop Viridor’s unlawful activity, with Cllr Holland saying the firm was developing the site ” at a pace which is almost as breathtaking as [its] arrogance”. Committee member Cllr Adrian Robson said he believed it was “very clear” the council should be acting to stop the unlawful activity, while Cllr AliAhmed said that if big companies like Viridor did not comply with planning conditions, how could the committee expect general members of the public to do so. However, Cllr Lyn Hudson said it was only a short amount of time before the application to discharge the pre-commencement conditions would come before the committee again. Vice-chair Cllr Garry Hunt said he fully supported the Splott Cllrs, but would need evidence on why the current work was causing unacceptable harm to public amenity, so voted for deferral.

The legal officer quoted planning law to support allowing Viridor to continue - because they couldn't say there's no likelihood of agreeing conditions – but could not say why this wouldn't apply to many other small developers who were stopped outright. No Councillor challenged his selective use of the law to favour Viridor**, just disbelief. And indirect criticisms for giving no evidence on ongoing building work and potential harm to amenity and environment that's necessary for the decision on enforcement action.

CATI lobbied the Committee in September to consider enforcement action; just 4 months later after a solicitor's threat that the officers concealed, the Committee receives a shoddy report and has to defer decision.

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

** The primary Welsh guidance, Planning Policy Wales specifies (3.8.1-3) enforcement against developments that unacceptably affect public amenity or the existing use of land and buildings meriting protection in the public interest, which needs to be effective and timely; prompt initiation of action may be necessary to prevent an unacceptable breach of planning control from becoming well established.

Cardiff-council-accused-of-caving-in-to-pressure-over-unlawful-work-on-new-incinerator