Town raises £18,000 to fight plans to recycle Plymouth incinerator ash

“As far as I understand it, it was originally proposed to site the ash processing plant next to the incinerator but there was not enough land available (MVV are leasing 'table top mountain' from the MOD whilst the incinerator is constructed but have to hand it back) and there were also concerns about the dust etc to nearby residents...which is a bit rich considering what the local residents have have had to contend with for the past 7 months or so.

The people of Buckfastleigh should be commended for their community spirit and for standing up to these greedy profit seekers and putting an excellent argument to Devon County Council when the original application was heard and refused. Such a shame that PCC did not listen to the hundreds of letters of objections regarding the incinerator.

Maybe you should ask PCC where exactly they plan to use the annual 57,000 tonnes of processed ash which as a 'benefit' is to be used in construction in Plymouth.....and how much will actually end up in LANDFILL

Good on yer Buckfastleigh!!!! We will continue to support you as you support us in Plmyouth.

You show what COMMUNITY SPIRIT can do...people of Plymouth take note (those who already have and do thank you for what you do for the campaign and the research you do and staying with us all)”

“As far as I understand it, it was originally proposed to site the ash processing plant next to the incinerator but there was not enough land available (MVV are leasing 'table top mountain' from the MOD whilst the incinerator is constructed but have to hand it back) and there were also concerns about the dust etc to nearby residents...which is a bit rich considering what the local residents have have had to contend with for the past 7 months or so.

The people of Buckfastleigh should be commended for their community spirit and for standing up to these greedy profit seekers and putting an excellent argument to Devon County Council when the original application was heard and refused. Such a shame that PCC did not listen to the hundreds of letters of objections regarding the incinerator.

Maybe you should ask PCC where exactly they plan to use the annual 57,000 tonnes of processed ash which as a 'benefit' is to be used in construction in Plymouth.....and how much will actually end up in LANDFILL

Good on yer Buckfastleigh!!!! We will continue to support you as you support us in Plmyouth.

You show what COMMUNITY SPIRIT can do...people of Plymouth take note (those who already have and do thank you for what you do for the campaign and the research you do and staying with us all)”

“As far as I understand it, it was originally proposed to site the ash processing plant next to the incinerator but there was not enough land available (MVV are leasing 'table top mountain' from the MOD whilst the incinerator is constructed but have to hand it back) and there were also concerns about the dust etc to nearby residents...which is a bit rich considering what the local residents have have had to contend with for the past 7 months or so.

The people of Buckfastleigh should be commended for their community spirit and for standing up to these greedy profit seekers and putting an excellent argument to Devon County Council when the original application was heard and refused. Such a shame that PCC did not listen to the hundreds of letters of objections regarding the incinerator.

Maybe you should ask PCC where exactly they plan to use the annual 57,000 tonnes of processed ash which as a 'benefit' is to be used in construction in Plymouth.....and how much will actually end up in LANDFILL

Good on yer Buckfastleigh!!!! We will continue to support you as you support us in Plmyouth.

You show what COMMUNITY SPIRIT can do...people of Plymouth take note (those who already have and do thank you for what you do for the campaign and the research you do and staying with us all)”

“Why don't people like OutsideView, Lashius, Dazplym etc actually do some research so you can make informed comments....or read some of the other posts by people who do know what they are talking about.

As jessica91 says Buckfastleigh HAVE been supporting the Plymouth campaign groups IIW and PlymWIN and all of those three groups have been supporting EcoIvy, PL21, Save Our South Hams and many more local and national campaigns not only to stop incinerators but looking for alternatives...and yes there are alternatives but those who sanctioned this took the quick and lazy option but if you read up on all the figures etc it is NOT the best technology available. Most of the useful resources will just go up in smoke and be lost as a benefit.

There are ways of separating the waste properly, dealing with the different types ie reusing, recycling etc and whilst there may well be incineration as part of it, it will be a very small part and all of this could be housed in smaller buildings, not so intrusive and better for the environment, employ far more people than the 33 MVV boast of and would still save money.
The newly elected council could have changed to this and offset the penalties incurred but they believed the figure quoted by Foot Anstey (with a lawyer who used to work in PCC planning I believe) which was adding everything of the whole of the contract in and not what had been spent so far. It was not done without great thought to create the SWDWP so that Plymouth, who is bearing the brunt of this, had no chance whatsoever to get out of it no matter what. And all these have the audacity to say they represent us.

The incinerator and the site for the ash do go hand in hand and if PCC did their job Condition 8 in the ORIGINAL APPROVED Planning Application stated that the main build could not go ahead without the site for the ash being allocated. Later it was modified. Theoretically if Whitecleaves is refused, alternative sites should be named (but Carey will say commercially sensitive-other communities deserve the right to know) and if not available or local (to be the best environmental option) PCC should stop the build..but then we will no doubt have MVV bleating about how much money they have ploughed into it and our council will let them carry on as they have with the 'monitored' breaches and the ones the local residents have reported.

I have no doubt that reality will strike and the truth will out in the future...let's just hope its the near future for all our sakes.”

“Why don't people like OutsideView, Lashius, Dazplym etc actually do some research so you can make informed comments....or read some of the other posts by people who do know what they are talking about.

As jessica91 says Buckfastleigh HAVE been supporting the Plymouth campaign groups IIW and PlymWIN and all of those three groups have been supporting EcoIvy, PL21, Save Our South Hams and many more local and national campaigns not only to stop incinerators but looking for alternatives...and yes there are alternatives but those who sanctioned this took the quick and lazy option but if you read up on all the figures etc it is NOT the best technology available. Most of the useful resources will just go up in smoke and be lost as a benefit.

There are ways of separating the waste properly, dealing with the different types ie reusing, recycling etc and whilst there may well be incineration as part of it, it will be a very small part and all of this could be housed in smaller buildings, not so intrusive and better for the environment, employ far more people than the 33 MVV boast of and would still save money.
The newly elected council could have changed to this and offset the penalties incurred but they believed the figure quoted by Foot Anstey (with a lawyer who used to work in PCC planning I believe) which was adding everything of the whole of the contract in and not what had been spent so far. It was not done without great thought to create the SWDWP so that Plymouth, who is bearing the brunt of this, had no chance whatsoever to get out of it no matter what. And all these have the audacity to say they represent us.

The incinerator and the site for the ash do go hand in hand and if PCC did their job Condition 8 in the ORIGINAL APPROVED Planning Application stated that the main build could not go ahead without the site for the ash being allocated. Later it was modified. Theoretically if Whitecleaves is refused, alternative sites should be named (but Carey will say commercially sensitive-other communities deserve the right to know) and if not available or local (to be the best environmental option) PCC should stop the build..but then we will no doubt have MVV bleating about how much money they have ploughed into it and our council will let them carry on as they have with the 'monitored' breaches and the ones the local residents have reported.

I have no doubt that reality will strike and the truth will out in the future...let's just hope its the near future for all our sakes.”

“Why don't people like OutsideView, Lashius, Dazplym etc actually do some research so you can make informed comments....or read some of the other posts by people who do know what they are talking about.

As jessica91 says Buckfastleigh HAVE been supporting the Plymouth campaign groups IIW and PlymWIN and all of those three groups have been supporting EcoIvy, PL21, Save Our South Hams and many more local and national campaigns not only to stop incinerators but looking for alternatives...and yes there are alternatives but those who sanctioned this took the quick and lazy option but if you read up on all the figures etc it is NOT the best technology available. Most of the useful resources will just go up in smoke and be lost as a benefit.

There are ways of separating the waste properly, dealing with the different types ie reusing, recycling etc and whilst there may well be incineration as part of it, it will be a very small part and all of this could be housed in smaller buildings, not so intrusive and better for the environment, employ far more people than the 33 MVV boast of and would still save money.
The newly elected council could have changed to this and offset the penalties incurred but they believed the figure quoted by Foot Anstey (with a lawyer who used to work in PCC planning I believe) which was adding everything of the whole of the contract in and not what had been spent so far. It was not done without great thought to create the SWDWP so that Plymouth, who is bearing the brunt of this, had no chance whatsoever to get out of it no matter what. And all these have the audacity to say they represent us.

The incinerator and the site for the ash do go hand in hand and if PCC did their job Condition 8 in the ORIGINAL APPROVED Planning Application stated that the main build could not go ahead without the site for the ash being allocated. Later it was modified. Theoretically if Whitecleaves is refused, alternative sites should be named (but Carey will say commercially sensitive-other communities deserve the right to know) and if not available or local (to be the best environmental option) PCC should stop the build..but then we will no doubt have MVV bleating about how much money they have ploughed into it and our council will let them carry on as they have with the 'monitored' breaches and the ones the local residents have reported.

I have no doubt that reality will strike and the truth will out in the future...let's just hope its the near future for all our sakes.”

“Excerpt from The Independent 10/03/2013

"UK incinerator plans; they're just rubbish!

A wave of new publicly-funded incinerators being built to burn rubbish could be mothballed before they are even turned on, amid claims there will not be enough waste to fuel them.

The Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) has begun withdrawing funding for new incineration plants with predictions there will be nothing for them to burn. Support for a scheme in Liverpool was withdrawn last month, following the removal of funding for projects in North and West Yorkshire.

The UK already has 32 rubbish incinerators but plans for 100 new ones are in the planning stages with local authorities around the country. The rush to build the new plants is rooted in the idea that they can be a cheaper alternative to sending rubbish to landfill, while creating renewable energy at the same time.

Thirty seven percent of the 23 million tonnes of household refuse generated in the UK each year currently ends up dumped in landfill.

Among the champions for incineration is Johnny Ball, the TV presenter who popularised science in the 1980s, said: "Almost every European country, with the exception of the UK, has long since realised that one good way to cut down the burning of fossil fuels is to burn waste instead. Waste is free, in that we have to collect it anyway."

But in building scores more incinerators, critics claim Britain is in danger of repeating mistakes made by the Netherlands and Germany, both of which have proved unable to find enough rubbish to fuel them. The Dutch rely on imported waste – some from the UK – to fuel their plants.

As early as 2015, the UK could have underused incinerators, according to a report by the waste consultants Eunomia. It estimates that unless the UK dramatically increases the amount of rubbish for incineration, there will be insufficient material to burn when the new plants open. Critics argue that rapid improvements in rubbish recycling will add to the lack of demand for incineration. They fear the UK could be forced to import waste from abroad to fuel the incinerators or even close them before they have even opened."

Yet the Plymouth incinerator is still being built, and has always been intended to have almost half of its capacity from outside sources. In other words it is almost TWICE as big as Plymouth and the other partnership regions require - so why did we ever agree to it?

(we didn't, it was the Tory council that pushed it through)

Plymouth - space of waste!”

“Excerpt from The Independent 10/03/2013

"UK incinerator plans; they're just rubbish!

A wave of new publicly-funded incinerators being built to burn rubbish could be mothballed before they are even turned on, amid claims there will not be enough waste to fuel them.

The Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) has begun withdrawing funding for new incineration plants with predictions there will be nothing for them to burn. Support for a scheme in Liverpool was withdrawn last month, following the removal of funding for projects in North and West Yorkshire.

The UK already has 32 rubbish incinerators but plans for 100 new ones are in the planning stages with local authorities around the country. The rush to build the new plants is rooted in the idea that they can be a cheaper alternative to sending rubbish to landfill, while creating renewable energy at the same time.

Thirty seven percent of the 23 million tonnes of household refuse generated in the UK each year currently ends up dumped in landfill.

Among the champions for incineration is Johnny Ball, the TV presenter who popularised science in the 1980s, said: "Almost every European country, with the exception of the UK, has long since realised that one good way to cut down the burning of fossil fuels is to burn waste instead. Waste is free, in that we have to collect it anyway."

But in building scores more incinerators, critics claim Britain is in danger of repeating mistakes made by the Netherlands and Germany, both of which have proved unable to find enough rubbish to fuel them. The Dutch rely on imported waste – some from the UK – to fuel their plants.

As early as 2015, the UK could have underused incinerators, according to a report by the waste consultants Eunomia. It estimates that unless the UK dramatically increases the amount of rubbish for incineration, there will be insufficient material to burn when the new plants open. Critics argue that rapid improvements in rubbish recycling will add to the lack of demand for incineration. They fear the UK could be forced to import waste from abroad to fuel the incinerators or even close them before they have even opened."

Yet the Plymouth incinerator is still being built, and has always been intended to have almost half of its capacity from outside sources. In other words it is almost TWICE as big as Plymouth and the other partnership regions require - so why did we ever agree to it?

(we didn't, it was the Tory council that pushed it through)

Plymouth - space of waste!”

“---and food waste and other non-recyclable biodegradable materials can be put into anaerobic digesters to produce methane (and hence energy) and compost as a fertiliser. A lot of local authorities are now going down this route but not the mindless morons from PCC.”

“@outsideview

MVV applied to have the ash processed on land adjacent to the incinerator but were refused due, I believe, to the risk to nearby residents. Hopefully someone else will be able to give more detail. Perhaps the dockyard considered it a risk just as they do the incinerator.

Clearly both Ivybridge and Buckfastleigh have good reason not to want the ash and I doubt if Tesco will ever consider it as a building material again! It's only the EU definition of the bottom ash - as being inert (how can an inert compound react with cement or leach toxins into the ground) that allows incinerators to 'dump' their by products on local communities. Might it be that EU definitions are in part based on placating the massively influential energy companies?

Check out the problems local people in Korbach, Germany have had with their nearby incinerator. Is the garden as rosy as PR gurus make out? Check out the world bank's opinion on incineration. Whilst you are at it, ask yourself how so many planning amendments can be made to this incinerator without it having to go back to a full planning application meeting where it can be democratically discussed and reconsidered.

Something stinks in Plymouth long before the rubbish even reaches the furnaces.

The alternative to burning rubbish (incineration) is to recycle to the maximum possible. The actual money value of waste is very high and the majority of waste can be recycled. I accept that a small proportion remains but the vast majority can be reused. Our disposable society is something only recently concocted by business to increase their overall profits.

The fact that companies are now in existence turning plastic bottles into fuel, reclaiming gold from old electrical items, recycling paper, wood, aluminium and steel all of which we continue to buy as packaging - just to throw it away moments later; all of this proves that the economics of recycling are healthy. What is more, recycling ensures our next generations still have the raw materials to enjoy which incineration does not. It employs more people too and it tends to be local employment.

Try it for yourself - recycle as much as you can for, say, a month. Not actually recycling the raw materials but ensuring they are set aside for recycling and placed in the right bins for collection. I do this and, for 2 people, the amount that cannot be recycled amounts to around 5kg per annum - that's under 1500 tonnes per year to burn if everyone in Plymouth did it. A far cry from the 265000 tonnes the incinerator will handle (which includes around 100000 tonnes brought in from commercial and industrial sources all over the south).

How is it that the incinerator will generate £60 million profit per year? Does this not suggest to you the high value of these materials even just as a raw fuel yet we not only buy the stuff in the first place, we then PAY to dispose of it too! Well, not entirely down to materials values - because the interference and social engineering by Brussells and our own muppets in parliament ensures the cost of landfill is increasing rapidly - making companies like MVV ever wealthier as they step in to rescue the day.

Many recall the bottles of the 60's which could be returned for a refunded deposit. Why not now? Why not cans too? Why not just about everything? Local kids could keep the streets clean whilst earning a bit of cash! Some forward thinking supermarkets even offer points when you bring your old cans for recycling. Not in Plymouth though. Here, our councils ensure we keep at the bottom of the UK recycling league tables.

I wonder why?

Clearly the people of Ivybridge and Buckfastleigh understand why. Good on them.

Ah, the true face of business in Plymouth!”