- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@NorthwichNews
All the latest news and views from the Northwich Guardian
- Find us on Facebook
Northwich Guardian
Like us on Facebook
UPDATED: Waste plant approved (From Northwich Guardian)
Send us news, start your message Cheshire News and your send photos and videos to 80360
UPDATED: Waste plant at Lostock Gralam approved
By Gina BebbingtonCONTROVERSIAL plans for a waste plant in Lostock Gralam have been approved by the Government.
Proposals by Tata Chemicals Europe and E.ON to build a sustainable energy plant off Griffiths Road have been given the go ahead yesterday, Tuesday, by Ed Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, following a five-week public inquiry last autumn.
Construction is expected to begin next year and the plant, set to process 600,000 tonnes of pre-treated waste and biomass per year, will be operational towards the end of 2016.
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “It is essential we have a balanced energy mix in the future to provide low cost, efficient energy to households and businesses.
“This plant takes waste and turns it into something of great value – enough power to supply 80,000 homes – and in addition creates jobs for the local community.”
Martin Ashcroft, Tata Chemicals Europe managing director, said: “This decision is excellent news.
“The plant is designed to provide steam to Tata Chemicals Europe’s Lostock factory.
“As an energy intensive business, we are faced with ever-rising gas prices which are increasingly difficult to absorb.
“The new plant will give us fuel price stability which will allow us to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and to plan our long-term future.”
Nader Bahri, director of E.ON Energy from Waste UK Ltd (EEW), said: “This decision is a milestone for EEW in the UK as it is our second UK plant to be granted planning consent.
“As a result, many tonnes of waste that would otherwise have gone to landfill could now be used to create sustainable energy.”
But Clr Lynn Riley, Cheshire West and Chester Council’s executive member for community and environment, said: “We are understandably very disappointed that the council's objections and the strength of local opinion were overruled.
“We now need to carefully consider the decision.”
Brian Cartwight, chairman of Cheshire Anti Incinerator Network (CHAIN), said: “We are going to consider the decision report carefully, all 180 pages of it, before we issue a full statement.
“It is devastating news for Northwich.”
There is a three-month period for opponents to mount a legal challenge to the decision.
Comments(217)
Underwhelmedofnorthwich
says...
12:31pm Tue 2 Oct 12
I feel genuinely sorry for the residents and having read the Secretary of State's letter this morning, I can't even begin to imagine 276 HGV movements a day past their front doors.
Unless CWAC can get their act together the town is finished. Last one out, turn off the lights.....
sledger
says...
1:35pm Tue 2 Oct 12
I expect the government spiel will talk of job creation and other such tosh , but the consequences of their actions will only be felt by the locals .
I worked for ICI for 12 years before emigrating and they weren't angels , but I fear that these foreign companies have no thought for anything but the bottom line.
I hope the appeal is massively supported and the local MP does his job and gives e3verything to turn over this diabolical decision.
Good luck in fighting this , everyone within 100 miles of the proposed site should be supporting the appeal,
Pete
Sue Statham
says...
2:09pm Tue 2 Oct 12
by incinerators, supplied to me by the Environment Agency, to ever be convinced that these colossal waste burning plants are safe.
To my little grandson, I would like to apologise. I tried my utmost to keep you safe, along with the many others who opposed the Tata/E-On application, but I failed you. What a very sad day this is for Northwich.
GadbrookTNT
says...
2:55pm Tue 2 Oct 12
The planning enquiry was extremely long winded but after reading the decision letter the reasoning was fair, factual and thorough.
Ruckit
says...
4:31pm Tue 2 Oct 12
Sue Statham
says...
5:33pm Tue 2 Oct 12
It seems to me that just when the town of Northwich has fallen to it's knees, someone comes along and hits it on the head.
Localism? Not in this instance. Common sense and duty of care was shown to the residents of Middlewich when the Covanta incinerator application was turned down. So why have Northwich residents not been afforded the same consideration?
I am waiting to hear what our local Council, who, by the way, objected to the Tata/E-On application, are planning to do next.
47thmoon
says...
7:33pm Tue 2 Oct 12
onered
says...
7:43pm Tue 2 Oct 12
The comments you both make give me the impression you are only posting to S__t S__r, you do not appear to have any concerns for the health people threatened by this development?
The proposals for a similar development at Middlewich was turned down, why should a development at Northwich, 7 miles away, be O.K., surely the same concerns should have been applied both of these proposals?
Underwhelmedofnorthwich
says...
7:46pm Tue 2 Oct 12
Ruckit wrote:Ruckit,
Fantastic news! Securing the future of 600 jobs at a locally grown but world recognised company , and creating even more, common sense has clearly been shown here!
Interesting that you think it's fantastic news but sorry to burst your bubble, this does nothing to secure the future of 600 jobs. Soda ash production is cheaper overseas and within 2 years I predict that the plant will be closed. The incinerator will be so much more of a money spinner that there will be no need to get involved in the production of anything.
And GadbrookTNT, if you had actually attended the Inquiry you will realise that this is anything but fair. This is a straight two fingers to every one of the 25,000 local people who said they didn't want this. I wonder if you will still retain this bullish optimism when you are stuck on Gadbrook park unable to get out due to the volume of HGV's stuck on Griffiths Road, backing traffic up for miles...... Try running a business when your wagons can't get out of the depot.....
L Byrne
says...
8:00pm Tue 2 Oct 12
Your faith in a waste incinerator 'securing the future of 600 jobs' is touching but misplaced.
At no point in the public inquiry or in their propaganda has TATA given an assurance, let alone a guarantee, that any jobs would be secured if they obtained planning permission. They have been challenged to do this but did not respond. If they now wish to issue a statement guaranteeing 600 jobs, it would be very welcome but don't hold your breath.
Please don't forget that TATA has cheap alternative sources of supply in third world countries for most of the products manufactured in Northwich.
If the incinerator gets built, there will be no shortage of buyers to take it off their hands, at a nice profit, for use as a power generating station when the time is right.
The truth is that TATA employees in Northwich have no more reason to be feel more secure after hearing today's dreadful news and the opposite is more likely to be the case. Meanwhile they will see the value of their homes take a hit and the health of their loved ones put at risk.
todayisagreatday
says...
8:48pm Tue 2 Oct 12
GadbrookTNT
says...
8:59pm Tue 2 Oct 12
L Byrne
says...
9:29pm Tue 2 Oct 12
You are very brave to accuse people of being 'warped' and doubting the 'integrity/validity' of a respected campaign group whilst using a fictitious name.
I cannot say I am surprised because apologists for those who intend to make Northwich a pariah and a laughing stock by building one of the largest garbage incinerators in Europe practically in the town centre have every justification in hiding their identity.
imstuckinthetoaster
says...
9:55pm Tue 2 Oct 12
DMill59
says...
11:16pm Tue 2 Oct 12
menorca5
says...
7:21am Wed 3 Oct 12
I feel for Northwich I moved there from Wilmslow some years ago and love the town the people and the community. I hope for all in Northwich you can do something but I really think you have lost, you cant win when you have back handers going to governments and local councils, I feel for all of you and I for one will be selling my house as quick as possible if I can!!! I will not be returning to Northwich to live when I return from France I will live several hundred miles away if I can. Just as a final point, it doesn't really matter where this thing is built if the WIND is blowing in a certain direction surely all around for miles will be affected, Knutsford-Winsford-M
iddlewich-Nantwich-W
ilmslow-Alderley-Man
chester-Mobberley-Ma
cclesfield. If maybe the group against this plant went to each of these towns and told them about the pollution you might have a better chance against TATA at appeal. Thanks for reading this.
GadbrookTNT
says...
9:04am Wed 3 Oct 12
The French operate over 100 energy from waste plants. So don't sell the house just yet.
All I can say is just read the inspectorates report then cast judgement.
retired006
says...
9:57am Wed 3 Oct 12
On the down side here, unless a considerable amount of the bulk waste is transported by rail I see gridlock on Griffiths Road, not to mention the road will need to be completely rebuilt.
As far as employment goes, vacancies will be over subscribed by immigrants.
It`s going to be interesting to see the future consequences of law suits of damage directly attributed to the fall out from chimney ash.
All in all, it`s the same old same old.
Dot Gamble
says...
10:07am Wed 3 Oct 12
This is a perfect example that democracy is dead certainly in Northwich and an Oligarchy is in its place.
We, and especially our children, have been badly maligned by this extremely unfair decision and I hope that our politicians are able to search their collective conscience and find peace someday - I know I could not after a decision like that. To Sue Statham I say 'you did not fail in your endeavours - we have all been failed by our politicians and an unfair system that allows this kind of thing to happen'.
Just one word to Gadbrook TNT - the people who fought tooth and nail against this incinerator are all decent, honest, hard working people who do not deserve to suffer your vitriol. We do not hide (as you do) behind pseudonyms. I would also ask you to desist from using defamatory (possibly libelous and slanderous) language against people just because they hold a different view from yourself.
Matilda,Matilda
says...
10:10am Wed 3 Oct 12
DazzaBT
says...
10:25am Wed 3 Oct 12
Will the developers of the proposed Urban Village be thinking again now?
DazzaBT
says...
10:38am Wed 3 Oct 12
L Byrne
says...
12:02pm Wed 3 Oct 12
These were researched before the public inquiry and we discovered that they are typically just a fraction of the size of the monster that TATA intend to build in Northwich.
That explains why TATA went to great pains to avoid showing the true scale of their plant by using misleading 'artists' impressions'. Take a look at the picture on the front page of today's Guardian and you will see what I mean. The artist has been very careful not to to show anything such as a human figure or a motor vehicle that would help readers understand how big it will be.
Imagine a building about the size of Wembley Stadium ( without the arch) and you have got it!
Another suggestion is to pay a visit to Runcorn and take a look at the monster incinerator that is being built there. Then think of that looming over the Tesco store in Northwich with the two 295 ft high chimneys belching out emissions, many toxic, non stop for about thirty years.
All that so lazy Londoners who cannot be bothered to recycle their waste can send it to our town for incineration and TATA /E-ON can make millions by enabling them to do it.
simonster
says...
3:23pm Wed 3 Oct 12
Power plant rejected or not the 500 workforce will still have their jobs except they too will be exposed to the health risks by working on-site and to be honest I'm not one for wanting redundancies but I would prefer 500 workers to lose their jobs against the health of however many thousand locals .
Rubbish, literally!!
L Byrne
says...
4:11pm Wed 3 Oct 12
The 500 jobs you mention will in fact be less secure if this monster gets built, see the comments above.
It is madness from every angle unless you are the business owners in faraway Mumbai and Dusseldorf, of course.
It is also odd,by the way, that few have mentioned the expected drop in house and land values in the area. This was not taken into account by the planning inquiry but the reality is that, on conservative estimates, the total loss could be over £150million!
L Byrne
says...
6:24pm Wed 3 Oct 12
A few corrections to the pro trash burner comments in the main article above.
1 The claim that the incinerator would produce 'enough power to supply 80,000 homes'. Cobblers!
The TATA propaganda leaflet only claimed 45,000 homes and even that was a dodgy number.
2 'we are faced with ever-rising gas prices' Cobblers!
Many energy economists are forecasting reductions in the wholesale price of gas because of increases in sources of supply, shale gas etc, and reduction in demand. George Osborne, no less, is reported as supporting this view.
3 The clear implication that the only alternative to incineration is sending waste to landfill. Cobblers!
There are may modern cleaner and safer ways of dealing with waste such as anaerobic and bio digestion.
Its the way they tell them.
simonster
says...
7:17pm Wed 3 Oct 12
http://www.hydrocarb
ons-technology.com/p
rojects/stublach-gas
-storage-project/
Underwhelmedofnorthwich
says...
8:18pm Wed 3 Oct 12
Walk down Witton street and you can see the town is dying. This is just a massive nail in the coffin.
simonster
says...
8:29pm Wed 3 Oct 12
lostock resident
says...
9:20pm Wed 3 Oct 12
I have listened to the biased and untrue views from the members of CHAIN, who seem to just want to scaremonger the people of Northwich, with their out of date and incorrect information.
TATA have invested millions of pounds into the town and community of Northwich, and have every intention of investing more and being here for the long term.
The sooner the first spade is put in the ground to build this excellent energy from waste plant, the better it will be for Northwich, the community and the securing and creating of more jobs.
happy days!
WHS
says...
10:05pm Wed 3 Oct 12
What I have written is probably "Pie in the Sky", no one will do anything and your children and grandchildren will be stuck in a "S**t Hole" for the rest of their lives. I am 66, my children and grandchildren live in Shropshire and Warwickshire so it won't directly affect me that much but I am willing to fight, are you?
WHS.
WHS
says...
10:20pm Wed 3 Oct 12
WHS.
WHS
says...
10:29pm Wed 3 Oct 12
WHS.
lostock resident
says...
10:48pm Wed 3 Oct 12
WHS wrote:Lets hope this is WHS`s final word as this is the exact kind of bulish attitude that has turned many local people against CHAIN and their out of touch attitude.
One final word, I will NOT, repeat NOT recycle ANYTHING from the day this plant is built but will simply place my rubbish on the road by the plant for them to burn, it will saver them collecting it. We in Northwich have the best record in Cheshire and one of the best in the country for recycling and this is how we are repaid. Am I annoyed? What do you think? WHS.
It is time that some people realise that in this case common sense has prevaled over ignorance.
Incidently if you are after a politician with balls then it appears Ed Davey is the one but unfortunatly he disagrees with WHS and thinks a clean enviromentaly sound energy from waste plant is a good idea.
WHS
says...
1:24am Thu 4 Oct 12
WHS.
WHS
says...
1:33am Thu 4 Oct 12
WHS.
basilcat
says...
1:49am Thu 4 Oct 12
I ask merely to understand why you think that this is "excellent for the town of Northwich, and the companies E-on and TATA". I agree that its surely a very lucrative deal for TATA & E-on, but come on, be realistic, how is this going to be any good for the town? At best the plant may employ a handful of local workers.
ICI were often seen as the 'golden goose' of Northwich back in the day. They polluted our air (anyone remember the bad egg stink over the town in 70's/80's that meant you couldn't breath properly??). Take a look at what they left behind in Winnington after they had used up Northwich and its townsfolk. An industrial eyesore that has remained for at least 20 years and many former workers with alleged work related health issues. I fear your trust in these companies is misplaced. They use up small towns like Northwich and then move onto the next poor buggers once our usefulness has expired.
For the record, I am 40 years old, my roots and family are in Northwich, lived a huge chunk of my life in the town centre, was a Lostock Gralam resident for 8 years and I'm now a Middlewich resident of 6 years.
WHS
says...
9:20am Thu 4 Oct 12
WHS.
GadbrookTNT
says...
9:36am Thu 4 Oct 12
25,000 mostly harassed individuals trying to go about their daily business before being harangued into signing something based on scaremongering and lies.
Also be aware, the ministry of communications work to prevent the incitement of communal tension over the Internet.
simonster
says...
9:46am Thu 4 Oct 12
GrumpyBum
says...
10:11am Thu 4 Oct 12
HOWEVER... instead of venting on here, i might suggest getting a letter of complaint to go to the appeal might be a better way to vent your anger. At least it would contribute to getting it stopped.
WHS
says...
10:25am Thu 4 Oct 12
WHS
L Byrne
says...
10:33am Thu 4 Oct 12
Contrary to what 'lostock resident' claims, WHS has no association with CHAIN.
WHS has also get his facts wrong, no disrespect, about HGV numbers. The situation is far worse that he or she suggests.
The number of additional permitted HGV trips on Griffith Road/King Street will be 262 every day between 7.00am and 7.00pm. That is an average of 22 per hour. Note the word 'average'. At busy periods the number will be far higher.
Worse still,the Government also has given permission for the number to rise to 276 per 12 hour day on regular occasions.
If the kids in the area will not be poisoned by the toxic emissions from the incinerator and the diesel fumes, they will be in danger of being knocked down by juggernaut lorries loaded with Londoners' filth.
Sorry, mustn't get emotional, I could be accused of scaremongering.
Sue Statham
says...
11:25am Thu 4 Oct 12
Doing nothing is NOT an option and living in close proximity to a 600,000 tonne waste incinerator must surely not be what the majority of Northwich residents aspire to.
Having read long lists of "breaches of emission levels by waste incinerators", which was supplied to me by the Environment Agency, we will not know what is coming out the towering incinerator stacks of the Tata/E-On incinerator from one minute to the next. Don't anyone accuse me of scaremongering until you have read this information yourself. Remember that I am referring to facts supplied to me by the Environment Agency. So when we are told that "modern well-run incinerators pose little, if no threat to health", forgive me for not believing a word of it.
So, what do we do next?
lostock resident
says...
1:25pm Thu 4 Oct 12
I am proud to be British proud of its industrial heritage.
I am proud that at northwich we have some of this heritage still left alive and well. It is a shame that to go forward we have to rely ontwo foreign companies to invest in our future of manufacturing, but for now that will have to do.
TATA is now the biggest manufacturer in the uk and is committed to investment(just look at JLR) .
References above to Witton street above to see "the town is dying" well without attracting investment from outside Northwich ( I don't mean building another supermarket ) the nail is already in the coffin.
Let's not just think of the direct 500 jobs this affects but what about the others for every TATA employee in Northwich there are at least 2 more jobs as contractors engineers, designers, cleaners, HGV drivers and so on these earn good wages not just minimum wage.
It appears to me some people have lost their way so determined to stop this Energy From Waste site they have failed to listen to the facts and continue to see not convinced by overwhelming evidence that things have moved on from preconceptions. These sites are safe by using British manufactured technology to ensure all our safety is a priority.
I bet now most people in Northwich know the facts that you would struggle to get 500 people to say they don't want this.
Oh and Mr WHS I think you will find This is why you lose.
simonster
says...
1:31pm Thu 4 Oct 12
lostock resident wrote:So are you basically saying there are no alternative options than an incinerator? The factory and people's jobs continue without this being constructed so if fuel costs increase for TWATA to get energy then so be it. I have not alternatives to get my fuel bill down as much as the next person and if I was offered an incinerator I would prefer to keep my bills as they are thanks.
Firstly I am a lostock resident 3rd generation to northwich with a fifth generation on its way.
I am proud to be British proud of its industrial heritage.
I am proud that at northwich we have some of this heritage still left alive and well. It is a shame that to go forward we have to rely ontwo foreign companies to invest in our future of manufacturing, but for now that will have to do.
TATA is now the biggest manufacturer in the uk and is committed to investment(just look at JLR) .
References above to Witton street above to see "the town is dying" well without attracting investment from outside Northwich ( I don't mean building another supermarket ) the nail is already in the coffin.
Let's not just think of the direct 500 jobs this affects but what about the others for every TATA employee in Northwich there are at least 2 more jobs as contractors engineers, designers, cleaners, HGV drivers and so on these earn good wages not just minimum wage.
It appears to me some people have lost their way so determined to stop this Energy From Waste site they have failed to listen to the facts and continue to see not convinced by overwhelming evidence that things have moved on from preconceptions. These sites are safe by using British manufactured technology to ensure all our safety is a priority.
I bet now most people in Northwich know the facts that you would struggle to get 500 people to say they don't want this.
Oh and Mr WHS I think you will find This is why you lose.
lostock resident
says...
1:44pm Thu 4 Oct 12
J Bear
says...
1:56pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Sue Statham
says...
2:08pm Thu 4 Oct 12
You say these sites are safe. Please do as I did and request a list of "breaches of emissions levels by waste incinerators" from the Environment Agency. I am in no doubt that the residents living near the incinerator which emitted fly-ash from it's chimneys for a total of 5minutes will NOT have your confidence in the safety of these sites. Fly-ash is highly toxic ash which is a residue of the incinerator process, and has to be transported to specialist hazardous waste sites.
I never believe what I'm told, especially when it comes to health issues. Asbestos and thalidomide are grave errors of the past. Let's be very wary of what the grave errors for the future might be, especially when it's on our watch!
DazzaBT
says...
2:14pm Thu 4 Oct 12
WHS
says...
2:47pm Thu 4 Oct 12
WHS.
Drink.lots.of.tetley.tea
says...
2:53pm Thu 4 Oct 12
L Byrne
says...
2:53pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Please let us know which part of Northwich's heritage involves bringing in 25,000+ tonnes of 'sanitary waste', (stuff such as soiled nappies and incontinence pads) from places like London every year into the town for burning as TATA/E-ON have said they intend to do?
By the way, they also intend to bring in 179,000tonnes of food waste every year for incineration. At the same time as Northwich people are acting responsibly and obeying CWAC Council instructions for recycling their food waste!
Absolute indefensible madness.
WHS
says...
2:59pm Thu 4 Oct 12
I estimated 80 lorries every day of the year based on each carrying 20 tonnes of rubbish, that adds up to the 600,000 tonnes which is the proposed capacity. We have the same aim, just differ on how to achieve it.
WHS.
lostock resident
says...
3:16pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Which would you rather have 25000 tonnes of air tight sealed waste dealt with in a controlled manner with very little impact on the environment , or this same waste dumped in our lovely countryside. Maybe the lake district they have loads of valleys we could fill and let's face it very few NIMBY's to complain about it. Just what are you're suggestions. I have seen such little credibility to the campaign the public enquiry seemed to make a mockery of CHAIN and all their issues it was a little embarrassing to be honest. Maybe it's time to realise people don't believe it anymore, but good luck anyway I fully understand what you are doing and why but maybe admitting you were wrong is the best thing to do now and just get on.
L Byrne
says...
3:17pm Thu 4 Oct 12
My understanding is that solicitors acting in the sale of properties in places like Rudheath and Lostock and possibly further afield are now under a duty of care to inform potential buyers about the incinerator planning decision.
That being the case, the market will take care of itself.
I certainly know of people who changed their minds about moving into Middlewich and Northwich when they heard about the possibility of an incinerator. The reason I was given was fears for the health of their children.
DazzaBT
says...
3:24pm Thu 4 Oct 12
L Byrne wrote:So if solicitors are under a duty of care to inform potential buyers due to health fears, why the hell has this thing been given the go ahead??????? Can we start a petition on the number 10 gov website?
DazzaBT
My understanding is that solicitors acting in the sale of properties in places like Rudheath and Lostock and possibly further afield are now under a duty of care to inform potential buyers about the incinerator planning decision.
That being the case, the market will take care of itself.
I certainly know of people who changed their minds about moving into Middlewich and Northwich when they heard about the possibility of an incinerator. The reason I was given was fears for the health of their children.
L Byrne
says...
3:54pm Thu 4 Oct 12
For clarification. It was the people who changed their minds about moving to Middlewich and Northwich who told me that had done so because they were not prepared to take risks with their childrens' health.
As I understand it, the reason for the obligation on solicitors is that a waste incinerator in the vicinity of a property is likely to have an adverse impact on the value. They would find this in their searches and report it to their clients otherwise they become liable.
On behalf of CHAIN, I contacted several local estate agents and solicitors a couple of years ago about this and that was the information I was given.
Perhaps a solicitor reading this could comment.
lostock resident
says...
3:56pm Thu 4 Oct 12
DazzaBT
says...
4:03pm Thu 4 Oct 12
L Byrne wrote:We moved to Wincham 12 months ago, nothing was mentioned in our searches about this or the 'Urban Village' development.
DazzaBT
For clarification. It was the people who changed their minds about moving to Middlewich and Northwich who told me that had done so because they were not prepared to take risks with their childrens' health.
As I understand it, the reason for the obligation on solicitors is that a waste incinerator in the vicinity of a property is likely to have an adverse impact on the value. They would find this in their searches and report it to their clients otherwise they become liable.
On behalf of CHAIN, I contacted several local estate agents and solicitors a couple of years ago about this and that was the information I was given.
Perhaps a solicitor reading this could comment.
WHS
says...
4:08pm Thu 4 Oct 12
WHS.
DazzaBT
says...
4:18pm Thu 4 Oct 12
L Byrne
says...
4:28pm Thu 4 Oct 12
I suggest that you contact your solicitor and ask him why the hell he did not tell you about the incinerator. Residents have known about plans for an incinerator in Lostock for at least five years.
It was his job to know about these and to tell you about them. That is what you paid him to do.
You and others in a similar position may well have a case for professional negligence.
Good luck.
simonster
says...
4:29pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Regarding solicitors they should be searching for proposed roads and buildings that can affect the sale of the property and not the health risks involved although its obvious with an incinerator or other things like pilons etc.
nicksey
says...
4:31pm Thu 4 Oct 12
It would however appear that no matter how many object, it all just falls on deaf ears. The government want this plant somewhere so why not here. Local councils have objected, residents have objected but the government are not interested in our objections, people like Ed Davey see's us just as 'collateral damage', in his eyes we can suffer for the greater good of the rest of the UK. What about localism? The government bang on about localism and the big society saying that local government should be involved in decision making yet completely ignore their opinion.
Our health or quality of life does not matter to Ed Davey or his cronies.
My real objection is to the traffic. Grithiths Rd is partially residential, King Street between the rounabout and Griffiths Rd is virtually all residential. So Mr Davey is happy for all those HGV's to rumble down a residential road, without a thought about those residents, the potential damage to our homes (both physically and financially or the health and safety issues that this brings.
L Byrne
says...
4:39pm Thu 4 Oct 12
I meant to mention. House owners in Kingsmead, Davenham and Hartford seem to in blissful denial about this.
Just wait until the sight of the incinerator buildings and chimneys becomes visible from their back gardens! Never mind the emissions landing gently on their roofs and driveways.
Take a look at the incinerator monster that is half built in Runcorn and you will agree.
L Byrne
says...
4:47pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Re traffic.
CWAC Council, to their eternal shame, did not object on traffic grounds although they had the opportunity to do so.
CHAIN fought a strong case on the traffic issue, particularly HGVs on Griffith Road/King Street. However, the planning inspector basically said at the inquiry that if it was OK by the Council it was OK by her and the ground was cut from under us.
lostock resident
says...
4:49pm Thu 4 Oct 12
simonster
says...
5:22pm Thu 4 Oct 12
If TWATA was not located in Lostock and it was just fields would this be even built here? Is it about the Government or TWATA?
L Byrne
says...
5:24pm Thu 4 Oct 12
I have read the 'plans' and can say that you are absolutely incorrect and are misleading the readers.
All that TATA say, is that 'anticipated that the most likely scenario for fuel deliveries to the site would involve two thirds of fuel being imported by rail...' (Environmental Statement p 6-19 Para 6.97 first sentence)
That is far from a guarantee and they would say that anyway. Indeed their own transport hired expert said at the Inquiry that the cheapest method of transport would always be used. Most agree that is usually going to be road transport.
Not scaremongering just stating a fact.
nicksey
says...
5:27pm Thu 4 Oct 12
lostock resident wrote:At last a comment from lostock resident that I can agree with, well almost.
Sorry you are wrong on my identity I have never been interviewed for this tv programme. I think you are mistaken/ misled if read the actual plans most of the waste will come into lostock by rail helping to support the local rail network it is just plain stupid to think they will transport this waste mainly by road. Once again misleading information from scaremongerers. Really! I wonder really if local residents in 5 years will even notice a difference.
"It is stupid to think that they will transport this waste mainly by road", well thats the stupid thing that they intend to do. They have been given permission to do just that, to quote from L. Byrne's earlier post
"the number of additional permitted HGV trips on Griffith Road/King Street will be 262 every day between 7.00am and 7.00pm. That is an average of 22 per hour. Note the word 'average'. At busy periods the number will be far higher.
Worse still,the Government also has given permission for the number to rise to 276 per 12 hour day on regular occasions"
Not scaremongering, just the facts as previously reported.
Ellie Barnes
says...
5:33pm Thu 4 Oct 12
I have lived in Northwich all my life and I've followed this application from the very start.
My initial reaction was, like a lot of other people's, to reject it out of hand.
I like to think I'm a reasonable person so I started to do my own research. I watched a great deal of the public inquiry and I followed events on the Guardian website.
I also went to some of the public meetings that CHAIN attended.
Like some of the other posters on this website, I also obtained official documentation, including the Defra 2004 report on health implications of incineration by Enviros Consulting and University of Birmingham with Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd, Open University and Maggie Thurgood.
I wonder if CHAIN has read it. But given it says the health implications of incineration are so minimal they are not worth taking into account, I suspect it is a document they wouldn't be quoting from.
And that was with 2004 technology.
I'm sure the CHAIN protesters are sincere and hold their views to be true but to be honest they have been their own worst enemy.
I wanted rational discussion and the presentation of FACTS, not the diet of hysterical propaganda pumped out by CHAIN, especially from L Byrne but others were almost as guilty.
Poisoned babies, dirty nappies strewn around Lostock, toxic fumes, total gridlock, dioxins, furins, animal waste littering the the streets and let's not forget...falling house prices.
And TATA is Indian and EON is German, although what that's got to do with anything I really don't know.
My car is Czech, my emplyer is Spanish and my electricity is French. My supermarket is American and my yoghurt is Greek but you can't beat a good dose of xenophobia, can you?
Frankly, whatever good points CHAIN had (and they did have some including traffic movements and sourcing waste from miles away) have been lost by the Joseph Goebbels-like propaganda and hyperbole.
Mr Byrne, if only you could have moderated your hysteria and talked to us as adults, not small children being told bedtime horror stories, your campaign would have been much more convincing.
One final point, and I think it was made on this very website several years ago, if you buy a house in the vicinity of a major industrial site, how on earth can you start moaning about house prices when someone develops that site. Don't forget, this plan is to build a power station on the site of, you guessed it, a power station.
rogers-t
says...
5:33pm Thu 4 Oct 12
As a result of this decision, I am no longer participating in any recycling of my household waste, I'll compress it all down in my dustbin and those recycling boxes can go back to CWAC. I hope to embark on a campaign to urge others to do the same! Government treat us like this, so be prepared for TROUBLE!
rogers-t
says...
5:40pm Thu 4 Oct 12
GadbrookTNT
says...
6:00pm Thu 4 Oct 12
rogers-t
says...
6:02pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Ruckit
says...
6:13pm Thu 4 Oct 12
rogers-t
says...
6:21pm Thu 4 Oct 12
As you're a local you may not know that Northwich hasn't a good name for itself, those that I know who have visited think it's a dump, and the incinerator site just makes matters worse. With that said, Winsford also has an even worse name for itself. Great to see Northwich and Winsford on the up - NOT!
Northwich and Winsford are almost certainly set to be the poor man's town for many years to come and it will show, it not already!
I'm Not A scouser
says...
6:57pm Thu 4 Oct 12
I am very happy this decision has been granted by the DECC. I have read all the literature available about incineration, the pros and cons, and its obvious the pros far outweight the cons!
I have noticed a lot of scaremongering by opposing groups, esp CHAIN, giving incorrect facts and information. I seem to remember Mr Byrne stating that the plant will be larger than Wembley Stadium, does he have different plans than the rest of us??
The mention of HGV traffic amounting to 22 per hour...this is a worse case scenario figure which they have to give, majority of the waste will be transported by rail in vacuum sealed containers, do you honestly think they will transport all that waste by road? it would not be a viable option, and they would not be spending millions extended the existing rail head if they where not going to use it.
I remember Dr Van Steenis giving his (laughable) evidence at the enquiry, how can someone with so called knowledge, forget to bring his evidence to a public enquiry? he was soon shot down by people with real knowledge.
I wonder if anyone could give some data on the health risks regarding living in proximity to a modern run incinerator?......I can assure people, that there is no proof anywhere, that living next to a modern run incinerator WILL effect your health. I challenge anyone to find such info, not probable....but factual. Even the Health Protection Agency are yet to find any.
I am looking forward to the EfW plant starting construction, Northwich needs a financial boost, and evidence shows that EfW plants DO bring money into the local economy, anyone who says they dont, needs to do some research.
Lastly, I understand CHAIN are just a NIMBY organisation, which is understandable....bu
t to put fear into people is not the right way to go about it. If people researched the EfW plants across Europe, they will see for themselves that they are safe and well run.
Its time to get them diggers in and demolish this old power station, and give us a nice shiny well run new one!
The future will start to look brighter for Northwich!!!!!
L Byrne
says...
7:19pm Thu 4 Oct 12
I appreciate that you put your name on your comment unlike the majority of other pro waste incinerator contributors.
I am not going to respond to most of the points you make because space would not allow it other than to point out that most of your assertions are just incorrect and not supported by evidence.
On the other hand, I have supported the points I make. For example, the claim I made about TATA bringing 25,000 tonnes of sanitary waste into Northwich is based on a document submitted by a Stephen Othen on behalf of TATA to the inquiry (page 13 in fact)
On the important issue of the human health risks associated with waste incinerators there is a large amount of published research which contradicts the report you mention.A good example is the report titled ' The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators' published by the British Society for Ecological Medicine as updated in June 2008.
Finally, I find your linking what I or CHAIN has written to Joseph Goebbels to be a deep personal insult. Perhaps it is because I am the son of a man who spent six years as a soldier on active service during the Second World War in Europe and Africa fighting against thugs like Goebbels.
WHS
says...
7:23pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Sadly our little town is set to become an even bigger dump than it already is, and that's not just my view, ask anyone from the town or who has visited and most will totally agree that our town is a mess.
WHS.
lostock resident
says...
7:40pm Thu 4 Oct 12
L Byrne
says...
7:43pm Thu 4 Oct 12
You are absolutely right. The incinerator manufacturers in the 90s and later used to make exactly the same claims but now it is accepted that the plants were lethal. The Chairman of CHAIN, Brian Cartwright, will testify to that and he used to be chief of executive of a company that built them.
Another point is that the incinerators that are being located in Cheshire in Frodsham, Runcorn and, now, Northwich are very much larger than previous generations. Two or three times bigger at least and, logically, there is no researched evidence to prove their safety. But 'the powers that be' have evidently decided we are the guinea pigs.
Bet they would not do this anywhere in the Home Counties.
I'm Not A scouser
says...
7:49pm Thu 4 Oct 12
WHS wrote:So you agree there is no proof they are harmful to your health, apart from documents that suggest older incinerators maybe. So why do CHAIN repeatedly say they are dangerous to our health, that is scaremongering!
You say there is no proof that modern Incinerators cause health problems; well of course there isn't, it is too soon to say for certain. What I do know having worked for 30 years on a chemical site is they do try to keep emissions down but as plants age that becomes more and more difficult as profit comes before safety in ALL industry and anyone who thinks differently is a misguided fool.
Sadly our little town is set to become an even bigger dump than it already is, and that's not just my view, ask anyone from the town or who has visited and most will totally agree that our town is a mess.
WHS.
If they are proven to be dangerous, then state that fact, everyone will see it, but until then, dont try and scare people with fabricated tales.
People do not realise how well run these modern EfW plants are. Dioxin emissions have been reduced by 99.8 per cent since 1990, you are submitted to more dangerous dioxins through diet alone.....than incineration, why do CHAIN not tell is fact, which is 100% true and reported.
simonster
says...
7:57pm Thu 4 Oct 12
rogers-t
says...
8:05pm Thu 4 Oct 12
I bet the likes of your ilk BELIEVE in the man-made climate change fraud too!
The entire AGW theory (or a theory they have belief in) is an elaborate scientific fraud designed to enrich carbon traders and pump billions of dollars of research funding into goverment and university coffers. The big losers are we the taxpayers who are forced to struggle under a system of draconian economic controls that curtail our freedoms, force up energy prices, and lower our standard of living.
Actually the AGW theory, is NOT ACTUALLY a theory since it never reached that level based on science research over the last 30 years or so.It is still nothing more than a CONJECTURE and a poor one.
It is invalidated by numerous research indicators that show the failure to pass the few testable preditions it made.It failed EVERY TIME!
It is a dead hypothesis that should now be discarded.
However, the AGW belief has gone viral on a global scale and world governments are so in entrenched in it (because it's a big money spinner!) that they believe their own lies now!
I'm Not A scouser
says...
8:15pm Thu 4 Oct 12
What that has to do with EfW plants, I dont know.
rogers-t
says...
8:21pm Thu 4 Oct 12
I was making a point of " X, Y, Z, research paper says EfW plants are safe" then the like's of these people's minds' react with....."Well, I'm convinced....that's okay then, great let's have it!" lol :-)
Do you get it now!
Let's put aside the safety.... The location of this plants is HIGHLY inappropriate and does not fit the design of the town slapped right upon it!
Like I say, Northwich is maintaining it's reputation as a dumping ground, just like Winsford and Middlewich (with all it's Traveller/Gypsy sites about to spring up all over the place in the case of Winsford)
lostock resident
says...
8:25pm Thu 4 Oct 12
rogers-t
says...
8:29pm Thu 4 Oct 12
No wrong! AGW has not become a theory with any basis - read my previous post. It is pure CONJECTURE!
L Byrne
says...
8:37pm Thu 4 Oct 12
We owe it to our children to place the onus on the advocates of waste incinerators to prove that they ARE safe as far as I am concerned. We know these things emit quantities of toxic substances every minute that they are in operation and that they come down in the surrounding areas. What we don't know is what effect this has on the health of people who live in the vicinity over the long term because some conditions such as cancer can take many years to develop.
This is particularly worrying in this part of Cheshire because if/when all three of the incinerators in Runcorn, Frodsham and Lostock the total burning capacity will 2.2million tonnes per annum or 550,000 lbs of waste going up in smoke into the air above us every hour every day for at least the next 25 years.
That will be the highest density of waste incinerators on the planet. Period.
Nobody can know what the cumulative effect of this could be and CHAIN and others have consistently asked why should we put the children at risk?
I'm Not A scouser
says...
8:48pm Thu 4 Oct 12
rogers-t wrote:A bit like the lies peddles by various groups against EfW plants?
Because they are the very same kind of lies peddled by the authorities!
I was making a point of " X, Y, Z, research paper says EfW plants are safe" then the like's of these people's minds' react with....."Well, I'm convinced....that's okay then, great let's have it!" lol :-)
Do you get it now!
Let's put aside the safety.... The location of this plants is HIGHLY inappropriate and does not fit the design of the town slapped right upon it!
Like I say, Northwich is maintaining it's reputation as a dumping ground, just like Winsford and Middlewich (with all it's Traveller/Gypsy sites about to spring up all over the place in the case of Winsford)
Now you are complaining about the design of the new plant, have you voiced your concerns, or petitioned against the old power station that currently stands in its place?
Until a report is made that says, with proof....these EfW are bad for us, I welcome the plant with open arms.
and for the record, I think the design of the new plant is very nice indeed and will fit in nicely!
I'm Not A scouser
says...
8:49pm Thu 4 Oct 12
lostock resident wrote:and excellent work it was too, glad to see someone else here who has common sense. Time for a rattle!
Good now we see some good discussion. My work here is done!
rogers-t
says...
8:54pm Thu 4 Oct 12
You are right, the design will fit in nicely! I agree, it will fit in with the town's current aesthetics very much so, given how run down Northwich is. Goes along way to keep Northwich where it's been for many decades!
A run down dump! Just like Winsford and Middlewich!
L Byrne
says...
8:58pm Thu 4 Oct 12
In response to 'I'm Not a Scouser'
We owe it to our children to place the onus on the advocates of waste incinerators to prove that they ARE safe as far as I am concerned. We know these things emit quantities of toxic substances every minute that they are in operation and that they come down in the surrounding areas. What we don't know is what effect this has on the health of people who live in the vicinity over the long term because some conditions such as cancer can take many years to develop.
This is particularly worrying in this part of Cheshire because if/when all three of the incinerators in Runcorn, Frodsham and Lostock the total burning capacity will 2.2million tonnes per annum or 550,000 lbs of waste going up in smoke into the air above us every hour every day for at least the next 25 years.
That will be the highest density of waste incinerators on the planet. Period.
Nobody can know what the cumulative effect of this could be and CHAIN and others have consistently asked why should we put the children at risk?
nicksey
says...
9:03pm Thu 4 Oct 12
I know you can't see the truth right now, and for that I feel a little sorry for you because once this is built you will realise the error of judgement that you are making.
But your final childish comment says it all really, you have no real input to make in the discussion you just want an argument for the sake of the argument and not for the sake of our town and the people who live here.
simonster
says...
9:08pm Thu 4 Oct 12
rogers-t
says...
9:17pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Either that or they are incredibly naive people who believe anything people in grey suits tell them!
You could not make it up!
Ellie Barnes
says...
9:35pm Thu 4 Oct 12
L Byrne wrote:L Byrne, I assume you are an intelligent person but you still don't get it, do you?
In response to 'I'm Not a Scouser'
We owe it to our children to place the onus on the advocates of waste incinerators to prove that they ARE safe as far as I am concerned. We know these things emit quantities of toxic substances every minute that they are in operation and that they come down in the surrounding areas. What we don't know is what effect this has on the health of people who live in the vicinity over the long term because some conditions such as cancer can take many years to develop.
This is particularly worrying in this part of Cheshire because if/when all three of the incinerators in Runcorn, Frodsham and Lostock the total burning capacity will 2.2million tonnes per annum or 550,000 lbs of waste going up in smoke into the air above us every hour every day for at least the next 25 years.
That will be the highest density of waste incinerators on the planet. Period.
Nobody can know what the cumulative effect of this could be and CHAIN and others have consistently asked why should we put the children at risk?
You say 'We know these things emit quantities of toxic substances every minute and they come down in the surrounding area'.
That is the kind of unsupported and unsupportable propaganda I referred to in my ealier post.
What toxic substances, how much, what health effects?
Oh, of course you go on to tell us...cancer. I'm surprised you didn't chuck in the other CHAIN favourite, birth defects.
You have no proof to support your arguments. You have no evidence yet you state it as absolute truth.
In my opinion, your entire campaign has been fought on fear and scaremongering and, I believe, you have done untold damage to your cause by frightening away those of us in Northwich, me included, who wanted a reasoned, reasonable debate.
I was prepared to be persuaded one way or another but not by fanatics who are not willing to enter into a discussion and who insist on using emotive and inflamatory language,
Whether you are opposed to the plan of in favour of it, I would ask this question.
Do you really think any government would allow any company to knowingly pump toxins into the atmospehere and do you really think any company would knowingly poison the air they breathe in the town in which they live and work?
But come to think of it, perhaps Johnny Foreigner doesn't care what happens in Northwich.
nicksey
says...
9:50pm Thu 4 Oct 12
What a strange, incoherent argument to take.
You don't seem to have anything to add to the discussion other than to try to clumsily take an opposing position to L. Byrne and anything he says.
I have no idea what your background. knowledge or experience is of incinerators but plain common sense should tell you that it is better not to have one on our doorstep than to have one.
Plain common sense should also tell you that massive movements of other peoples waste into our town is not what most residents would want.
Plain common sense should also tell you that trains and/or HGV's travelling in huge numbers into our town is not a good idea.
Plain common sense should tell you that the roads leading to the site cannot handle this traffic.
Plain common sense should tell you that most people with common sense recognise that this is not a good idea for Northwich.
You seem to be just argumentative and somewhat lacking in this plain common sense.
Sue Statham
says...
10:01pm Thu 4 Oct 12
I fight against the construction of this incinerator, sure of my facts and sure of my objective I tried to look at this incinerator through rose-coloured glasses as the P.R. company tasked with "selling" said incinerator would have me do, but then I discovered the facts for myself, and the glasses were off, so to speak. I also read on a House of Commons website that "Waste incinerators tend to be built in poorer areas or in places where there is least opposition to their construction". What a disgrace, but then again have you ever heard of any residents asking for an incinerator to be built in their town?
Ah, well, .....a very long Government report to be scrutinised and the fight goes on.
rogers-t
says...
10:05pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Never seen so much passion from locals to support something that is NOT overwhelming good for the town and so controversial!
Doesn't add up.
L Byrne
says...
10:30pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Here is a list of some of the 'main chimney emissions' which Covanta mentioned in their Middlewich incinerator planning application:-
Carbon Dioxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Sulphur Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Dioxins
Particulates
Heavy Metals
Hydrogen Chloride
Hydrogen Flouride
Volatile Organic Compounds
Fair play to Covanta for their honesty.
Now who in their right mind wants that lot coming down on their heads and into their throats and being absorbed into their internal organs every day year after year? Do you?
Don't forget, this area of Cheshire will have more of it than anywhere else on the planet. That is a fact, pure and simple, and it follows that our children will have no choice but face the greatest risk.
If that is scaremongering, I hold my hand up.
I'm Not A scouser
says...
10:30pm Thu 4 Oct 12
As we all know....there are no proven health risks, traffic will increase on Griffith Road by only 3%, It will be not be an eyesore like the existing building, it will create jobs and protect jobs, It will reduce landfill, costing the taxpayer less, will create energy, less usage of fossil fuels.
So please......tell me why it is a bad thing, in reference to the points I just made?
I'm Not A scouser
says...
11:10pm Thu 4 Oct 12
L Byrne wrote:Mr Byrne
Dear Ms Barnes
Here is a list of some of the 'main chimney emissions' which Covanta mentioned in their Middlewich incinerator planning application:-
Carbon Dioxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Sulphur Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Dioxins
Particulates
Heavy Metals
Hydrogen Chloride
Hydrogen Flouride
Volatile Organic Compounds
Fair play to Covanta for their honesty.
Now who in their right mind wants that lot coming down on their heads and into their throats and being absorbed into their internal organs every day year after year? Do you?
Don't forget, this area of Cheshire will have more of it than anywhere else on the planet. That is a fact, pure and simple, and it follows that our children will have no choice but face the greatest risk.
If that is scaremongering, I hold my hand up.
Would you like to give a percentage breakdown, and quantity, regarding the limits of the emissions you stated.
Compared to the levels of above emissions which are already present in the air from other sources.
Example, Hydrogen fluoride emissions from coal fired power stations is the largest source of anthropogenic hydrogen fluoride emissions, from EfW plants the levels could be too small to detect.
Half of the Nitrogen Dioxide emissions in the UK (2.2 million tonnes) comes from vehicles, a quarter comes from coal fired power stations.
If you research yourself the levels of emissions from various sources in the UK, of the emissions and compunds you stated. You will find that EfW plants do not even even register on the scale!!!
That is what I mean by scaremongering, You keep telling people about all these particles raining down an people.....yet fail to tell people that driving your car is far more pollutant, or having a bonfire, or going to a fireword display.
All the figures of emission levels of compounds and dioxins etc, and their relative sources can easily be viewed online.
Dont try to frighten people with misguided information.
rogers-t
says...
11:45pm Thu 4 Oct 12
ors on this article like the way he/she is doing. Locals I know wouldn't have the inclination to go to such lengths on here, especially when the decision has always been made!
Don't you all think it's rather suspect? This is a paid operative commentating on here, made to look like a local.
If that is not the case, then there are pockets of people in this town that will believe anything the men in grey suits tell them.
As for 'do your research', research papers produced by those who have connections/associat
ions in some way to government funded / grant assisted organisations with vested interests.
Like with AGW / Climate Change there is no science in it. It's driven by money just as these EfW are too!
I don't hold out much hope over here in Northwich, people are generally apathetic in this country and will swallow what is thrown at them by so called scientists/academics or those they look up to positions of power!
If the locals accept this then, Northwich will never change other than being a dumping ground like it's always been in modern peace times, just like Winsford.
My advice is, if you can move out if you can
Ellie Barnes
says...
12:15am Fri 5 Oct 12
You make some fair points, some of which I agree with.
If you check my earlier post, you will see I, also have concerns about the volume of HGV movements and about transporting waste from the other end of the country.
I don't neccessarily disagree with L Byrne but I repeat my earlier point that he has done CHAIN's cause a great deal of harm with his hysterical scaremongering and propaganda.
He just can't help himself. For example, take his most recent post regarding Covanta's list of emissions.
It doesn't have any indication of percentage concentrations, a point eloquently picked up on by I'm Not a Scouser. It's designed to scare people but has no evidential substance.
And while I may not always agree with Sue Statham, she makes a rational and thought-provoking point without resorting to hyperbole, half-truths, misinformation or reference to the national origins of the companies.
So yes, I do have a problem with L Byrne and that is reinforced with every post he makes on this site.
L Byrne
says...
12:19am Fri 5 Oct 12
You miss the point, I'm afraid. It is fatuous to compare bonfires and fireworks with living your life in the vicinity of a waste incinerator
of the size proposed. I am not a medically qualified person but I would hazard a guess that if you lived close to a bonfire which constantly burned rubbish including plastics, chemicals, textiles etc that you would soon develop serious health problems.That, in effect ,is what TATA intends for the the children of Northwich.
Finally, here is a quote from a report about incinerator health risks published by NHS Scotland, Health Protection Scotland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency :-
'Levels of airborne emissions from individual incinerators should be lower now than in the past, due to stricter legislative controls and improved technology. Hence, any risk to the health of a local population living near an incinerator, associated with its emissions, should also now be lower. It is possible that in the future the number of incinerators or the throughput of individual incinerators may increase and consequently the total mass of airborne emissions could increase. However, this has been addressed by the Scottish Government commitment to limit the total amount of waste destined for energy recovery via thermal treatment. In addition, planning controls should prevent new incinerators being sited within the
locality of existing sites.'
You will see that these respected expert organisations are concerned enough about the risks to place a limit on incineration in Scotland and stipulate that they should not be located close to each other.
It is another scandalous aspect of the situation in Northwich that the TATA application would not have been approved in Scotland for health reasons because it would be so close to those in Frodsham and Runcorn.
It seems that lives are more expendable in Cheshire than in Scotland.
Ellie Barnes
says...
12:44am Fri 5 Oct 12
I never mentioned bonfires. That aside, you're right, I wouldn't want to live next door to a bonfire burning plastics etc all the time.
But to compare an open bonfire and an modern, emission-controlled, highly regulate energy from waste plant is, frankly, laughable.
And your argument appears to be based on the assertion that the plant will, by definition, emit toxic chemicals all day, every day.
And you have no evidence that is true.
Even the report from Scottish Environment Protection Agency you quote talks about lower health risk.
Just one final thought. Are there clusters of incinerators in Germany?
DMill59
says...
12:56am Fri 5 Oct 12
Let us assume - a very big assumption - that the people advocating the incinerator on here are correct and that, under normal operation, it poses an inconsequential health risk and is objectively safe (I will have more to say on this later). What tangible benefits would ensue for the town of Northwich?
The answer, in my honest opinion, is that they will be nil or negligible. Firstly, the mooted plant itself is colossal - seven football pitches in area according to BBC Look North West tonight - and it will loom balefully over the entire eastern side of the town. In fact, L. Byrne's estimate of it being of similar dimensions to Wembley Stadium (minus the arch) looks distinctly conservative!
Secondly, the effect on traffic on Griffiths Road and King Street will potentially be enormous. Not only 250+ extra vehicles during working hours, but huge trucks which will surely result in large tailbacks on both the A559 Manchester Road and the A556 Northwich bypass, especially during the rush hours.
Thirdly, most of the power generated by the incinerator will be utilised to power TATA's Lostock chemical plant, and any surplus utilised by the National Grid will neither be free, nor available at a discount, for the population of Northwich
Fourthly, the jobs created will be mostly unskilled and probably will be little more than minimum wage and oversubscribed by immigrants.
So, where are the benefits for our town?
Add to this other factors. Even if the plant emissions are normally at 'safe' levels (and who truly knows what a safe level is?), as a nuclear radiation engineer I know that NO level of additional ionising radiation above the background level is considered to be safe - and an analogous argument will apply to the pollutants produced by this plant.. Genetic factors come into the equation too - a safe level for one Individual could be harmful to another. Although the argument that a great many armospheric pollutants are produced in large quantities by motor vehicles and other local industries etc. is valid, why augment them unnecessarily by building a plant like this?
Another vitally important point to take into consideration here is that all industrial plants are liable to malfunction, and the consequences of the release of a high level of carcinogens or other hazardous substances into the atmosphere - even a release of short duration - could be appalling, particularly given the sheer scale of the proposed incinerator.
My remaining point is, of course, a value judgement but one with which I am sure the vast majority of the population of Northwich will agree with me. As other people have stated, why should this town become a dumping ground for waste from London and other areas of the country? I'm sure it's not 'green' to use large trucks (and thus monumentsl amounts of diesel) to transfer huge amounts of waste over such long-distances!
To summarise; I think that this incinerator is a mistake in every context and that, if it comes to fruition, it will be an unmitigated disaster for the town.
simonster
says...
8:50am Fri 5 Oct 12
I'm Not A scouser wrote:Its in a residential area!
You resort to childish comments....yet fail to give a valid reason why it should not be built.
As we all know....there are no proven health risks, traffic will increase on Griffith Road by only 3%, It will be not be an eyesore like the existing building, it will create jobs and protect jobs, It will reduce landfill, costing the taxpayer less, will create energy, less usage of fossil fuels.
So please......tell me why it is a bad thing, in reference to the points I just made?
Ellie Barnes
says...
9:18am Fri 5 Oct 12
Thank you for your post. If only some of the other more hysterical commentators could have conducted themselves in the way you have.
In my opinion, your concerns are mostly valid and well argued.
Simonster
The plan is to build a power station on the site of a power station. Anyone who bought a house near the Lostock site knew exactly what they were moving next to.
It is not in a residential area, it is on the site of an industrial/chemical plant.
.
8 Ball
says...
9:29am Fri 5 Oct 12
I wonder how much the decision cost TATA? I'm certain it would not have been the same had the proposed site been down south. This is proof that unless you live in or around London the government does not give a toss!
So how much is being spent on the round network to cater for all the extra HGVs? How can it be environmentally friendly to transport the waste of councils from down south to the north? Surely there should be incinerators more local to them.
nicksey
says...
10:01am Fri 5 Oct 12
Vehicles travelling to the plant have only one route in and out and that is down King Street and onto Griffiths Road.
King Street is residential, potentially 3 HGV's per minute from 7.00 am to 7.00pm travelling down a residential road is an absolute travesty. Should those who live on King Street have to put up with a potential 3 HGV's every minute passing by their front doors.
I wonder if there is something here that breaches the Human Rights Act?
simonster
says...
10:31am Fri 5 Oct 12
Ellie Barnes wrote:I've lived here 11 years and the power station was not running as far as I can remember when I bought my house. Also anyone buying a house
DMill59
Thank you for your post. If only some of the other more hysterical commentators could have conducted themselves in the way you have.
In my opinion, your concerns are mostly valid and well argued.
Simonster
The plan is to build a power station on the site of a power station. Anyone who bought a house near the Lostock site knew exactly what they were moving next to.
It is not in a residential area, it is on the site of an industrial/chemical plant.
.
like you say knew exactly what they were moving next to which is a REDUNDANT power station.
You have a point but if it means anything then why is approval required? Surely an incinerator is change of use so not a like for like for what is dormant on the current site. Was the power station an incinerator before it closed?
I'm just hoping that if this goes ahead the chimneys are that high that any fallout will fly over us and into further areas, hopefully the areas where people that want this incinerator live. Maybe it will all run smoothly and cause no harm but the whole thought of it and the tag that attaches itself too it will cause more damage than good locally for Northwich and its not a nice thought just as things were looking up for Northwich with the new plans in place for the Town Centre.
eltell
says...
10:36am Fri 5 Oct 12
L Byrne
says...
10:38am Fri 5 Oct 12
A brief response to your last comment.
It is a fact that the plant will constantly emit toxic substances and the operators do not challenge that. The contentious issues are the amount of toxins and the effects on human health particularly over the long term by absorption by breathing and through the skin.
Re your question about clusters of incinerators in Germany, I have no information on that. A key point, however is about the size . EON provided a list of 19 plants in Germany to the Inquiry. Only 1 was larger than the planned Lostock plant and the average size of the total group was less than half of the Northwich plant.
Finally, CHAIN's concern has always been about the health hazards that might affect all of Northwich and the surrounding areas not just Lostock, Rudheath and Wincham. It is remarkable that so many of the residents of places like Kingsmead , Davenham and Hartford are apparently in denial about what faces them. Perhaps it is because TATA went to great lengths not to inform them about their intentions and they got away with it.
I'm Not A scouser
says...
10:40am Fri 5 Oct 12
nicksey wrote:Would you like a calculator to do your sums again?
Ellie Barnes
Vehicles travelling to the plant have only one route in and out and that is down King Street and onto Griffiths Road.
King Street is residential, potentially 3 HGV's per minute from 7.00 am to 7.00pm travelling down a residential road is an absolute travesty. Should those who live on King Street have to put up with a potential 3 HGV's every minute passing by their front doors.
I wonder if there is something here that breaches the Human Rights Act?
Over 2000 HGV's per 12 hour day?
Not forgetting the majority of vacuum sealed waste will be arriving by rail.
Traffic increase expected to be 3%
Not as bad as its made out when you give true information is it?
Notsureicare
says...
10:40am Fri 5 Oct 12
Lets be frank here, there are 100's of plants like this around Europe, they work well and are effective at not only generating electricity but providing an excellent way of getting rid of waste which otherwise would have gone to landfill where it would take 1000's years to compost, if it even can (much worse for our children Mr Byrne!)
The filters, I understand take out anything harmful from the air, this is information I got from my own research and not listening to anyone propaganda, CHAIN's or TATA's.
To harp on about this being a money spinner is nonsense too, I doubt any NFP would like to build an EFW plant, so it seems that a profit making entity will have to build it, they don’t tend to do it for free.
As for the appeal, good luck, my understanding is the Secretary of State made it clear there were no ground for appeal, and a judicial review would, in my understanding be appealing against the process which was followed and not the final decision. It seems difficult to believe expensive lawyers don’t follow the correct process.............
.I truly hope this plant gets build quickly, and the 500 jobs it creates go to deserving supporting members of this community and not to any of the idiots who would rather see this town on its knees than admit they were wrong.
Chris Hughs
eltell
says...
10:41am Fri 5 Oct 12
rogers-t
says...
11:00am Fri 5 Oct 12
Isn't it all very ironic, there is strong public opinion (due to climate change propaganda) that the burning of fossil fuel is bad and people want renewables and here we have an EfW plant sitting right upon a big residential area and now this is acceptable and all those principles go out the window.
Nothing queer as folk eh ;)
WHS
says...
11:06am Fri 5 Oct 12
WHS.
rogers-t
says...
11:13am Fri 5 Oct 12
There would be 'repeat' referendums until there was a YES vote. A lot can be learned from the way The EU(SSR) Dictatorship operates :)))
L Byrne
says...
11:49am Fri 5 Oct 12
According to TATA's own (dodgy ) figures their incinerator will add an average of 22 large HGVs, typically big artics and trailers, to Griffith Road/ King Street every hour between 7.00am and 7.00 pm. For at least the next 25 years!
Re jobs
The number of jobs claimed by EON will be a maximum of 50. Fair enough.
Construction will create a number of temporary jobs for locals but the majority of the work will be done by specialists crews from within and outside of the UK.
The incinerator will not increase the number of manufacturing jobs and TATA have never uttered a word to assure employees about securing or guaranteeing jobs if it gets built. In fact, as many have argued, it would enable them to cease chemical production in the UK and import it from the other cheaper sources they have abroad and make a lot of money by flogging their interest in the incinerator.
Worth knowing.
nicksey
says...
12:06pm Fri 5 Oct 12
I'm Not A scouser wrote:I'm Not A Scouser
nicksey wrote:Would you like a calculator to do your sums again?
Ellie Barnes
Vehicles travelling to the plant have only one route in and out and that is down King Street and onto Griffiths Road.
King Street is residential, potentially 3 HGV's per minute from 7.00 am to 7.00pm travelling down a residential road is an absolute travesty. Should those who live on King Street have to put up with a potential 3 HGV's every minute passing by their front doors.
I wonder if there is something here that breaches the Human Rights Act?
Over 2000 HGV's per 12 hour day?
Not forgetting the majority of vacuum sealed waste will be arriving by rail.
Traffic increase expected to be 3%
Not as bad as its made out when you give true information is it?
3% of the total traffic doesn't sound much does it? but their own figures declare an additional 22 large HGV's an hour, maybe that is just a 3% increase, but would you want an extra 22 large HGV's rumbling past the front of your home every hour?
I presume you don't live on the route to the site, otherwise you would be objecting as well, but I do.
simonster
says...
12:08pm Fri 5 Oct 12
L Byrne wrote:Maybe TWATA think the life of the current site is coming to an end and need something else to replace it to keep the site profitable so the incinerator comes in with 50 new jobs.
Re the traffic
According to TATA's own (dodgy ) figures their incinerator will add an average of 22 large HGVs, typically big artics and trailers, to Griffith Road/ King Street every hour between 7.00am and 7.00 pm. For at least the next 25 years!
Re jobs
The number of jobs claimed by EON will be a maximum of 50. Fair enough.
Construction will create a number of temporary jobs for locals but the majority of the work will be done by specialists crews from within and outside of the UK.
The incinerator will not increase the number of manufacturing jobs and TATA have never uttered a word to assure employees about securing or guaranteeing jobs if it gets built. In fact, as many have argued, it would enable them to cease chemical production in the UK and import it from the other cheaper sources they have abroad and make a lot of money by flogging their interest in the incinerator.
Worth knowing.
Then 500 jobs at the plant are phased out over time and the plant is closed with production moved abroad?
This leaves an incinerator and now a much larger disused site/eyesore next to the incinerator, 500 less wages to pay and a shiney new building and business to continue with on the revamped site albeit with more room to expand the incinerator onto the "closed factory"?
Just a thought based on what L Byrne commented on.
lostock resident
says...
12:32pm Fri 5 Oct 12
600,000 tonnes of waste 25 tonnes per wagon =24000 wagons ok are you with me still? Divide this by 365 =65.8 ok then divide this by 12 hrs and you get 5.5 trucks per hour. This is if every tonne was brought in by road we know two thirds are comming in by rail and trust me this is the most likely then we can expect less than two trucks per hour comming down king street really not that much. As I have said previously once it's been there a while we won't even notice it.
simonster
says...
12:47pm Fri 5 Oct 12
lostock resident wrote:I agree with that but still don't want it on my doorstep, no benefits to me or the area I live in at all. What is someone going to knock on my door like a rent collector and hand me £1000 every month or something?
It's amazing just sitting back and looking at some of these comments. Just to look into the HGV traffic issue lets do the maths.
600,000 tonnes of waste 25 tonnes per wagon =24000 wagons ok are you with me still? Divide this by 365 =65.8 ok then divide this by 12 hrs and you get 5.5 trucks per hour. This is if every tonne was brought in by road we know two thirds are comming in by rail and trust me this is the most likely then we can expect less than two trucks per hour comming down king street really not that much. As I have said previously once it's been there a while we won't even notice it.
nicksey
says...
12:54pm Fri 5 Oct 12
"....You also have the right to enjoy your home peacefully. This may mean, for example, that the state has to take action so that you can peacefully enjoy your home, for example, to reduce aircraft noise or to prevent serious environmental pollution...."
Hmmmm.
lostock resident
says...
12:57pm Fri 5 Oct 12
I'm Not A scouser
says...
1:02pm Fri 5 Oct 12
nicksey wrote:I can guarantee that the waste will not be arriving by air!
Taken from A Guide to The Human Rights Act 1998.
"....You also have the right to enjoy your home peacefully. This may mean, for example, that the state has to take action so that you can peacefully enjoy your home, for example, to reduce aircraft noise or to prevent serious environmental pollution...."
Hmmmm.
nicksey
says...
1:04pm Fri 5 Oct 12
lostock resident wrote:Just pointing out the facts, you are not the only one who is entitled to do that you know.
For god sake now I have seen and heard it all.
If you have nothing constructive to add, then it might be better if you say nothing.
lostock resident
says...
1:15pm Fri 5 Oct 12
nicksey wrote:And you think that is constructive oh well. As mentioned before the council had no issues with traffic so maybe speak to our council about this huge invasion of your civil rights. My previous comment was also aimed at simonster who has now based his decision on his own monetary gain. Now we can understand much better those against this efw plant.
Taken from A Guide to The Human Rights Act 1998.
"....You also have the right to enjoy your home peacefully. This may mean, for example, that the state has to take action so that you can peacefully enjoy your home, for example, to reduce aircraft noise or to prevent serious environmental pollution...."
Hmmmm.
Ellie Barnes
says...
1:17pm Fri 5 Oct 12
LByrne and others have stated publically on this website that the incinerator will continuously pump out toxins that can/or will cause illness and death.
If you follow that logic, in effect, those responsible for building and running the plant are either planning to break environmental laws or are reckless if they break those laws or not.
It further follows that the people running the plant will knowingly and deliberately put the health and lives of people at risk or be so reckless as to not care.
Logically, then, senior managers at TATA and EON are being accused of being part of a criminal conspiracy to break environmental laws and to harm people.
If I was the man responsible for running this plant, I would be on the phone to my lawyer to get this libellous nonsense stopped.
tedrobphoto
says...
1:50pm Fri 5 Oct 12
It takes a lot of time and effort especially for older people to carry out this recycling and what is the reward? A great POLLUTING MONSTER on our doorstep burning other peoples waste.
lostock resident
says...
2:03pm Fri 5 Oct 12
I'm Not A scouser
says...
2:05pm Fri 5 Oct 12
tedrobphoto wrote:You cant use the recycling argument....the UK has one of the lowest recycling rates in Europe.
What now is the point of trying to recycle. The council has supplied us with all the means to "recycle" so now we are expected to receive London's waste as they are not recycling.
It takes a lot of time and effort especially for older people to carry out this recycling and what is the reward? A great POLLUTING MONSTER on our doorstep burning other peoples waste.
The average recycling rates for the UK is approx 41%, a lot less than most of our European neighbours
Someone said earlier, that Cheshire West and Cheshire have one of the highest recycling rates in the UK....not true
CWAC recycle on average of 48% of household waste, from an average of 590kg per household, a lot lower than other authorities. Maybe opposing groups arguments would be more valid if they spent more time on increasing recycling rates, than crying about an EfW plant!
simonster
says...
2:05pm Fri 5 Oct 12
lostock resident wrote:Lostock resident...
nicksey wrote:And you think that is constructive oh well. As mentioned before the council had no issues with traffic so maybe speak to our council about this huge invasion of your civil rights. My previous comment was also aimed at simonster who has now based his decision on his own monetary gain. Now we can understand much better those against this efw plant.
Taken from A Guide to The Human Rights Act 1998.
"....You also have the right to enjoy your home peacefully. This may mean, for example, that the state has to take action so that you can peacefully enjoy your home, for example, to reduce aircraft noise or to prevent serious environmental pollution...."
Hmmmm.
Monetary gain has nothing to do with it, being cheated out of a decent life in the area I live in is my point, I invest money into this area and yes I admit to the odd bonfire or BBQ when the weather is nice but that is nothing in comparison.
If £1000 was offered to me as compensation every month I wouldn't accept it against having an incinerator built near me. You misunderstood what I meant in my previous comment. Although that example is tempting to be honest to build up enough loss on my property and plan a move away.
You are for this incinerator based on monetary gain I think, not me and you think that this "gain" will come in the form of something positive for the community but I'm not sure who else other than TWATA will benefit and if they see themselves as being part of the community then maybe that is what part of the community you refer to as being helped?
basilcat
says...
2:10pm Fri 5 Oct 12
I have started by asking Middlewich Guardian to put up a story about this issue on their website, which happened this morning. The Middlewich incinerator was defeated just months ago and I think it right that support to try and stop Lostock needs to come far and wide and not just Rudheath/Lostock residents.
Any other ideas?
L Byrne
says...
2:13pm Fri 5 Oct 12
Your comment about libel is a sure sign that you are 'losing the run of yourself ' as my old Irish granny used to say.
This is not surprising because your arguments in favour of the incinerator have been knocked back.
Here is a clue. For a statement to be libellous the first requirement is that it must be untrue. Think about it.
Now linking a person with Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister in Nazi Germany, that could really be a gross libel but we don't want to go there.
I'm Not A scouser
says...
2:19pm Fri 5 Oct 12
L Byrne wrote:Will the EfW be bigger than Wembley Stadium?
Dear Ms Barnes
Your comment about libel is a sure sign that you are 'losing the run of yourself ' as my old Irish granny used to say.
This is not surprising because your arguments in favour of the incinerator have been knocked back.
Here is a clue. For a statement to be libellous the first requirement is that it must be untrue. Think about it.
Now linking a person with Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister in Nazi Germany, that could really be a gross libel but we don't want to go there.
The correct answer, under your definition, makes one of your claims libellous!
lostock resident
says...
2:19pm Fri 5 Oct 12
L Byrne wrote:I think your arguments against the EFW plant have been knocked back because it is going to be built you had your chance failed and that's that!
Dear Ms Barnes
Your comment about libel is a sure sign that you are 'losing the run of yourself ' as my old Irish granny used to say.
This is not surprising because your arguments in favour of the incinerator have been knocked back.
Here is a clue. For a statement to be libellous the first requirement is that it must be untrue. Think about it.
Now linking a person with Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister in Nazi Germany, that could really be a gross libel but we don't want to go there.
L Byrne
says...
2:21pm Fri 5 Oct 12
CHAIN has issued a news release about the Government decision to grant planning permission for the Northwich waste incinerator.
It is on www.anti-incinerator
.org.uk
CMyers80
says...
2:51pm Fri 5 Oct 12
Wherever this plant is going to be built there will be those against it, and those for it. Ultimately, I would much rather have an energy from waste plant SAFELY converting household waste into power for our homes instead of in landfills. What better place than an already industrial site? In addition, for those arguing their distaste to the fact that it may be London's waste, what if it were Cheshire's? Does it really matter where the waste is coming from? The only people claiming that Northwich will be turned into a dumping ground are those calling it so. For those who believe that their 'grandchildren's health are in danger' have been severely misinformed and I urge them to read up on the plans before panicking over nothing.
Just on a side note from someone in the legal profession, in my opinion this plant does not invoke any article in the Human Rights Act 1998. That is preposterous.
simonster
says...
3:01pm Fri 5 Oct 12
simonster
says...
3:04pm Fri 5 Oct 12
lostock resident wrote:I don't think its about chances, its about asking the locals if they want it with the powers that be having already decided YES before asking the question out of courtesy.
L Byrne wrote:I think your arguments against the EFW plant have been knocked back because it is going to be built you had your chance failed and that's that!
Dear Ms Barnes
Your comment about libel is a sure sign that you are 'losing the run of yourself ' as my old Irish granny used to say.
This is not surprising because your arguments in favour of the incinerator have been knocked back.
Here is a clue. For a statement to be libellous the first requirement is that it must be untrue. Think about it.
Now linking a person with Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister in Nazi Germany, that could really be a gross libel but we don't want to go there.
simonster
says...
3:14pm Fri 5 Oct 12
Ellie Barnes
says...
3:25pm Fri 5 Oct 12
Go back an re-read my posts and tell me where I state I am in favour of the TATA plan.
In fact, my only comments are that I remain concerned about the number of HGV movements and about plans to haul waste from the other end of the country. That is hardly a ringing endorsement from me for the plan.
Sadly, you have made a massive assumption that I am in favour of it yet the evidence of my posts indicates otherwise.
But then again, I should hardly be surprised.
The fact remains, you repeatedly accuse people at TATA and EON of planning to build a plant that will poison people.
Sadly, L Byrne, your knowledge of libel seems to be just as sketchy.
A quick check on the internet produces the following information. You can libel someone if a statement about them tends to: 'Expose him to hatred, ridicule or contempt...or disparage him in his business, trade or profession.'
I'm no lawyer but to accuse people of going out of their way to build a 'toxic' incinerator seems to me to be just a tad disparaging.
And just to avoid any confusion. I still have grave reservations about the scheme. We needed a proper, reasoned debate but that's not what we got.
lostock resident
says...
3:26pm Fri 5 Oct 12
simonster wrote:The question was asked for probably 4 of the last 5years. We were welcome to have our say over and over but really we needed a good case and so many put our faith in CHAIN. Sure they get many mentions in the secretary of states report but they could not convince an open mind that freely listened to all sides. In my case I too have taken an open mind approach and reliant on facts support this EFW plant. Speaking my views as only resulted in weird allegations, seemingly some people think a different opinion to theirs can only be corrupt.
lostock resident wrote:I don't think its about chances, its about asking the locals if they want it with the powers that be having already decided YES before asking the question out of courtesy.
L Byrne wrote:I think your arguments against the EFW plant have been knocked back because it is going to be built you had your chance failed and that's that!
Dear Ms Barnes
Your comment about libel is a sure sign that you are 'losing the run of yourself ' as my old Irish granny used to say.
This is not surprising because your arguments in favour of the incinerator have been knocked back.
Here is a clue. For a statement to be libellous the first requirement is that it must be untrue. Think about it.
Now linking a person with Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister in Nazi Germany, that could really be a gross libel but we don't want to go there.
rogers-t
says...
3:38pm Fri 5 Oct 12
tedrobphoto wrote:Don't recycle. I urge everyone to rebel - chuck everything in your dustbin and send those recycle bins back to CWAC! Direct action is what's needed now!
What now is the point of trying to recycle. The council has supplied us with all the means to "recycle" so now we are expected to receive London's waste as they are not recycling.
It takes a lot of time and effort especially for older people to carry out this recycling and what is the reward? A great POLLUTING MONSTER on our doorstep burning other peoples waste.
rogers-t
says...
3:45pm Fri 5 Oct 12
CMyers80 wrote:Another idiot that listens to what the men in grey suits tell them - to be true and justified!
I am somewhat disappointed with some of the reactions to this decision. This comment board has been turned into a platform for CHAIN to voice their frustrations and by doing so, bully supporters of the plant. I watched the public inquiry by webcam and listened to both arguments from CHAIN and from TATA/E.ON. I was initially hesitant about the idea of the plant however my concerns were eased by up-to-date facts and information, from TATA and certainly not from CHAIN. I believe the inquiry highlighted the weaknesses of CHAIN's arguments and even more so led me to believe that they were well ill-informed and tactics included scaremongering and being rather select with the truth! My opinion has been cemented by the comments on this article. L Byrne in particular appears not to be able to comprehend that people have a different opinion to himself. I understand passion for a cause but I also appreciate other people's opinions and views.
Wherever this plant is going to be built there will be those against it, and those for it. Ultimately, I would much rather have an energy from waste plant SAFELY converting household waste into power for our homes instead of in landfills. What better place than an already industrial site? In addition, for those arguing their distaste to the fact that it may be London's waste, what if it were Cheshire's? Does it really matter where the waste is coming from? The only people claiming that Northwich will be turned into a dumping ground are those calling it so. For those who believe that their 'grandchildren's health are in danger' have been severely misinformed and I urge them to read up on the plans before panicking over nothing.
Just on a side note from someone in the legal profession, in my opinion this plant does not invoke any article in the Human Rights Act 1998. That is preposterous.
I hope this issue goes absolutely viral and I urge Northwich residents to make as much trouble for TWATA as possible!
Don't let this drop!
L Byrne
says...
3:46pm Fri 5 Oct 12
Forget the personal stuff. It smacks of 'playing the man and not the ball' as my old Irish grandfather would say.
A pathetic tactic when the argument is lost.
Two points about your comment.
Yes it does matter that the waste would be hauled 200 miles from London. Have you ever heard the adage about clearing up your own mess?
Is it fair that Northwich that generates about 12,000 tonnes of waste should have 600,000 tonnes (ie 50 times) dumped on it for incineration? In effect we pay for Londoners laziness with the health of our children , the quality of our lives, the HGV traffic on our roads and the eyesore chimneys and buildings looming over our town centre.
Will you please also stop trotting out the TATA script that the only alternative to landfill is incineration. That is a lie as you probably are aware. There are many greener and safer alternatives which are now operating across the world including the UK.
simonster
says...
3:46pm Fri 5 Oct 12
I'm Not A scouser
says...
3:57pm Fri 5 Oct 12
simonster wrote:George Osbourne probably wants this EfW just as much as the sensible people do...yes he signed a petition, would he get votes if he didnt sign? its all politics!
George Osbourne being from Knutsford must know about this, the toxics will blow towards Knutsford pretty much permanently, its the way the wind blows and the aircraft fly. I wonder what effect it will have on Tatton Park too?
What toxins are these that you mention? could you give me a link to a reliable unbiased source that will tell me the emissions will be dangerous to who ever they happen to blow over?
DMill59
says...
4:09pm Fri 5 Oct 12
For the record, the official Football Association website gives the surface area of Wembley as 45,000 square metres. The BBC last night, on TV's Look North West, declared the proposed incinerator to be the size of 'seven football pitches'. The standard Premier League football pitch measures 115 metres in length and 68 metres in width, giving it an area of 7,820 sq m. Multiplying this figure by seven gives a total area for the plant to be approximately 54,740 sq m. Consequently, the comparison with Wembley Stadium is shown to be rather conservative - the plant will be over 20% larger in area!
CMyers80
says...
4:09pm Fri 5 Oct 12
First of all, Rogers-t, I believe the 'men in grey suits' are more credible than you who resorts to childish name calling i.e 'TWATA' and referring to myself as an 'idiot'; in addition insulting my intelligence by claiming I don't have the capability of independent thought.
I can only assume that the opponents to this plant have been living by candlelight and coal fires as obviously they wouldn't dream of using electricity produced by a fossil fuel/nuclear power station elsewhere in the UK that supply the National Grid.
Or can I assume that they are happy to use the grid because those stations are in somebody else's back yard.
I will not be bullied by CHAIN or those who support their cause with mis-information on this thread. I do not read from any TATA script, I have no affiliation with TATA Chemicals. Believe it or not Mr Byrne, there are supporters of renewable energy in Northwich. It appears to me that you have some personal vendetta against TATA Chemicals as this is a joint venture with EON who you have spoken little of, if not at all.
rogers-t
says...
4:10pm Fri 5 Oct 12
My god, are your sort for real? Folks, I'm absolutely convinced these commentators are TWATA drones or associates!
Stop feeding the trolls, they will be forever - relentless with their drivel!
I'm Not A scouser
says...
4:12pm Fri 5 Oct 12
rogers-t wrote:and this coming from the person who says we will be getting poisoned from toxic emission, lies.......and 2000+ HGVs a day...lies
George Osbourne probably wants this EfW just as much as the SENSIBLE people do?
My god, are your sort for real? Folks, I'm absolutely convinced these commentators are TWATA drones or associates!
Stop feeding the trolls, they will be forever - relentless with their drivel!
Dont feed me and I wont feed you!
rogers-t
says...
4:24pm Fri 5 Oct 12
CMyers80 wrote:I am huge fan of fossil fuel and nuclear energy! I am deeply opposed to useless wind/solar generation - these so called renewables. I am also a complete 'non-believer' in this AGW / man-made climate change nonsense / fraud!
As I expected my opinion has been confronted with an inappropriate response.
First of all, Rogers-t, I believe the 'men in grey suits' are more credible than you who resorts to childish name calling i.e 'TWATA' and referring to myself as an 'idiot'; in addition insulting my intelligence by claiming I don't have the capability of independent thought.
I can only assume that the opponents to this plant have been living by candlelight and coal fires as obviously they wouldn't dream of using electricity produced by a fossil fuel/nuclear power station elsewhere in the UK that supply the National Grid.
Or can I assume that they are happy to use the grid because those stations are in somebody else's back yard.
I will not be bullied by CHAIN or those who support their cause with mis-information on this thread. I do not read from any TATA script, I have no affiliation with TATA Chemicals. Believe it or not Mr Byrne, there are supporters of renewable energy in Northwich. It appears to me that you have some personal vendetta against TATA Chemicals as this is a joint venture with EON who you have spoken little of, if not at all.
I'm degree educated up to PhD level, but I cannot for the LIFE of me get my head around why the locals in Northwich would want such a plant like situated right by the town itself, next to large residential developments.
I can only conclude that you favour living in such heavy industrial squalid environments!
They wouldn't have got anyway with this had it been next to places like: Knutsford, Holmes Chapel, Altrincham, Alderly Edge, Wilmslow and certainly not Chester!
It just goes to show how the authorities (and many civil people) consider Northwich as a Dump, just like Winsford!
I'm Not A scouser
says...
4:32pm Fri 5 Oct 12
DMill59 wrote:That is including ground/surface area eg car parks, irrelavent argument. CHAIN are stating the building size.
When L Byrne stated that the proposed incinerator would be of the size of Wembley Stadium, people either laughed or accused him of scaremongering
For the record, the official Football Association website gives the surface area of Wembley as 45,000 square metres. The BBC last night, on TV's Look North West, declared the proposed incinerator to be the size of 'seven football pitches'. The standard Premier League football pitch measures 115 metres in length and 68 metres in width, giving it an area of 7,820 sq m. Multiplying this figure by seven gives a total area for the plant to be approximately 54,740 sq m. Consequently, the comparison with Wembley Stadium is shown to be rather conservative - the plant will be over 20% larger in area!
lostock resident
says...
4:36pm Fri 5 Oct 12
WHS
says...
4:39pm Fri 5 Oct 12
WHS
rogers-t
says...
4:50pm Fri 5 Oct 12
finance/newsbysector
/energy/9589213/Brit
ain-faces-risk-of-bl
ackouts-warns-Ofgem.
html
Ellie Barnes
says...
5:00pm Fri 5 Oct 12
One question, where's your evidence there is a likelihood the plant will release toxic material?
Find that proof and I will follow you with my placard down Griffiths Road.
What's that I hear you say, WHS? You don't have any proof.
Oh dear. What can we do in that case?
I know, let's have some 'direct action'.
Now there's a really, really sensible idea.
The fact remains, the plant has been approved. It's going ahead.
Sounds to me like some of you are in the first two stages of the five stages of grief - anger and denial.
Given your in-depth knowledge of criminal and civil law, I would have thought
lostock resident
says...
5:19pm Fri 5 Oct 12
nicksey
says...
5:24pm Fri 5 Oct 12
lostock resident wrote:In fact, name calling and insulting has come from individuals on both sides of the argument, not just those not in favour.
I still can't help but notice anyone supporting the EFW plant has too be insulted, name called etc it doesn't hold for tangible discussion when all one side want to do is ignorantly. Trolls just because there is a difference of opinion.
Incidentally a quick look at those for and against, reveals that out of the individuals commenting here roughly 73% are against the plant with just 27% in favour.
If that is representative of our community as a whole then our government has let down the residents of Northwich.
Those in favour are in the minority and in my opinion, are well meaning but sadly misguided in thinking that this can in any way be seen as anything to celebrate or to be proud of.
I'm Not A scouser
says...
5:37pm Fri 5 Oct 12
nicksey wrote:Northwich and the surrounding borough has a population of almost 60'000
lostock resident wrote:In fact, name calling and insulting has come from individuals on both sides of the argument, not just those not in favour.
I still can't help but notice anyone supporting the EFW plant has too be insulted, name called etc it doesn't hold for tangible discussion when all one side want to do is ignorantly. Trolls just because there is a difference of opinion.
Incidentally a quick look at those for and against, reveals that out of the individuals commenting here roughly 73% are against the plant with just 27% in favour.
If that is representative of our community as a whole then our government has let down the residents of Northwich.
Those in favour are in the minority and in my opinion, are well meaning but sadly misguided in thinking that this can in any way be seen as anything to celebrate or to be proud of.
25'000 signed a petition, probably people from far and wide, relatives of opposers?
Given them figures, 41% of the population are against it, 59% of the population are not.
CMyers80
says...
5:54pm Fri 5 Oct 12
WHS
says...
5:55pm Fri 5 Oct 12
That's me finished on here for now, we are talking to people who will never listen so there is no point. You say I have no proof, I sincerely hope that if and when the Incinerator is built I still have no proof, let us all hope that is the case.
WHS.
rogers-t
says...
5:58pm Fri 5 Oct 12
I'm Not A scouser wrote:Apathy! Complain afterwards! Do little about it!
nicksey wrote:Northwich and the surrounding borough has a population of almost 60'000
lostock resident wrote:In fact, name calling and insulting has come from individuals on both sides of the argument, not just those not in favour.
I still can't help but notice anyone supporting the EFW plant has too be insulted, name called etc it doesn't hold for tangible discussion when all one side want to do is ignorantly. Trolls just because there is a difference of opinion.
Incidentally a quick look at those for and against, reveals that out of the individuals commenting here roughly 73% are against the plant with just 27% in favour.
If that is representative of our community as a whole then our government has let down the residents of Northwich.
Those in favour are in the minority and in my opinion, are well meaning but sadly misguided in thinking that this can in any way be seen as anything to celebrate or to be proud of.
25'000 signed a petition, probably people from far and wide, relatives of opposers?
Given them figures, 41% of the population are against it, 59% of the population are not.
Probably because many local natives aren't used to being surrounded by heavy industrialised sites, toxic land, etc. and so don't know any different!
I've spoken to many people that use the train from Chester to Manchester and they have commented on saying what a dump Northwich is, which is clearly evident to see when approaching the town by train - especially at the Lostock end!
It's a real shame, Northwich can NEVER be regenerated into a vibrant/pleasant looking town what with all that industrial filth so so close - over shadowing it!
L Byrne
says...
6:04pm Fri 5 Oct 12
With great respect, it is absolutely 100% certain that all waste incinerators emit toxins, some of them carcinogens, and the three planned for our part of Cheshire will be no exceptions. The most fanatical trash burner supporters cannot deny that and, to be fair, the knowledgeable ones readily accept it because they cannot dispute the science.
Take a look at this link for more information http://ukwin.org.uk/
resources/health/dio
xins-and-other-harmf
ul-incinerator-emiss
ions/
The key questions are about the quantity and characteristics of the toxins that are released and the effects on health in the short and long term.
We in Cheshire should be particularly worried because the three mega incinerators destined for the area, Frodsham, Runcorn and Northwich
will result in the highest concentration of airborne incinerator emissions in the world. As I said above, there will be 550,000 lbs of waste incinerated every hour non stop for at least 25 years.
A great legacy for our children and grandchildren.
Never mind, TATA, EON and Ed Davey tell us everything will be fine.
WHS
says...
6:14pm Fri 5 Oct 12
I always liked Blaster Bates's description of an expert. "A has been drip under pressure". I hope we are all still laughing when and if they build the monstrosity in our backyard. (Not theirs of course).
WHS.
I'm Not A scouser
says...
6:46pm Fri 5 Oct 12
Yet the UK, has one of the lowest numbers of incinerators in Europe, but a massive amount of landfill sites and coal fired power stations...yet we have higher air pollution.
What is CHAIN's reasoning behind this, should be very interesting!
L Byrne
says...
8:52pm Fri 5 Oct 12
A quick response.
You are correct that some of the countries you mention have relatively higher number of incinerators. There are historical reasons for this largely to do with a scarcity of land for landfill. However, the average size is far lower than the monsters that will be planted in Cheshire; some as small as 50,000 tonnes pa serving a single city.
But time has moved on and there now are several new technologies such as Mechanical Biological Treatment,Anaerobic Digestion (MBT/AD) which are far safer, cleaner and more efficient than incineration.
A viable model for me personally, would be for Cheshire West to have a small(ish) MBT/AD or similar technology plant of about 80,000 tonnes capacity catering for our own needs. The number might be lower because of our brilliant recycling rates.
Subject to locating it in the right place, it would be fair and reasonable to all groups and, I believe, acceptable to the entire community.
Problem would be that it wouldn't add to the profits of the honchos in Mumbai and Dusseldorf because they are only interested in monster burners.
lostock resident
says...
11:15pm Fri 5 Oct 12
DFulton
says...
8:07am Sat 6 Oct 12
I am not a member of CHAIN, but as a Kingsmead resident with a young baby, I a deeply concerned about the health impacts of this proposal.
All TATA can say is that there are no proven harmful effects. The local PCT, among others have already recommended that further studies be performed, particularly into the effects of nano particles, before this site is approved. This is analogous to the tobacco companies' attitude of the 1950s.
As has been mentioned above, the onus should on TATA to prove that the emissions are safe, rather than gambling with the health of the people of Northwich.
By TATA's own data, thousands of tons of emissions will be released each year (some people seem to have a perception that everything will be captured - it's not, and no filtration exists for nano particles). This will fall on the town and neighbouring farmland - working its way into the food chain.
The fact that we are proposing to import this waste from elsewhere and will need a lorry every three minutes to feed it (again, TATA's own data) simply adds insult to the injury of this apalling project.
In my experience, the opposition to this proposal is not limited to a small group within CHAIN. There is strong local opposition to this, not least highlighted by their attendance at the enquiry or the fact that all the political candidates at the last election saw ias a vote winner.
I for one will be boycotting all of TATA and EON's products and services and supporting all avenues of appeal.
L Byrne
says...
10:40am Sat 6 Oct 12
A piece of information which I should have included in my last comment when I mentioned alternative technologies.
It is about a company named Bedminster which uses non incineration technology to process waste.
Bedminster has planning permission to build and operate a 200,000 tonnes capacity waste plant on the Lostock site next door to TATA. Initial site clearing work has already been completed and the company is seeking contracts from municipal authorities to bring their waste to Northwich for treatment.
The Bedminster planning permit allows for 178 HGV trips per day on Griffith Road/King Street.
In addition, there is the permission granted to Viridor for waste processing which is currently dormant.
So if the Government does not come to its senses, it looks like Northwich is destined to be lumbered with 800,000 tonnes of garbage per year plus 444 HGVs on Griffith Rd/King Street every day - 7.00am till 7.00am. Thats and average of 37 per hour; probably 50 per hour at busy periods.
In a town that generates about 12,000 tonnes of waste itself per year!
How long before Northwich is renamed Garbageville?
WHS
says...
10:45am Sat 6 Oct 12
What chance has the new vision got of attracting visitors from out of town when they will be told when asking for directions, "Keep straight on past the Incinerator and it's on your right"!!
I really have finished now, my old Granny used to say "It is no use trying to talk sense to an idiot". and she was right.
WHS.
nicksey
says...
11:03am Sat 6 Oct 12
What on earth are they thinking, or maybe thats the problem, they are not thinking. They are the NIMBY's not us. The decision to allow these plants to be built is made by people who never mind not living here, never even visit Northwich, they grant permission because its not in their back yards.
The Bedminster plant is being developed by Organic Waste Management Ltd, a joint venture between Irish MBT specialists Bedminster and Cheshire-based business and demolition waste company the Nick Brookes Group who are based in Nantwich.
Presumably those in favour of the TATA plant are even more happy to read this and are looking forward to living in the shadow of these plants and sitting in the traffic that will affect us all equally.
L Byrne
says...
11:55am Sat 6 Oct 12
The inevitable traffic carnage is arguably down to the Council who decided not to oppose the TATA planning application on traffic and highways grounds. CHAIN argued strongly about this and put a case forward at the inquiry to show how it could have done so.We were ignored.
We also wrote to Ed Davey about this on 12 July because late evidence had emerged from the Council after a FOI request.
We attempted to bring this to the attention of the Council who were evidently not interested and we and were advised to it take to DECC and, in fact, were wished well by the senior councillor in our endeavours!
The fatal rule is that if the local council does not object on traffic/highways grounds then the minister will not interfere.
It is possible that this matter is still not closed if enough residents get upset and want to do something about it.
Isn't that why we have local councillors and MPs?
Wayfarer2
says...
1:30pm Sat 6 Oct 12
nicksey
says...
2:02pm Sat 6 Oct 12
47thmoon
says...
2:13pm Sat 6 Oct 12
L Byrne
says...
4:17pm Sat 6 Oct 12
With respect. The original potential contract that Viridor had with the Council has been abandoned as you rightly say.
However, as I understand it, Viridor still has planning permission to build and operate a waste processing plant on the site and are keeping their options open.
Viridor's planning permit allows for 118 HGVs per day on Griffith Road/King Street, by the way.
To complete the picture, a company named Broadthorn has planning permission to operate a builders waste recovery operation on the same site. That has permission for 100 HGVs.
Potentially, there could be an ADDITIONAL 658 HGVs on that stretch of narrow road between 7.00am and 7.00pm which means an extra 55 per hour average or about 70 extra per hour at busy times. Some of them loaded with sanitary waste sent from our friends in London.
'CWAC Council had no problem with that so it must be OK' as the the QC representing TATA at the inquiry disdainfully told us several times.
We believe that the Council got this wrong and we told them so but were not given a hearing.
The irony is that if the Council had objected on traffic grounds that the whole planning application might have been stopped in its tracks.
Optomistic
says...
7:16pm Sat 6 Oct 12
Optomistic
says...
7:23pm Sat 6 Oct 12
Stan Nernab
says...
8:34pm Sat 6 Oct 12
Such arguments won't be won or lost on an internet forum which makes the colourful invective from some contributors all the more concerning. The argument was won conclusively in the public enquiry which found in favour of the facility.
I am a local resident and the fifth column suggestions are just one more illustration of the delusional logic applied by (some, not all) CHAIN sympathisers.
FACTS were presented in the public enquiry by TATA. FACTS were considered and a decision made on this basis by DECC. Fiction has been presented as admissible evidence by CHAIN throughout. If anyone needs plain proof of this, check out the frankly embarrassing and nonsensical appearance of the CHAIN 'expert' Van Steenis in the inquiry proceedings. Ill-informed, out of date and patently discredited. No-one doubts that you are well-meaning and have the interest of the town(s) at heart folks but, as other posters have noted, you have gone about this entirely incorrectly to your great discredit.
Who knows where the so called 'silent majority' stand on this issue but I would like to think that the majority of reasonable people will balance facts and not listen to hyperbole. Hard for you to accept but a decision has been made - you now need to learn to live with it and move on.
L Byrne
says...
8:47pm Sat 6 Oct 12
There are many alternative ways of
processing waste other than landfill.
The incineration fundamentalists want us to believe otherwise and their spin doctors tell their lies accordingly. With some success, apparently.
The many alternatives, which are in use across the world, are far safer, cleaner and more efficient than incineration.
One of these alternatives is known as the Bedminster BioEnergy System.
Bedminster has combined with Samsung to market the system and is active in the UK.
It is an amazing coincidence and, I suppose, embarrassing to TATA that
Bedminster/Samsung has planning permission from CWAC Council to build a 200,000 tonnes per annum
plant in the field next to TATA in Lostock.
In fact, I understand that if Bedminster/Samsung get the contracts, their plant could be up and running in 2014.
Finally, none of the anti incineration groups ,including CHAIN, want landfill to continue. We are also united in believing that the primitive technology
of incineration is outdated and has been surpassed by techniques that are less dangerous to human health and less damaging to the environment. Bedminster is just one example but you wont hear that from the pyromaniacs who want to burn everything.
I'm Not A scouser
says...
8:57pm Sat 6 Oct 12
What do you think happens to all the metals and inert materials?
Lots of it goes into incineration, landfill and recycling.....Bedmin
ster is not all its hyped up to be is it?
L Byrne
says...
9:09pm Sat 6 Oct 12
Further to you patronising lecture about 'FACTS' you would be well advised to check your own FACTS before giving advice to others.
Your expression 'careful presentation of facts and evidence' is a joke isn't it?
If you check the FACTS about Dr van Steenis you will find that he was not associated with CHAIN in any way. In fact, he was an expert witness put forward by another officially recognised party at the inquiry, Mrs Manfredi.
In fairness to Mrs Manfredi, readers should be aware that he was the only medically qualified doctor who gave evidence to the inquiry which has very worrying implications for a project fraught with risks to human health.
L Byrne
says...
11:56pm Sat 6 Oct 12
A further thought
In view of your very insulting and disparaging remarks about Dr van Steenis it might be worth your while to consult Ellie Barnes, who has submitted several comments here, on the subject of libel.My guess is that the good doctor will get to know about what has been publicly said about him in the next day or two.
In all fairness, some readers might be want to know more about him and luckily I found the attached CV on Google.
http://www.theonecli
ckgroup.co.uk/docume
nts/vaccines/Dick%20
van%20Steenis%20CV%2
0and%20References.pd
f
Interestingly, the CV contained details of 60 published research papers on the links between pollution and cancer.
I'm Not A scouser
says...
12:47am Sun 7 Oct 12
The plant is getting built, people should just now accept it!
nicksey
says...
8:16am Sun 7 Oct 12
No, people should not just accept it, you can of course, that is your decision, but if others still wish to express their disgust with the decision then they are entitled to do so, with or without your approval!
I'm Not A scouser
says...
11:48am Sun 7 Oct 12
nicksey wrote:Yes they should....it is getting built so people have to realise that. They can express their disgust all day now. But the fact remains, we are having a nice new shiny EfW plant soon.
I'm Not A scouser,
No, people should not just accept it, you can of course, that is your decision, but if others still wish to express their disgust with the decision then they are entitled to do so, with or without your approval!
Daniel18
says...
1:04pm Sun 7 Oct 12
L Byrne
says...
1:31pm Sun 7 Oct 12
And did the subject crop up in David Cameron's earlier meeting with Ratan Tata , owner of TATA, in Downing Street?
Perhaps Mr Osborne will explain all to his constituents in Lostock when he next visits them.
MrDaveS
says...
4:11pm Sun 7 Oct 12
L Byrne
says...
11:15am Mon 8 Oct 12
First, the Minister's decision is open to legal challenge for a period of three months.
CHAIN will consider this but the more feasible approach is a challenge by CWAC Council. Our advice is that you contact your councillor and demand that the council supports the people of Northwich by hiring a QC and getting on with it. That is the least that we can expect in return for our council tax.
Another opportunity is to oppose TATA/E-ON's application for an environmental permit. They have already applied but there is a public consultation process where the concerns of residents have can be raised and objections made.
It is early days yet but CHAIN already has a few ideas which are being developed. If you have any suggestions or queries, or want to get involved in the campaign,please email CHAIN.post@hotmail.c
om or look up the website
www.anti-incinerator
.org.uk
TATA's spin doctors are clearly rattled by the scale of opposition to its plans. So many local people thought the Government would not allow it to happen after the Middlewich decision but have had a shock. There is a slim chance of turning this around but there will be thirty years of regret if we don't make the most of it. Some of us will, at least, be able to say that 'we tried'.
Hibernian
says...
11:38am Mon 8 Oct 12
Dot Gamble
says...
1:03pm Mon 8 Oct 12
USA in 1997 with a mean annual limit of 15μg per cubic metre. This had measurable health
benefits. An annual mean limit for PM 2.5 particulates is to be introduced into Scotland in 2010
and this will be 12μg per cubic metre. An annual mean target for PM 2.5 particulates is to be
introduced into the UK in 2020 and this will be will be 25μg per cubic metre. Many will wonder
why the difference is so vast when the science is the same. This quote has been taken directly from 'Health Effects of Waste Incinerator's - 4th report of the British Society for Ecological Medicine. So don't be so sure that our health will be taken care of.
The other thing I wish to point out is that this incinerator will not negate the need for landfill. The fly ash which is highly toxic is poorly regulated. The bottom ash which also contains toxins still needs to be landfilled. Some EU commissions have stated that pollutants could leach from landfil sites into our water sources in the future and the removal of these pollutants would be almost impossible to remove.
Very few pollutants are being measured nor is the body burdens of pollutants in the local populations being monitored. When were you last tested for pollutants that you have ingested from the local
chemical and traffic emissions? Safety levels are based on healthy adults not on children who are more vulnerable and susceptible to pollution.
Childhood cancer's are rising.
The new rules for the incineration of waste have not been effective for long enough in order to assess the effects of of waste incinerator's on health. Some cancer's do not manifest themselves for some 10 - 12 years so how can the modern incinerator's be deemed unequivocally 'safe'. Records have not been in existence long enough to be certain.
Do not take my word for any of these points. Check your internet - especially the BSEM 4th Report which I mention at the top of this posting.
simonster
says...
1:35pm Mon 8 Oct 12
If this was pioneered in Northwich then that could have great benefits and put Northwich on the map and not take it off.
L Byrne
says...
1:58pm Mon 8 Oct 12
CHAIN submitted reliable independent research to the public inquiry which showed that there are 12 educational establishments within 1 mile radius of the incinerator site. These vary from nurseries to Rudhealth Community High School. The total number of pupils number of pupils at the time, last year, was 1794.
The totals up to three miles radius were 46 educational establishments with 9205 pupils.
Shocking.
Sue Statham
says...
3:09pm Mon 8 Oct 12
I have also raised questions regarding the Lib/Dem. "Policy on Protecting Our Natural Environment". and it's relevance to the process of incineration.
He owes it to the people of Northwich to engage with us face to face and justify his decision.
Now for my letter to George Osborne. I would really like to know more about what he had to discuss with Mr. Ratan Tata, chairman of Tata Group, when he visited Mumbai in July 2010.There is one question I feel that it is my bounden duty to ask. We will see what information is forthcoming.You owe us a visit too. Mr. Osborne. What was it you said when questioned about the Lostock incinerator site? I am not against the process of incineration, but this is not the right site.
I will be sending my letters by recorded delivery and have requested acknowledgements of both. There is still so much more information that local people deserve to have access to and I'm not prepared to give up just yet !
simonster
says...
3:14pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Sue Statham wrote::-)
No emails for me. I have just written a letter to Ed. Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. I have asked him to come and see for himself why such a vast swathe of residents are both disgusted and devasted by the decision to approve the application by Tata/E-On to build a 600,000 tonne waste incinerator in the midst of their town. He needs to see for himself the proximity of this site to homes and schools and to walk along the stretch of road, with houses on either side, which will experience a continual stream of HGV lorries heading to and from the incinerator site.
I have also raised questions regarding the Lib/Dem. "Policy on Protecting Our Natural Environment". and it's relevance to the process of incineration.
He owes it to the people of Northwich to engage with us face to face and justify his decision.
Now for my letter to George Osborne. I would really like to know more about what he had to discuss with Mr. Ratan Tata, chairman of Tata Group, when he visited Mumbai in July 2010.There is one question I feel that it is my bounden duty to ask. We will see what information is forthcoming.You owe us a visit too. Mr. Osborne. What was it you said when questioned about the Lostock incinerator site? I am not against the process of incineration, but this is not the right site.
I will be sending my letters by recorded delivery and have requested acknowledgements of both. There is still so much more information that local people deserve to have access to and I'm not prepared to give up just yet !
CMyers80
says...
7:49pm Mon 8 Oct 12
I literally cannot believe the hysteria created by false information as well as facts taken completely out of context. I fear for those curious Northwich residents who read this thread and are bombarded with CHAIN posts who repeatedly churn out lies and exaggerations in order to instil an ill-informed view of the EfW plant.
First of all, the Health Protection Agency state no health concerns in relation to the emissions from the plant. For this reason there was no case to answer regarding this at the inquiry, so can CHAIN please stop continually mentioning "health risks" and other libel comments. As a member of the legal profession, it can be regarded as libel and I hope the Northwich Guardian takes note of this.
Secondly, mentioning "childhood cancer" is low even for CHAIN's standards. To even insinuate that there is a link between childhood cancer and this EfW plant is totally ludicrous. It does not matter if there are 12 educational establishments within a 1 mile radius of the site or 50, it will NOT harm any human being so if the figures are "independent and reliable" or not, they are irrelevant.
Thirdly, there is no right to appeal the decision. CHAIN have not been ignored. Just because your view is not shared by the State does not mean you have you been ignored. There was a public inquiry in which the views of CHAIN and Northwich residents were heard at great length.
Sue Statham - You say you are not against the process of incineration however not at this site, dare I ask why?
I do not know who you are referring to L Byrne when you mention "TATA's spin doctors" being rattled when I believe you are the one rattled, resorting to the classic CHAIN scaremongering.
Finally, would you be so kind as to stop calling it an incinerator, it is an Energy from Waste plant; incineration is merely part of the process.
GadbrookTNT
says...
8:15pm Mon 8 Oct 12
CutWaste
says...
8:28pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Look at what goes for waste. or even recycling, at the tip/HWRC and you'll see lots that could be put to better use before getting buried or crushed, and that could therefore create jobs.
L Byrne
says...
9:08pm Mon 8 Oct 12
On 24 January 2012 the UK Health Protection Agency announced a new major study into the health effects of incinerators. These are the exact words quoted from the official press release:-
'A new study to further extend the evidence base as to whether emissions from modern well run municipal waste incinerators affect human health has been approved by the Health Protection Agency'
The study will be undertaken jointly by Imperial College London and Kings
College London. Preliminary results are expected in 2014
This is another quote from the press release:-
'For a distance of up to 10 – 15 kilometres from MWIs operating in England and Wales, scientists will research whether there is a potential link between the emissions from MWIs and health outcomes, including: low birth weight, still births and infant deaths.
Researchers will also investigate any possible link between MWI emissions and babies born with congenital anomalies, such as cleft palate and spina bifida, in areas where good quality data is available.'
Any rational fair minded person would have to agree that the study implies that there are still serious concerns about the potential effects of waste incinerators on people who live in their vicinity.
Following the announcement of the study in January, CHAIN argued that consideration of TATA's planning application to build a waste incinerator in a neighbourhood which has already significant health issues should , at the very least, be suspended until the research was completed and the report published.
We were ignored. It appears that 'safe rather than sorry' does not apply to the health of the children of Northwich.
So, you are so wrong about the HPA and I am sure that all of us, including the Guardian, can treat your threats about libel with the contempt they deserve.
You are just as wrong about childhood cancers. I refer readers to the medical evidence mentioned by Dot Gamble above.
Readers should also be aware that your comment about not being able to appeal the decision is so blatantly incorrect it makes me suspicious about your real motives. Are you trying to con people into believing that there is still not a chance of stopping the incinerator and they should 'move on' as one of your pro incinerator mates wrote earlier?
Well here is another quote, this one from the Secretary of State's decision
Page 19, para 12.1
'The validity of the Secretary's of State's decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court for permission to seek a judicial review'
It seems that your diatribe was off beam and seriously wrong in every aspect.
Quite honestly, your arrogance and attitude to the people of Northwich is appalling and I am sure that readers can draw their own conclusions.
CMyers80
says...
10:08pm Mon 8 Oct 12
I reiterate, you were not ignored. I watched a lot of the inquiry through the webcam that was available, I certainly listened to statements and questioning as well as TATA/EON's representatives.
They were not threats of libel, they were observations of the comments made on this thread.
In addition, please refer me to your peer-reviewed evidence to show a direct link between childhood cancers and Energy from Waste plants.
I am not wrong, you cannot appeal. A judicial review is not an appeal on the decision, it cannot reverse the decision. A judicial review is used when there is a belief of abuse of process or actions to that nature. As far as I am aware the correct process was put in place and DECC took ample time and consideration in making their decision. So yes, I am correct in stating there is no option to appeal.
I am merely pointing out the facts that the Secretary of State based his decision on.
I will not respond to your personal insults.
Sue Statham
says...
10:35pm Mon 8 Oct 12
I apologise for the ambiguity in my comment. The words "I am not against the process of incineration, but this is not the right site" are George Osborne's words, not mine. Why would I NOT be against the process of incineration? I oppose this incinerator because I want to keep my family safe. When incinerators are built elsewhere, then other people's families are at risk, so why would an alternative site be acceptable to me?
Whilst many of you are lulled into a false sense of security.....and safety, by the agencies who say "modern, well run incinerators pose little, if no threat to health", you would do well to ask the Environment Agency for a list of breaches of emission levels by incinerators, then you could read all the information for yourselves. It really is an education to find out what CAN and DOES come out of these incinerators.When you have had access to that information, then you can decide for yourselves whether "modern well run incinerators pose little, if no threat to health.
Who knows, you may come to the same conclusion as me !
DFulton
says...
11:05pm Mon 8 Oct 12
It is hardly libelous to discuss the health concerns when TATA/eON themselves are unable to categorically prove that there is no health risk.
The recommendation from the local PCT was that further studies be performed - particularly into the effects of nano particle emissions. All TATA/eON were able to state was that there was no proof that there was a risk.
The same was said by the tobacco companies for years regarding the risks of smoking, while the BMA were raising cancer concerns as early as 1907. Personally, I'd appreciate it if they didn't gamble with our health while the studies have yet to be performed. Oh, and calling it an "energy from waste plant" doesn't alter the fact that it's an incinerator.
CutWaste:
I wholeheartedly agree about the need to recycle more, however I fail to see how burning a truckload of waste every three minutes can be seen as a green - especially when we already have more incineration capacity than Cheshire needs and TATA/eON are proposing to ship the waste in from elsewhere - this will simply encourage other councils *not* to recycle.
I also doubt that the few jobs that might be created as a result of this plant will offset the potential losses in local business.
simonster
says...
9:18am Tue 9 Oct 12
Dear Mr xxxxxxx
Thank you for your email.
As the local MP for Lostock Gralam I campaigned hard against the incinerator and am therefore naturally disappointed with the decision that it is to go ahead.
Best wishes
George Osborne MP
Jane Robertson
Constituency Secretary to
Rt Hon George Osborne MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer
Tel - 01565 873037
Fax - 01565 873039
Hibernian
says...
8:20pm Thu 11 Oct 12
GadbrookTNT
says...
10:02pm Thu 11 Oct 12
Hibernian wrote:Mr Osborne is well aware that processes need to be followed to ensure consistency, your saying he should change the rules for his own personal gain? There's another word for that.
I would like Mr Osborne to provide details of what he did to "campaign hard" against the incinerator. I attended the inquiry and all I recall was a very mealy-mouthed letter saying that some of his constituents didn't like the idea. If our Chancellor really used his political muscle, this incinerator could still be stopped.
DFulton
says...
10:18pm Thu 11 Oct 12
GadbrookTNT wrote:GadbrookTNT:
Hibernian wrote:Mr Osborne is well aware that processes need to be followed to ensure consistency, your saying he should change the rules for his own personal gain? There's another word for that.
I would like Mr Osborne to provide details of what he did to "campaign hard" against the incinerator. I attended the inquiry and all I recall was a very mealy-mouthed letter saying that some of his constituents didn't like the idea. If our Chancellor really used his political muscle, this incinerator could still be stopped.
Mr Osborne claims he "campaigned hard" against the incinerator - his contribution to the inquiry (in abstentia) was pitiful in the extreme.
No-one has ever suggested for one second that he change the processes, just that his claims of having vigorously opposed the plans seem a little far-fetched.
I have also written to him on this matter - he has yet to comment.
L Byrne
says...
12:01am Fri 12 Oct 12
The questions could be asked of Graham Evans by his constituents.
To show that there is no political aspect to this, I would pay tribute to Fiona Bruce who is the Conservative MP representing Middlewich. She took every opportunity to lobby on behalf of her constituents in the corridors of power down in London and, I believe, she deserves part of the credit for saving that town from Covanta.
In my humble opinion, Mrs Bruce gave more than the combined efforts of our three local MPs, Messrs Osborne, Evans and O'Brien, and that will not be forgotten.
L Byrne says...
12:08pm Tue 2 Oct 12
Even now, TATA and E-ON is scavenging the country, including London, for contracts to bring garbage to Lostock for incineration.
Steptoe and Son become TATA and E-ON
We have three months to appeal against this madness. Let us hope that CWAC Council, supported by our MPs, will stand by the people of the town and use all the means at their disposal to change this crazy decision.