Let's hear from our councillors (From Northwich Guardian)

The waste materials going to the Brunner Mond incinerator will have already provided at least one useful service before they are burnt. On going through the incinerator they provide another by liberating useful energy. This in turn will enable the continued production here in the UK of valuable products which otherwise would have to be more expensively imported. The construction and operation of this incinerator really is a no-brainer. The way forward for CHAIN is to campaign for the frequent and regular publication of the furnace temperatures and the flue gas emission analyses. This data, more than fine words from the Company or any regulator, would provide the confidence and assurance that the public needs. Will Brunner Mond do this?

Will Brunner Mond do this ? asks Oulton of Northwich.
I'm sure they will now that their " plant " has asked the question

The argument put forward by our councillors in their attempt to justify their refusal to oppose TATA/Brunner Mond's insane plan to build a gigantic waste incinerator in Northwich is bogus. They remain in pathetic denial that any planning decision would be made by central Government in London NOT by
Cheshire West and Chester Council.
As such, the Council would be merely one of a number of consultees NOT the decision maker and therefore the constraints do not apply. It is a convenient excuse, of course, for
dodging the issue of telling the public
where they stand.

(In fairness, Councillors Terry and Kate Birtwistle , who have signed the petition against the incinerator, are honourable exclusions from the above criticism.)

The Council can also be fairly accused of serious inconsistency. Can any councillor please explain to the Northwich public how they voted to oppose an incinerator in Middlewich, four miles away, seven months ago on the grounds, to quote the Chairman of the Planning Committee, " The plant would not be processing Cheshire waste but would be bringing it from outside the area"? The precise same factors would apply to the TATA/ Brunner Mond incinerator except that it is more than 60% bigger! A 'no brainer' one might think but our councillors don't see it that way. Unbelievable. And deeply worrying.

Headlines in the Northwich Guardian 25th February 2009
"Incinerator Plan is Axed"
"Waste Recycling Group (WRG) which had proposed to build an incinerator in Lostock is no longer in the running." (they were one of the companies who had put in a tender to deal with Cheshire waste)
"County councillor Gretta Cousins, finance executive member said
"We have taken a major step in helping to protect Cheshire's quality of life for future generations"
Having read this article, I came to the conclusion that by vetoing the plans for an incinerator, the council was helping to protect our quality of life. NO INCINERATOR.....HELP
ING TO PROTECT CHESHIRE'S QUALITY OF LIFE.
So what's changed? The Tata/Brunner Mond proposal is for an incinerator, I'm still living in the same place . Why would Cheshire county councillors not want to protect my quality of life now?
I really hope that my quality of life is not being sacrificed in order that a very rich Indian company become even richer!

Sorry but I really must take issue with ‘oulton’ and the comments above - it would seem that you have already decided that we need an incinerator in Northwich and as such one can only conclude that either you don’t live here or you are in the employ of Brunner Mond; or perhaps both?

The argument at the moment is not at the stage you seem to wish; we have yet to be convinced by anyone that there is any need at all for such a plant. Brunner Mond are doing their best to focus on the fact that it will protect jobs and will be completely safe, but I have seen nowhere any compelling logic to suggest that we actually need this incinerator.

Brunner Mond currently have a perfectly adequate source of energy supply which can meet their needs for as long as this plant is economically viable. To suggest otherwise is factually incorrect. From a strategic point of view, the suggestion that this incinerator will supply a portion of their future needs displays a deeply unsettling lack of vision. Energy from Waste (EfW) is, as the name implies, wholly reliant on a continuing feed of waste. I strongly suspect that one of the base assumptions built into this plan is that there will be a continuous supply of waste, of sufficiently high quality to provide fuel, for the life of the plant. This assumption needs to be challenged.

Current waste stream figures are showing a marked decline, not just locally but nationally as well. Recycling rates are increasing across the board and as a society, we are rapidly approaching the realisation that we cannot continue to live like this. ‘Modern’ life as we know it is changing forever and the future our children will inherit will be significantly different.

Like it or not, the natural resources of this planet are being squandered by our generation and our dependence on fossil fuels has to come to an end. The future scarcity of oil supply, essential in producing the waste that this plant will need, will ensure that we don’t end up throwing away as ‘waste’ the very items needed to feed this incinerator. In essence, there will never be enough waste for this plant to burn.

Add to this equation the fact that ahead of them in the queue are the two plants at Weston Point (850,000 tonnes p.a.) and Ince Marshes (600,000 tonnes p.a.), both of whom need exactly the same ‘fuel’ and you can see that the plan is a non starter. In fact, to paraphrase ‘oulton’ above, it really is a ‘no-brainer’.

And as to the way forward for CHAIN, why would the Cheshire ANTI INCINERATOR Network campaign for frequent and regular publication of furnace temperatures and flue gas emissions on a plant that hasn’t even been built? CHAIN have stated quite clearly that they don’t want the thing (I think the clue is in the name here...) so asking for this data pre supposes that it’s going to get the go ahead. Hmmm. A bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic - you can easily give the impression of doing something whilst all around you the ship is sinking.

So let’s move the debate back to the ground where it should be. Try and convince us, the ordinary members of the public, that there is a compelling ‘need’ for this plant to be built. There’s not a single one so far that I can see - or have I missed something?

I don't know about anyone else but I don't work for Brunner Mond or Covanta or Broomsticks and Bedminster or whoever else wants to send our rubbish up the flue! Just because I and others see some sense in this plan, it doesn't mean that we are motivated by the contents of our pockets! We have merely formed our opinions in a different way. As far as I'm concerned unless our bins are empty, our wind turbines are whizzing round like a top and our vegan hens are clucking contentedly in their coop, we can't criticise Brunner Mond, out of hand, for wanting to generate it's own energy.

Hi bonehead,

Delighted that you have an opinion and are prepared to enter into a debate - that is after all one of the freedoms we enjoy in a democracy. I must say though I’m not sure I understand your logic about not criticising Brunner Mond for their desire to create their own energy?

They are a soda ash producer, not an energy generating company, and this move fundamentally changes their principal business interests at this site, and in their UK operation. If they want to create a power station then they don’t have to do it using incinerated waste; there are other options open to them.

The basic problem I have is that I still don’t see that there is any need for them to build this thing as they have survived perfectly well for many years without it. If they don’t get planning permission nothing changes. They will still carry on as before, so why inflict this on us? The argument of retaining jobs in Northwich is false, as with or without the incinerator the global price of soda ash will be the determining factor as to keeping it open, not whether they have an incinerator at the side. Frankly all an incinerator will do is hasten the closure of the soda ash plant, because they’ll make a **** site more money from operating an incinerator than they will from making soda ash!

So back to the main point, what is the compelling need for this incinerator?