A GIANT incinerator is set to transform Plymouth’s dockyard landscape, after the hugely controversial project was given the go-ahead.

Councillors voted 7-5 in favour of the plans for Devonport Dockyard’s North Yard following a heated six-hour debate.

MVV Environment Devonport Limited is now poised to begin building the plant next year – to the dismay of residents living in its shadow.

Council chiefs say the plant will save the taxpayer £275million – and prevent cuts to frontline services.

But locals fear they are in for years of non-stop noise, harmful pollution and a traffic onslaught that will see 264 lorries travel to the site every day.

The decision ends years of wrangles over what to do with the city’s waste.

Since the Chelson Meadow landfill tip closed in 2007 Plymouth has been sending its waste to Lean Quarry near Liskeard.

The energy-from-waste plant will run continuously for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, apart from short shut-downs for maintenance.

The main building will be 134 metres long with a 45-metre high boiler house and a 95-metre chimney stack.

It will handle household waste from across Plymouth, South and West Devon, the South Hams, Teignbridge and Torbay, plus some commercial and industrial rubbish, with no limit on where it is from.

Up to 265,000 tonnes of rubbish will be burnt each year, generating steam which will drive a turbine and create electricity.

Six thousand people signed a petition opposing the plans. Ahead of yesterday’s planning committee meeting, around 50 protestors armed with banners and placards congregated at the Council House.

Many were unable to contain their fury while councillors debated the plans, as the chamber was disrupted by sustained outbursts and sarcastic laughter.

Speaking in opposition, Robin Keats, of the protest group Incineration is Wrong, said the plan was being “rushed through”.

He branded incinerators “costly and unreliable”, claiming research suggested they could be linked to increased infant mortality and cancer rates.

St Budeaux Labour councillor Sally Bowie was applauded by the public as she called for a public enquiry, adding: “Not enough research has been done into this”.

Her Conservative colleague Cllr Gloria Bragg said the plant would be a “monstrosity” and a “blight on the landscape”.

She said: “I’m prepared to lose my seat in May in standing with the people of St Budeaux in their opposition.”

The committee heard how the incinerator will sit just 60 metres from the closest home, while a 450 households live within 250 metres.

“There are some significant adverse effects on some people,” planning officer Alan Hartridge admitted. But he said months of work had gone into modifying MVV’s application to make it acceptable.

Mr Hartridge said the building was “not an eyesore”, instead claiming it could become a “landmark feature” due to its maritime-inspired design.

But Labour Cllr Brian Vincent hit back, saying: “We’ve romanticised about it looking like a ship and having fancy bits on it – but it’s an industrial unit. If it were a ship, I wouldn’t want it parked outside my house pumping out smoke for 25 years.”

As part of the deal, MVV will put millions of pounds into the city.

It will set up a community trust to spend £150,000 a year in the local area, contribute £390,000 to landscaping and carry out work to mitigate visual impact.

A lucrative deal with the Ministry of Defence – which owns the land – will see the Naval Base and Dockyard provided with steam and power, cutting Naval Base costs by around 20 per cent.

But councillor Nicky Williams said the plant was “not giving anything to the people of Barne Barton”, which she pointed out was one of the most socially-deprived areas of the city.

“We’re actually imposing this incinerator on the people who have the least chance to argue their case,” she said.

Cllr Tina Tuohy argued that many family homes would be deprived of sunlight, as well as having their existing panoramic views shattered.

Motions from the opposition Labour group to refuse the application, and to defer the decision, were rejected 7-5.

The party split was replicated when councillors voted to approve the plans, to shouts of “hang your heads” and “shame on you” from the public gallery.

Closing the meeting, planing committee chair Cllr John Lock said the plant would “solve Plymouth’s refuse problem for the next 40-odd years”.

Speaking afterwards, city finance chief Cllr Ian Bowyer said the city would save around £275million over the next 25 years – or £11million annually.

“This unlocks a huge financial benefit to local taxpayers,” he said. “If I had to find that money elsewhere there would be significant cuts to frontline services.”

Construction of the plant will create around 300 jobs, although a mere 33 permanent workers will be needed once it is completed.

But Cllr Bowyer, Cabinet member for finance, said further jobs would be created through the knock-on effect, adding: “For the city this is a major deal, running into many millions of pounds”.

And Cllr Michael Leaves, the council’s Cabinet member for waste, said: “This decision comes as a major relief for myself and the people of Plymouth.

“I appreciate some people have got concerns – and we will work with them to alleviate those – but the Environment Agency would never give a permit to anything that wasn’t safe.

“We can now move to the future and hopefully open the plant in 2014, whilst carrying on increasing our recycling.”

MVV Environment Devonport managing director Paul Carey said the company was delighted with the decision – and now wanted to become “part of the community”.

It has vowed to appoint a community liaison manager and run a free visitor centre at the site.

“We see this as the beginning of a journey,” Mr Carey said. “We want to assure those who have expressed reservations or opposition that we are not complacent. It is incumbent on us to prove we can be good neighbours and to win people’s trust.”

Mr Carey said he was “very confident” there would be no long-term health impacts on local residents.

The findings of fresh research into incinerators’ emissions, commissioned by the Health Protection Agency, are also due out soon.

“The science behind it is well-understood,” Mr Carey insisted.

“Our understanding is far greater than it used to be.”

He said the plant would be the quietest the industry has ever seen.

Mr Carey added: “There are over 400 around Europe – and many in city centre locations – so this is not by any means a unique scenario.”

Quizzed on health impacts, Mark Turner, project director for the South West Devon Waste Partnership, which was set up to solve the region’s waste problem, said: “The assurances are there from the Environment Agency.”

And asked about the impact on home-owners, he said: “If there has been a drop in value of housing it will come back up again.”

Plymouth Moor View Labour MP Alison Seabeck vowed to raise the issue with the Secretary of State.

“I don’t think it was a decision that really took into consideration the damage that this plant could potentially do to people’s lives,” she said. “It’s pretty exceptional to have any building of that size this close to people’s houses.”

Labour group leader Cllr Tudor Evans added: “I’m upset by what seem to be attempts to silence local residents. I was prevented from speaking as it wasn’t in my ward, but I have discovered that part of it was so I feel I have been misled.”

WORK SET TO START NEXT YEAR

WORK is set to start next year on building the incinerator on Devonport Dockyard’s North Yard, after the most controversial Plymouth planning application for years.

The Plymouth City Council planning committee decision was the culmination of years of wrangling over building an incinerator to handle waste from Plymouth, Torbay, Teignmouth and the South Hams.

MVV Environment Devonport Limited will take about two and a half years to build the energy from waste (EfW) plant.

When finished, the incinerator will be one of the city’s biggest buildings. The main building will be 134 metres long with a 45-metre high boiler house and a 95-metre chimney stack.

It will handle up to 265,000 tonnes of waste a year, mainly from the three councils involved, but also some commercial and industrial waste from local businesses.

The heat from burning the waste will be used to generate steam, which will drive a steam turbine and generate electricity and heat for the Dockyard and Naval Base.

ANGER AS INCINERATOR IS APPROVED

FURIOUS campaigners have vowed to continue their fight after bitterly opposed plans for Plymouth’s new incinerator were approved.

A fiery planning meeting saw councillors give the multi-million-pound plant at Devonport Dockyard’s North Yard the green light last night.

The decision, taken after six hours of tense debate, paves the way for MVV Environment Devonport Limited to begin building work next year.

When finished, the incinerator will burn up to 265,000 tonnes of rubbish each year.

Handling waste from Plymouth and across the rest of South and West Devon, it will run continuously for 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Council chiefs say the energy-from-waste plant will save the taxpayer £275million – and prevent significant cuts to frontline services.

But nearby residents fear they are in for years of non-stop noise, harmful pollution and a traffic onslaught that will see 264 lorries travel to the site every day.

The closest home is just 60 metres away from the building which, at twice the size of the Civic Centre, will become one of Plymouth’s largest.

Dismayed opponents last night vowed to continue their battle, branding the plant a “monstrosity”.

But council chiefs and MVV bosses stood by the plans.

A SAD DAY FOR PLYMOUTH

MANY Plymouth people reacted with anger and distress following the decision to allow the incinerator to be built.

Crowds gathered outside the Council House at 9.30am yesterday morning and people packed out the public gallery at the Council’s main chamber as well as the Guildhall, where a screen showed a link which filmed the debate.

People booed the Chair and speakers who supported the incinerator proposal, and continually applauded those who spoke out against. They endured more than six hours of reports and passionate speeches only for their hopes to be dashed by the planning committee, who voted 7-5 in favour of the incinerator plans.

Donna Ruiz, who went to Germany to view a similar plant, said: “This is a sad day for all of Plymouth. Such a lovely city will be reduced to taking the rubbish from the rest of Devon and probably further afield.

“All just for two more votes.”

An 11-year-old emailed The Herald and said: “Many people have been crying outside the council house after the incinerator was okayed. I am disgusted.”

Danni Aubry, an environmental campaigner, said she and others would now seek professional legal advice for the next step.

“We need to under-turn this verdict.”

Wendy Miller, of the Green Party, said that as people turned away from packaging and plastics, she didn’t believe there would be the waste capacity needed to justify the plant.

The city would end up burning the waste of even other countries, she warned. She pointed to the worry that this may discourage recycling and suggested alternative methods that made use of food waste, such as composting.

Chemistry graduate Alan Facer said he believed the reports recording emissions were misleading.

He told The Herald: “I’m so angry. They were wrong about the carbon capture because it can be re-used, not burnt. Around 200 tonnes of carbon dioxide will be released into the atmosphere which will affect global warming.”

Margaret Marker, from Beacon Park, said she had lost her husband, father and brother to asbestos related diseases.

“They told us that was safe 30 years ago,” she said.

“I’m worried for my four-year-old granddaughter. How do they know the next generation won’t be affected?”

She said the situation had been a ‘constant worry’ to her family, especially as her son was an asthma sufferer. “How is he meant to escape? He won’t be able to sell his house – there have been six for sale in Harbour Avenue and none taken.”

Andrew Martin and Jane Prowse, who live with their two young daughters in Cardinal Avenue, had similar concerns.

“We always hoped in a few years we might move onto a bigger, nicer house somewhere, but who’s going to buy our house now?”, Jane said.

Andrew added: “Is there compensation for us? No-one has been to our door to talk to us.”

They said they’d already been woken in the morning by drilling work at the site as the foundations were being laid and were worried about further noise issues.

Evelyn Nesbitt, of Beacon Park, said: “It feels like they’re treating us with contempt and I don’t think they’ve listened to any of our views. I believe there’s been a complete lack of democracy. We want a public enquiry.”

Keyham resident Ian Avent said: “They never should have planned it for sea level. It should be at the highest point possible for dispersal of fumes.

“It’s a terrible legacy for our children and I believe it will release tonnes of carbon dioxide which will contribute to global warming.

“There’ll be extra fumes from HGVs which will affect our children, just for the sake of a bit of steam and electricity. It’s a depressing scenario.”

“If noise levels rise to five decibels that is quadruple the amount of normal background noise that people will live with.”

Eva Deacon, from Normandy Way, was concerned about traffic flow problems. “You only have to see the impact from just one lane closing on the Tamar Bridge because of wind to see the disruption – the incinerator will add to the problems,” she said.

Anne Brownlow, of Church Way, said: “We have a seven-year-old grand-daughter and we’re worried about future health effects as well as the traffic around her primary school.”

Tina Lowe, of Saltash Passage, said her main concerns were for her six-year-old son, Jacob, and his future health.

“I feel it’s criminal. I came into this with an open mind and went to the road shows. I asked questions and I cannot see anything that is good about this.”

She claimed it was 1980s technology that had been banned in USA under a Clean Air Act, and also claimed profits from the facility would go back to Germany, where operator MVV Umwelt is based.

She added: “MVV have bought some football shirts for a local football team but what kind of recompense is that?”

She claimed the council had used ‘smoke and mirrors’ and been ‘undemocratic’ in the way it had scheduled the crunch planning meeting just before Christmas. Alison Morris of Cardinal Avenue, a mother-of-one, said: “I feel they have a dim view of the people that live here and that we don’t care, but that’s not true. It feels like they think we live in a slum but we’re working people. They might glam this up with trees and perfumes but they’re just covering it up.”

Lisa Chambers of Newman Road, said: “I believe this really is a crime. At certain times we get a really thick sea mist and if particles get trapped in it and is contaminated it will travel all the way up the Tamar Estuary and affect everyone.

“The chimney just dominates. I’ll look out my window and all I’ll see is this chimney.

“How dare they just think they can come along and take £10,000 off the value of our properties?”

VOW TO FIGHT ON AGAINST THE DECISION

ROBIN KEATS, a 59-year-old electrical engineering lecturer from St Budeaux, has been at the forefront of the Incineration Is Wrong (IIW) protest group. He has vowed to continue the fight against the incinerator

“HAVE the people of Plymouth actually been listened to in any of the consultation?” Mr Keats asked.

“Have Plymouth City Council done their job properly?”

Mr Keats gave an impassioned speech in opposition to the plans at yesterday’s crunch council meeting.

He was threatened with eviction for deliberately over-running the five-minute time-limit.

“MVV get 3,500 pages of paperwork to put their argument across,” he said. “We get five minutes.”

Mr Keats said the technology had been banned in the United States, branding it out-dated.

He added: “They keep telling everyone there’s no problems but MVV seem to have pulled the wool over the council’s and the people’s eyes.

“We will be majorly behind. The South Hams has taken the right step by introducing an anaerobic digestive plant which is environmentally friendly.

“How much money will PCC pay out in penalty clauses over the next few years?”

Mr Keats said the option was a “quick-fix” that would hinder recycling efforts and only offer work for highly-skilled university graduates.

The area had not been adequately invested in, he added, and life expectancy was already 14 years lower than in Plympton.

“The noise and other health problems created by the plant could drive people to stress-related illnesses and there’s not even enough doctors in the area anyway,” Mr Keats said.

“The disappointing thing is this just shows the Conservative Party have got no minds of their own – and I think this decision will crucify some councillors in May’s elections.

“They ought to be quaking in their boots.”

Mr Keats said he had already been in talks with specialist environmental solicitors, with a view to forcing a public inquiry or judicial review.

“Watch this space,” he added. “There are still possibilities ahead of us. We’re not just going to take this lying down.”

HEALTH IMPACTS

HEALTH impacts from waste incineration have not been ruled out, an NHS Plymouth report concluded, writes Health Reporter Diana Prince.

The paper lists a range of public health concerns surrounding the proposal – including noise and the effect on local housing.

The NHS Plymouth health impact assessment (HIA) was completed as part of the consultation.

Noting that the incinerator would be built in an area of deprivation, it states: “The proposed development has the potential to impact negatively on the physical and mental health and wellbeing of the local population and thus may exacerbate the existing inequalities.

“The cumulative impact of this EfW development is likely to place the greatest burden upon some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the city.”

The HIA states research into links between emissions from modern well-regulated municipal waste incinerators and effects on health has not provided conclusive evidence of the absence of health impacts – but studies have shown any potential health damage to those living close-by is likely to be “very small, if detectable”.

A World Health Organisation scientific report argues that the health impact of waste management procedures cannot yet be properly evaluated because there are relatively few good-quality studies on the issue.

The Environment Agency has said it is minded to issue an environmental permit for the incinerator. In a statement the Agency said it was satisfied that the proposed incinerator would be constructed and operated in a way that would not significantly pollute the environment or harm human health.

The HIA lists potential positive impacts including employment opportunities and community facilities being provided – and ways of mitigating concerns.

THE DEBATE - INCINERATOR PROS AND CONS

Mark Turner is project director for the South West Devon Waste Partnership (SWDWP), which commissioned the incinerator.

Geoffrey Hillier (GH) is a retired engineer and anti-incinerator campaigner.

Q. What is energy from waste? Isn’t it just incineration?

SWDWP: Energy from waste (EfW) is proven, safe, clean and reliable. High-temperature incineration of waste is one of the most strictly controlled industrial processes in Europe and results in emissions that are much lower and more tightly regulated than other industrial and combustion activities. The energy produced can produce electricity and heat.

GH: According to the Government’s Waste Strategy for England 2007, taking carbon footprint and cost together, EfW using anaerobic digestion is far better than EfW using incineration. The strategy says: “Apart from anaerobic digestion, the Government does not generally think it appropriate to express a preference for one technology over another”, which speaks for itself.

Q. Will the Weston Mill plant affect my health?

SWDWP: EfW is one of the most thoroughly investigated industries. Vast bodies of research demonstrate that there is no effect on human health. There is not a single case where modern incineration has been linked to damage to human health.

Research cited by those against energy from waste is frequently based on studies conducted before 2000, when strict emissions limits came into force.

GH: The World Health Organisation WHO says that airborne particles are not safe. Medical research shows that extremely small particles are not removed by the incineration operating systems. Details can be found in The Health Effects of waste Incinerators, June 2008.

Q. What effect will the energy from waste plant have on the environment? How do I know the emissions are safe?

SWDWP: EfW plants must comply with stringent Environment Agency regulations. The majority of the cost of the plant is associated with the cleaning process for emissions. Waste is burnt at 850ºC or higher and the gases cooled rapidly before being chemically treated and passing through a sophisticated filtration system. This ensures that all emissions are below safe limits set by the EU, having an insignificant impact on the air quality of the surrounding area.

GH: The ultrafine and nano-particles, mentioned above, cannot be removed and are the cause for concern.

Q. What are dioxins? How are they produced?

SWDWP: Dioxins are chemicals produced during combustion in activities such as burning wood and coal, driving, bonfires, fireworks and industrial processes. Dioxins may be inhaled but 90 per cent of human exposure is through food.

EfW is designed to minimise production of dioxins and other pollutants using high temperatures and rapid cooling. A study by Defra in 2004 showed that only 0.5 per cent of the whole of the UK’s annual dioxin total came from incineration, with the rest from other common activities such as fires (16 per cent) and fireworks (14 per cent).

GH: It is accepted by SWDWP that 0.5 per cent of dioxins are produced by incinerators. Therefore people living close to incinerators may receive a disproportionately high concentration of particulate matter, which clearly includes dioxins and other dangerous pollutants.

Q. What happens to the ash that is left? I have heard it’s toxic?

SWDWP: The ash is not toxic. Two types of ash are produced. Bottom ash, or clinker, is an inert substance that can be recycled for road building or making concrete blocks. A much smaller amount of fly ash is generated as a by-product of the cleaning system. As it is alkaline due to the chemicals added during the gas clean-up, it is classed as hazardous but can be used in other industrial processes to neutralise acid materials, or treated and transported to a specialist hazardous waste site in the north of England.

GH: Fly ash is classed as hazardous waste, therefore it is toxic. Why produce a toxic hazardous waste from non-toxic municipal waste?

Q. Will there be lots of lorries all the time?

SWDWP: There will be more traffic but it will be spread throughout the day and not concentrated at peak traffic hours. It is estimated that there will be about 125 lorry deliveries each working day, which is about one every three minutes. That is the same as the number of buses running in the area on weekdays.

Most of these lorries will be bringing Plymouth’s waste to the facility so they are already on the city roads. The junction at Weston Mill does come under pressure at peak times and so where possible deliveries during these times will be minimised.

GH: If there are 125 lorries in and 125 lorries out the total is 250. Also the ash is removed by different lorries, the number of which is possibly 20 a day in and 20 out. The total is therefore 250 to 300 lorry movements a day. The proposed Viridor incinerator at New England Quarry, Lee Mill, will require a similar number of lorry movements in South Devon. Up to 500 or 600 lorry movements throughout the South Devon and Plymouth area a day has not been properly modelled by the councils of the waste partnership.

Q. What about the smell and the noise?

SWDWP: EfW facilities do not smell. The air inside is kept at a slightly negative pressure. Waste is then transferred into a kiln so that any odours are sucked into the furnace and effectively burned. The cleaning system ensures there is no smell from any emissions.

The site will only receive deliveries during the day, not at night, and noise studies are being done to look at what sort of levels the plant might produce to ensure that the local residents are not disturbed. It may not even be possible to hear the plant over the existing background noise.

GH: Quality of life will be diminished by emissions, noise and vehicle movements.

Q. Won’t the incinerator stop people from recycling?

SWDWP: Reducing the amount of waste we produce and increasing recycling and composting is a top priority for the partnership. Waste production is rising as more households are created. Devon has one of the highest recycling rates in the country but is still aiming to reach 60 per cent by 2020, ten years ahead of government targets.

There will always be a proportion of waste we can’t effectively recycle, reuse or compost. Beyond 60 to 65 per cent it becomes much less economical. Avoiding landfill and gaining energy from this waste is therefore preferable.

In countries where EfW is more widely used recycling rates are often higher than the UK. Denmark recovers energy from 54 per cent of its waste, and recycles and composts around 41 per cent of municipal waste, landfilling only 5 per cent. By comparison, the UK recovers energy from only 9 per cent of waste and recycles or composts 34 per cent, landfilling 57per cent.

GH: There is no evidence that recycling is a top priority for the partnership. Plymouth recycles less than 35 per cent. The proposed Viridor incinerator at Lee Mill, the Marsh Barton incinerator and the MVV incinerator in Plymouth will create a demand for plenty of waste to feed them for 25 years.

Q. What about the house prices: won’t they go down as a result?

SWDWP: Studies have shown that while residential and commercial property prices may dip initially, once the plant is up and running they quickly recover their value.

Cluttons estate agents looked at the impact of the plans for an energy from waste plant at Newhaven on local house prices for the town and concluded that there had been no lasting effect.

GH: The area around the incinerator is defined by national statistics as within the most deprived 20 per cent in England (Health Profile 2008). Having an incinerator in the community will tend to diminish the quality of life in those communities.

THE INCINERATOR TIMELINE

December 2004: Plymouth city Council begins search for a solution to waste disposal. Incineration is one of the options considered.

February 2006: Council says it has not ruled out an incinerator.

February 2007: Council backs incineration of waste.

2007: Plymouth, Torbay and Devon councils set up the South West Devon Waste Partnership.

April 2008: Chelson Meadow landfill site is full. Plymouth’s rubbish is now trucked to Lean Quarry near Liskeard.

April 2008: Government inspector approves incinerator solution.

October 2008: Interested companies invited to lodge expressions of interest. Possible sites identified at: Ernesettle (two sites); former china clay works at Coypool; New England Quarry, south of Lee Mill; former naval stores at Wrangaton. Public consultation on sites begins.

January 2009: Ministry of Defence says it wants an incinerator in Devonport Dockyard. Plymouth City Council says these are “not part of Plymouth City Council’s planning process”.

July 2009: Waste partnership announces shortlist of three companies - MVV Umwelt, SITA UK and Viridor - with proposals for sites at Ernesettle, Devonport North or South Yards; New England Quarry.

September 2009: Viridor submits planning application to Devon County Council for an incinerator at New England Quarry (the application has not yet been determined).

November 2009: Sita drops proposal for Ernesettle. Possible sites are now MVV Umwelt proposed incinerators in Ernesettle and Devonport Naval Base’s North Yard, while Sita has put forward a proposal for the Naval Base’s South Yard. Viridor is focusing on its own site at New England Quarry near Lee Mill.

Winter 2009: Ivybridge mobilises in opposition to New England Quarry plan.

January 2010: Sita drops South Yard plan.

February 2010: St Budeaux residents mobilise against North Yard plan.

March 2010: MVV Umwelt drops its plan for Ernesettle.

January 2011: MVV Umwelt announced as preferred bidder. Viridor says it will push ahead with New England Quarry application regardless.

May 2011: MVV submit a planning application to Plymouth City Council.

December 2011: Environment Agency agrees to award an environmental permit for the incinerator.

December 22, 2011: Plymouth City Council planning committee decision.

2012: Construction begins.

2014: Operations commence.