No Incinerators for Europe

The No Incinerators for Europe site is now caput, gone, it is no more. But this page showing some of the news from the campaign shows (for historical record) the importance of the campaign for European climate welfare.

If you have come here looking to take action Greenpeace have great resources on how to combat the scourge of large-scale domestic waste incinerators in your area.

ECC Response to the Waste Strategy Consultation

FoE, Essex - 09 December 2002

On Tuesday at full council the ECC Leader and Cabinet Member for Waste & Recycling will present their response to the Waste Strategy Consultation (see attached). At first glance it would appear that there has been a change of heart at the county council. However, it is what is not mentioned which is of most importance.    There are some good things in the response such as Producer Responsibility for packaging, the introduction of Re-use at CA sites and the mention of Anaerobic Digestion.     However,   the Waste Plan still permits incineration on all six identified sites 'or at other locations';   the county council will be offering a countywide confidential contract or contracts to Onyx or another major incinerator company, based on the identified sites;   there would be a 25 year 'integrated waste management' confidential contract;   they would be aiming at £4.5 million Materials Recycling Facilities (MRFs) to sort out 'commingled' (mixed up) recyclables, (which produces 40% contaminated recyclates) the incinerators would follow the MRFs with the MBT plants making incinerator fuel;   there is a minimum tonnage on each site of 200,000 tonnes p.a.   there would be nothing to stop Onyx from putting in an application for an incinerator of any kind for anyone's waste from London or commercial waste, which ECC can raise their hands in mock horror saying they didn't want it - but there wouldn't even be a public inquiry, judging on recent Maidstone and Capel incinerator applications, because the sites are identified in the Waste Plan which permits incineration;   Option 7 shows the real way forward. Contracts must be no longer than ten years - only incinerators need 25 year contracts. Inhouse council kerbside collection teams must be retained. Major £4.5 million facilities are not required with comprehensive separated recyclables collected and sorted at the kerbside, with local baling and recycling depots.    The Mersea trial has shown that 60% recycling is easily achievable, with 98% satisfaction for 4,500 households. The Witham trial has shown that 50% recycling is achievable. Both trials cost far less than the costs envisaged in the consultation for Options 1 to 6. The income from the recyclate comes back to the councils, rather than the major contractor.  at 6.1 they have only 60% target by 2010 (till 2024), therefore not complying with the agreed 'Working Together' 60% recycling/composting by 2007, nor covering the Waste Strategy 2000 67% 'recovery' by 2015, nor the draft regional waste strategy 70% 'recovery' by 2015 without incineration;   at 6.2 garden waste should be windrow composted - no need for expensive invessel, which should be for putrescible and foodwaste;   at 6.4 - the CA sites are already recycling 54%, with Brentwood on 59% already! We need investment for kerbside collections. Essex districts recycle 24.25%;   Anaerobic Digestion is very good, but for source-separated putrescible and kitchen and restaurant foodwaste, not mixed waste. It creates energy from the methane.  Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator for Essex Friends of the Earth said:    "Along the south coast these major contracts have been signed and the incinerators are being built. The stakes are high. When the county council changes the wording of W7G in the Waste Plan to exclude incineration, and limits contracts to ten years, we can start investing in kerbside collections run by our council binmen not the private companies."

Incinerator plans scrapped

UK Incinerators - 27 November 2002

JUBILANT protesters have claimed victory after plans to build an incinerator which would have blighted the area were scrapped.     Determined residents in the west of the town ferociously opposed the proposal for a huge waste burning site at Wakehams Farm, near Copthorne, when the blueprint was first announced by West Sussex County Council in 2000, but now County Hall chiefs have back-tracked.  Campaigner Roy Billis, secretary for Pound Hill North Residents' Association, exclaimed: "Two years ago there were plans by West Sussex County Council for an incinerator on the corner of the M23 and Copthorne Road.  "There were a total of 647 responses to the plans and there was no development plan for permanent building on this site.  "I think common sense has taken over, local people know the issues and officials should take this on board - on this occasion they have done that.''  Campaigners had raised health concerns and feared the impact of emissions from the site.   The land, covering a massive 42 acres, was initially on a list drawn up of 42 possible sites for a waste incinerator, but now 12 have been dropped.  A spokesman for West Sussex County Council explained: "It was formerly a landfill site which was why it was earmarked, but since then has been changed to a green field site and it has been decided that other sites are now better.  "There are others that are more suitable and fit the criteria for waste management.  "It is in the strategic gap between Crawley and East Grinstead which we try to avoid building on.''  And council chiefs were keen to stress the land will not be opened up for a housing development.  A spokesman for Mid Sussex District Council revealed: "There are no proposals in the local plan, but there are alternative plans in the area.  "One is to put housing to the west of Copthorne, where the old sewage works are.  "Another is land at Holly Farm but all enquiries into the land are taking place now and we are not expecting decisions until June next year.''  Pound Hill Councillor Richard Burrett expressed his delight at the council's change of heart.  He said: "I am very pleased to hear that no further proposals are being made.  "I am sure that everyone in Pound Hill will breathe a sigh of relief.''

Does your Euro Contribute to Sea Dumping?

Greenpeace - 20 November 2002

Greenpeace activists this morning took action to stop the dumping of industrial waste in the Mediterranean. Protestors scaled loading cranes at the ferronickel industry LARCO S.A. 120 km north of Athens at Larymna. The company's product goes into the production of Euros for Greece and also provides 6-7% of the European market in nickel, raising the possibility that thousands of tons of toxic slag from the production of 1 & 2 euro coins is being dumped off shore around Europe.     As the protest in Greece continued this morning, with activists hanging banners from the loading cranes which read "Stop Dumping" and, in Greek, "No Toxics at Sea", Greenpeace also demanded that the Greek government enforce international laws which ban the dumping of industrial waste at sea.     For the complete story, please see: http://www.greenpeace.org/press/release?press_id=68647&campaign_id=

Milton Keynes Vote goes against Shanks

NIFE - 12 October 2002

At a packed meeting (500-600 residents) held in the sports centre MK Planning Committee voted unanimously to reject the application by Shanks for a 950,000 tpa waste treatment facility with 360,000 tpa fluidised bed incinerator. (Alan Watson, Public Interest Consultants)

Milton Keynes to vote on Shanks bid to build £160m waste plant

NIFE - 11 October 2002

Milton Keynes councillors will meet tonight to take the final decision over whether or not to deny Shanks Waste Services permission to build an incinerator at its site in Bletchley.     In the week after the city signed the Zero Waste charter (see letsrecycle.com story), a special planning meeting of the Milton Keynes Council is expected to reject the proposal by Shanks for an integrated waste facility. Shanks had been applying to build a £160 million plant on their landfill site that would handle around 350,000 tonnes of waste a year. But letsrecycle.com has learned that councillors are being advised by officers to reject the proposal on a number of grounds.       A council document states that the development would "encourage the importation of untreated waste from London and other regions in the vicinity of the site". It also says that "with the information currently to hand, it appears that the proposal would dominate parts of Bletchley and would, therefore, have a damaging effect on the visual amenity and subsequently the economic and social fabric of the area".     According to the document, insufficient information had been provided to the council to show that the facility would be the Best Practical Environmental Option. The document also stated that the proposal had not adequately addressed the effects on land drainage, surface and waste water disposal, existing water courses, land stability and landfill gas.     Councillors have also been warned that the proposal would "require works to be carried out during night time hours which, potentially, will cause disturbance to local residents neighbouring the application site."     The recommendation to refuse the facility is based on the application "as currently proposed", and it is not yet known whether Shanks would return with another proposal after any rejection.

COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLAN COULD BAN INCINERATOR

CHASE - 09 October 2002

Cork Harbour, Ireland. Anti-Incinerator campaigners have had a major boost to their campaign with the publication of the Proposed Amendment to the Draft County Development Plan. If the Amendment is adopted, the new County Development Plan will effectively prohibit merchant incineration in industrialized areas such as Ringaskiddy in the future. CHASE (Cork Harbour Area for a Safe Environment) is currently objecting to a proposal by Indaver Ireland to build a 100,000 tonne hazardous waste incinerator, followed by a 100,000 municipal waste incinerator in the Ringaskiddy Area.    The proposed changes acknowledge that industrial areas may be suitable for some waste management activities, but specifically excludes landfill and incineration because they have effects potentially reaching far beyond the immediate area of a particular site and should therefore not be allowed on land zoned for general industry.    CHASE Chairman, Sean Cronin commented "We are extremely proud of the Cork County Councillors, who have obviously taken on board the concerns of their constituents. This is a tremendous boost to our campaign, and we will be focusing all our resources to ensure that this Amendment is included in the Final County Development Plan."     In the meantime, Councillors are expected to vote next week (Mon 14 October) on the Material Contravention of the existing County Development Plan, which is necessary in order to proceed with the granting of planning to Indaver Ireland.

Incineration is NOT recovery

GAIA - 27 September 2002

Environment Daily 1296, 27/09/02   -------------------------   Environmental groups are celebrating after a European court of justice   judge argued yesterday that municipal waste incineration is always   waste disposal and not recovery. The legal opinion could spell an end   in Europe to cross-border shipments of municipal waste for   incineration. It also provides a major political boost to   anti-incineration campaigners.     The case concerns a European Commission bid to overrule a decision by   Luxembourg to block exports of municipal waste for incineration in   France. Luxembourg justified its ruling by invoking the proximity   principle. This was illegal, the Commission argued, because the EU's   waste shipments regulation says the principle can only be used to   prevent shipments going to disposal, whereas incineration with energy   recovery is a recovery operation (ED 17/10/00   http://www.environmentdaily.com/articles/index.cfm?action=article&ref=8554).     This February, while the case was proceeding, the court delivered its   first verdict differentiating between recovery and disposal under the   regulation. In this it ruled that an operation should be regarded as   recovery if use of the waste meant replacing other materials that would   otherwise have been used. Both sides in the present case claimed this   as supporting their own position (ED 27/02/02   http://www.environmentdaily.com/articles/index.cfm?action=article&ref=11671).     In his opinion, court advocate general Francis Jacobs sides firmly   with Luxembourg. A new principle of EU waste law, he suggests, should   be whether the "principal objective" of an incineration plant is to   eliminate waste or to recover energy. If the former then the operation   is disposal, if the latter it is recovery. On this basis, whether a   municipal waste incinerator recovers energy becomes immaterial.     In a second legal opinion delivered yesterday, Mr Jacobs backed   Commission arguments against a German attempt to prevent export of   waste for incineration in Belgian cement kilns. Applying the same   logic as in the Luxembourg case, he concludes that since the principal   objective is to provide energy for an industrial process, the operation   should be regarded as recovery.     A panel of judges will deliver final rulings on both cases in several   months' time. Though they are not bound to follow Mr Jacobs's   conclusions, his opinion on the Luxembourg case is sending shock waves   through the environmental policy-making community.     Environmental groups see the opinion as vital support for their stance   against waste incineration. It blights European trade in municipal   waste for incineration and indisputably puts it on a lower rung of the   EU's waste hierarchy than material recovery and recycling operations.     If the opinion is upheld, said Roberto Ferrigno of pressure group EEB,   "it will be a cornerstone in EU waste legislation". Had the case been   going in the opposite direction, he warned, "it would set EU waste   policies back 25 years". It would undermine a swathe of recent   legislation promoting recycling of end-of-life packaging, cars and   electronic equipment and turn EU accession states into "dumping   grounds" for municipal waste.     For Bill Duncan of waste industry association Assurre, however, the   opinion was a disappointment. "It's a real problem potentially," he   told Environment Daily. If confirmed by the court, he predicted,   shipping municipal waste abroad for incineration "will become such a   hassle that people won't do it". Such a ruling would also "give   ammunition to anti-incinerator campaigns", he said.     Differentiating between recovery and disposal on the basis of   calorific value of waste would be a more sensible approach, Mr Duncan   argued. And since all EU waste incinerators will have to meet   uniformly high emission standards by 2005, a main environmental   rationale for preventing cross-border waste shipments was evaporating,   he added.     Follow-up: European court of justice http://www.curia.eu.int/en/index.htm, tel:   +352 43031, opinion in cases C-458/00   http://www.curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Submit&docrequire=alldocs&numaff=c-458/00   (Luxembourg), and C-228/00   http://www.curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en& =Submit&docrequire=alldocs&numaff=c-228/00   (Germany); EEB http://www.eeb.org/, tel: +32 2 289 1090; Assurre   http://www.assurre.org/, tel: +32 2 772 5252.

Audit Commission slams Lewisham's recycling service

NIFE - 26 September 2002

The Audit Commission have criticised the London borough of Lewisham over its poor recycling record and lack of a waste management strategy.     Although a high level of diversion of waste from landfill has been achieved by the borough council by using energy-from-waste incineration, inspectors said that the borough collects relatively high levels of waste, while the level of collected waste being recycled is low.     The amount of fly-tipped waste was also marked out for concern. The inspectors' report gave the council a one-star rating out of a possible three, describing its prospects for improvement as 'uncertain'.     Commenting on their findings, managing inspector of the London Region Inspection Service Claire Bryce-Smith said: "The council collects a relatively high level of waste compared to other London boroughs, most of which is disposed of by incineration, avoiding the use of landfill sites. However, the levels of waste collected need to be reduced and levels of recycling increased in order to meet government targets." She added: "Lewisham must develop a coherent and integrated strategy to deliver improved waste management services to users and meet the targets set by government."     The Labour-controlled borough sees rubbish collected from around 110,000 households and 3,000 businesses. Its recycling facilities include the kerbside collection of paper and card for 60,000 households and 52 bring bank sites for a range of dry materials.     The majority of non-recycled collected wastes (103,000 tonnes in 2001/02 and 121,349 tonnes 2001/2002) are disposed of at the South East London Combined Heat and Power (SELCHP) plant under a 30-year contract that runs until 2023, with some fly-tipped or bulky household waste going to landfill (18,548 tonnes in 2001/02).     In their report, the Audit Commission inspectors said that Lewisham Borough Council needed to prepare an integrated waste management strategy and recycling plan that would address education and enforcement issues. Inspectors also recommended reviewing contract arrangements and partnerships for waste disposal and recycling

Success at the World Summit on Sustainable Development

GAIA - 12 September 2002

Johannesburg, South Africa, Sept. 11, 2002 -- One of the clear success stories of the recently ended World Summit on Sustainable Development is the Zero Waste project at the Global Forum in Johannesburg. The Earthlife Africa (ELA) Zero Waste project, with support from the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), far outperformed all the other summit venues with regard to minimisation and diversion of waste. Although preliminary figures show a diversion of between 70% and 80% at the Global Forum, whatever the final figure, it will be far in excess of the total for the entire Summit - which is around the 25% mark.    "This not only dramatically shows the merits of Zero Waste as an organizing principle, it shows that NGO's are also capable and competent agents of delivering innovative environmental services" says Muna Lakhani project co-ordinator from ELA Johannesburg. "This innovative system has proven that, with comparatively minimal resources, but with a good plan and a dedicated team, large diversions of waste from landfills and incinerators can take place."    The Zero Waste project at the Global Forum began by attempting to design as much waste out of the system to start with, (particularly plastics, with a focus on PVC and polystyrene) and then put into place  educational information systems; emission-free waste collection (on specially designed tricycles); and deployed an enthusiastic team of workers within the system. Under normal conditions at Nasrec, the  waste system that the Zero Waste team re-designed, would only have created about 6 jobs for the duration, and no permanent employment. Zero Waste systems create employment: the Zero Waste system at  the Global Forum created 90 part time jobs, and will leave behind an ongoing local benefit of about 40 and support for 10 existing full time jobs. All these jobs are for Black South Africans. Some attempts to design waste out of the system were not wholly successful, as water was still sold in PET (plastics) bottles, and lids and straws were still used, despite Coke's initial agreement not to use these products. Some Government departments and organisations "imported" unsustainable waste, mainly in the form of polystyrene containers. It is estimated that between 8% and 12% of the total waste stream was "imported", leading to a lower figure than would have been possible.    Reducing hazardous wastes is a vital part of Zero Waste Systems. The minimising of the use of toxic chemicals, by analysing the products normally used, and designing alternatives that are orders of magnitude less toxic, also contributed to the program’s success.     Already, many businesses, government departments (especially local government) and community groups have shown a keen interest in actively promoting the Zero Waste concept to reduce waste. Whatever success the World Summit may be overall, the Zero Waste project’s achievement of 70% to 80% waste reduction at the Earth Summit’s Global Forum shines out like a beacon in the dark, and shows that truly sustainable development is possible.

FRENCH GOV'T ADMITS WASTE INCINERATORS GIVE YOU CANCER

NIFE - 20 August 2002

For years we here and on the continent have all been told that incineration poses no health threat. A new official French report (Impact sanitaire passe et actuel d'incineration des ordures menageres d'Angers, Cellule inter-regionale d'epidmiologie Ouest, decembre 2001 - page 34) reveals for the first time that waste incinerators can give you cancer.     A totally independent French organisation known as CNNID (National centre for independent information on waste) who for years has been trying to highlight the dangers of dioxins produced through incineration has issued the following press release:    Quote:  AFTER MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS OF LIES  Paris, 19th August 02. The 'Journal du Dimanche' revealed yesterday the existence of a report which for the first time in France has officially revealed that waste incinerators can cause cancers. This information ought to speed up the matters and strike a chord with various governments who always denied these risks...    For Pierre Emmanuel Neurohr, Director of CNIID "Government departments have continued to inform us that waste incinerators pose no health threats. Today, they tell us that these plants cause cancer. And in the same breath, announce that the incinerators currently being constructed...will not pose a threat to our health.     Roselyne Bachelot's (Minister for Ecology) response to the report is one astonishing simplism given the issue is on cancer. Just like her predecessors ten years ago she maintains 'the discharges from these incinerators "practically"  disappear'. (Le Journal du Dimanche 18/8/02). Everything hinges on the word 'practically'.    Dioxins are measured in millionths of millionth of a gram. The new report confirms there is a link between incinerators and cancers, and points out there are a huge number of additional chemical compounds being emitted with further side effects which never get measured.(waste incineration - epidemiological report on West of France (December 01).    The gathering of this information on which this report is based was done by a local group, member of Coordination nationale pour la reduction des dechets a la source ((national coordination for the reduction of waste at source). This branch,   regroups more than 230 associations across France fighting against incineration and toxic contamination of the environment.    Faced with the gravity of the effects on the health of the population, the CNIID calls upon Roselyne Bachelot, Ministry of Ecology, to place an immediate moratorium on the building of incinerators and thus applying the precautionary principle.    Further information can be obtained by contacting Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr on telephone number : 00 33 1 55 78 28 64 or at 00 33 6 20 36 57 17 ((in French)).    Dioxins Diary:  February 1997 - The World Health Organisation (WHO) classify dioxins as carcinogenic to man.    April 1998- CPP The French Committee for prevention and precaution calculates dioxins in France kill between 1800 and 5200 people through cancer.    May 1998-For the first time CNIID (The National Independent Information Centre on incineration) reveals that meat sold in France is dioxin contaminated.    Sept.2000 - CNIID distributes independent scientific report and its conclusions, which established a connection between living near the Besancon incinerator and cancer; this report was published in the highly respected and world reknowned publication 'American Journal of Epidemiology' on 26th June 2000. Article:"Soft-Tissue Sarcoma and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Clusters around a Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator with High Dioxin Emission Levels" written by Jean-Francois Viel(epidemiologiste), Patrick Arveux (conference speaker on cancerology, Director of Doubs tumour registry, Josette Baverel (Public Health Doctor), Jean-Yves Cahn (professer of hematology in Besancon Faculty).    Oct. 2001- Closure of the Gilly-sur-Isere,, near Albertville, following a record dioxin level of milk contamination. Thousands of animals are slaughtered.    Aug.2002- The French Government for the first time recognises that one of the waste incinerators,(in Angers), can cause cancer.    The National Independent Information Centre (CNIID) is an ecological association on which its actions are based on,non-violence,promotion of public health and protection of the environment. CNIID declines all financial help from industries and governments.    The association therefore depends on your help. Should you wish to support CNIID you may telecharge against your card by simply clicking on:  http://www.cniid.org/Fichiestelechargeables/BulletCNIID2001.pdf    CNIID  Centre National D'Information Independente sur  les dechets,  51, rue Fbg St-Antoine  75011 Paris    Tel: 00 33 1 55 78 28 68  Fax: 00 33 1 55 78 28 61    website: www.cniid.org  Metro: Bastille our Ledru-Rollin    UNQUOTE    This is a 'free' translation, where some areas have been loosely translated.Copy of the original version can be made available to anyone wishing to view it

Kidderminster incinerator application beaten

SKI - 12 August 2002

Severn Waste will not appeal Kidderminster incinerator rejection (08.08.02)   Severn Waste Services announced today that they will not be challenging the planning inspector's decision to refuse planning permission for an energy from waste plant in Kidderminster.     The decision comes at the end of four years of legal wrangling over the proposed £40 million facility in the Midlands, during which Worcestershire County Council rejected planning permission in April 2001, leading to the Planning Inspectorate being called in when Severn Waste appealed the rejection.     After planning inspectors upheld that rejection in July 2002, Severn Waste had no further right of appeal unless they decided to take it to the High Court.     But a statement made by the company today said: "Following advice from Leading Counsel, and with the agreement of the Counties of Herefordshire and Worcestershire, Severn Waste Services does not intend to challenge in the High Court the process adopted by the Planning Inspector in making his decision to dismiss the Company’s appeal against refusal of planning permission for an Integrated Waste Management Facility at the British Sugar site in Kidderminster."     Despite an increase in recycling facilities in Worcestershire, the waste generation in the county has grown at a higher rate than predicted. Severn Waste will now have to consider other options in how to deal with it, and one of the options being considered is a bid to remove the 356,000 tonnes per annum limit on their landfill site at Throckmorton.     A spokesman for Worcestershire County Council said: "It's a glitch in our plans, but we have other ways to discuss and there will be a full council meeting in September to decide on the best way forward."     Perception  Severn Waste is the third major waste company to give up on incinerator projects in the last three months. In July 2002, Thames Waste Management decided not to appeal the refusal to grant planning permission for its proposed facility at the Slyfield Industrial Estate, Guildford, and in May 2002 SITA decided to drop plans to build an energy from waste plant at its Copyhold site in Redhill, Surrey.     Planning authorities do not need to prove that an incinerator is harmful in order to reject permission, only that it is perceived to be harmful by the public. Despite the increase in technology to produce ever cleaner EfW plants, the government is believed to be reacting to public fears and is expected to take a tougher line on incineration in their waste strategy after the Performance and Innovation Unit's Waste Review is published in October.    (Waste Management News)

Appeal rejected

FoE, Essex - 31 July 2002

PRESS RELEASE: 31st July 2002  Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator Essex Friends of the Earth   Neville Jessop, Chairman Sandon Parish Council   Graham Pooley, Chelmsford councillor)      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------    LORD JUSTICE LAWS SAYS NO LEGAL POWER TO HOLD 'ROGUE REFERENDUM'. COUNTY COUNCILLORS KNEW THERE WAS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO PERMIT INCINERATION WHEN THEY RUBBERSTAMPED ESSEX WASTE PLAN    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------      Lawyers for the three claimants against Essex County Council yesterday submitted an application for a Judicial Review, suggesting the 'eccentric' offer of a referendum had been a material consideration in councillors' decision to adopt the Waste Plan. They drew attention to a letter submitted as previous evidence written by the county councillor for Rayleigh South, to Lord Hanningfield the day after the decision by the new Conservative administration to adopt the waste plan. It said:    "Some people seem to be having trouble understanding the meaning of your statement concerning incinerators in Essex. I read it to mean that, during the lifetime of the current Conservative administration, there will be no incinerators in Essex unless the Labour Government requires them. If the Labour Government so decides, then a referendum will be held.....I hope you agree that my version of your statement is correct and, if so, I would be pleased if you will just write 'yes' and sign below." Lord Hanningfield signed 'Yes'.    Justice Laws said there was "no legal power to hold a referendum", which was "not a supportable proposition". He said that there had been huge public opposition in Essex to incineration with over 15,000 objectors and that "no-one would have any serious doubt as to why they added this phrase" about the "rogue" referendum to the motion but that there was "nothing in the minutes that the decision was dependent on a referendum".    The judge went through the transcript of the tape of part of the ECC Scrutiny Committee in July 2001 when the Cabinet decision was 'called in' by the opposition minority groups. The same Rayleigh councillor said: "I understand that the council can not adopt a plan which excludes incineration...now is that true?"     The officer said: "Any waste planning authority has the discretion as to what it includes, excludes from its plan, and as a matter of law that is the position." He went on to talk about the totally separate contract process and said you can't "exclude anything from the contract." This clearly confused the councillor who said: "that in my mind says that the fact we can not exclude incineration from the plan...."    Justice Laws agreed with Justice Sullivan's judgement and considered that only a minority of councillors were confused and that the conscious decision of the Conservative councillors last July to adopt the Waste Plan had been in the knowledge that they were not legally bound to include incineration.     The claimants' lawyers claimed that misinformation given to county councillors at the Scrutiny Committee that there were Government 'targets for incineration of 34% by 2015' had materially affected councillors' decision to adopt the Essex & Southend Waste Plan. There are statutory targets for recycling but none for incineration.     Judge Sullivan's judgement in March decided this would not have affected their decision. The High Court judges then rejected all the claims for a Judicial Review including that the misinformation given to councillors would have affected their decision about the Plan.     Paula Whitney said: "This has been very useful in establishing yet again that there never was any legal requirement to permit incinerators and that the offer of a referendum was just a political smokescreen. The judges believe that county councillors made a conscious decision to permit incinerators in Essex when they rubberstamped the Waste Plan."    Notes to Editors:    May 7th 2002: Labour motion supported by the LibDems for ECC to start the processes necessary to change the wording of incineration policy W7G, bearing in mind that the High Court action in March had reconfirmed that there was no legal requirement to permit incineration in waste plans. Conservative administration blocked the motion.    July 16th 2002: Labour motion supported by the LibDems at ECC full council, that bearing in mind the Conservative administration's recommitment against incineration, that ECC should adopt the recently-launched Zero Waste Charter and Ten Point Plan which had been adopted by Braintree council. The Conservatives voted against adopting it.    Graham Tombs, Chief Executive of Hampshire's Onyx 'Project Integra' has been employed by ECC as Head of Waste, Recycling and Environment. Onyx gained the Hampshire waste contract for 'integrated waste facilities' including three incinerators and a centralised recycling centre Project Integra, which costs 50% more than Essex spends for a similar amount of recycling (see ECC Best Value report October 2001). Onyx's parent company Vivendi has just crashed, but was one of the two largest utilities in Europe.

Judge says yes to review

Capel - 23 July 2002

By Anna Pointer, Dorking Advertiser      THE first stage in a gruelling battle to overturn plans for an   incinerator at Capel was won this week.    Following weeks of deliberation, permission to proceed with a   judicial review at London's High Court was granted to the Capel   Action Group after a judge decided it has a legitimate case.    The next phase to block Surrey Waste Management's planned incinerator   at Clockhouse Brickworks will involve a hearing in court to determine   if the case can progress further.    Action Group member John McCall said on Tuesday: A judge has seen   certain papers and says it's a serious enough issue to justify a   hearing.    "Some cases don't even get that far so I'm glad we've reached this   stage."    Although no date has yet been fixed for the hearing, Capel resident   Mr McCall said the Action Group's legal advisers are "confident" they   will be able to justify their claims during the hearing that the   incinerator plans should be quashed.    However, others in the district have reacted cautiously to the news,   fearing the cost of a judicial review will be so huge it could hit   council taxpayers in the district hard.    Mole Valley MP Sir Paul Beresford believes the early parts of the   review could cost £50,000 alone and said: "I worry the group is not   thinking ahead carefully enough.    "They have been given permission to go ahead but I hear it was a   marginal decision.    "It will be almost impossible for enough public funds from the   council to be put in. And if the county council appeals, the costs   could more than double."    Although Sir Paul was recently criticised for his failure to sign an   Early Day Motion on recycling, he stressed: "Whatever happens, we   have got to stop fighting each other, this is not party political."    County councillor Helyn Clack (Con, Dorking Rural) said she, too, is   worried about the impact the legal costs could have on the district   as a whole.    "It's going to be very difficult for people to come to terms with,"   she said.    "Are people in Mole Valley interested enough, and do they care   enough? We will soon find out."    Mrs Clack continued: "I'm cautious because it's going to cost so much   money, but I wish them all the best."    Despite her reservations, she said she firmly believes in parts of   the group's case against the waste plant.    "I have never been particularly against incineration but my main   point has always been that it's in the wrong place in this case.   That's their biggest argument.    "It should be located where waste arises, not in a small sleepy   village at the far end of the county."    This issue, also known as the proximity principle, is one of four   which the Action Group says the county council handled unlawfully   when it granted permission for the burner in December last year.    Two other points relate to the Waste Local Plan of 1997, which is   still undergoing review after it was criticised by Government   inspectors, and which stated that sites previously used for landfill   are inappropriate for incinerators.    The final issue concerns that of need, as the group says figures   regarding waste growth are misleading.    The Action Group has asked the district council for more than £5,000   to help pay for the significant legal costs which have already been   incurred and this will be discussed at a meeting next Tuesday night.          Copyright and Trade Mark Notice   © owned by or licensed to Trinity Mirror Plc 2002

BAD NEWS - ENVIRONMENT AGENCY GRANTS OPERATING LICENSE FOR CHINEHAM INCINERATOR!

BBAC - 17 July 2002

Despite vociferous opposition from local residents, a huge wealth of information concerning the potential dangers of incinerator emissions, pressure from people throughout the country and even a direct action campaign, the Environment Agency has granted a license to operate the Chineham burner, to Hampshire Waste Services and Onyx.     The Environment Agency, whose website proclaims: "... We are the leading public body for protecting and improving the environment in England and Wales" has today demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are both unwilling and incapable of protecting the very people they purport to represent.     The EA have further shown that they are much less a watchdog body than they are a quango, run by an institutionalised, unimaginative and jobs-worth civil servants, whose policy appears to be to wax lyrical on the need for a cleaner environment, while simultaneously bending over backwards to support the corporate interests, that are largely responsible for placing our environment in jeopardy in the first place.     The BBAC condemns the Environment Agency for this action, in the strongest possible terms. We believe that this decision has put the health of local residents in immediate peril (for a second time) and has once again demonstrated, that England will remain the "Dirty Man of Europe" for some time to come.     The wider implications of this Environment Agency decision will also perpetuate the existing problem of municipal waste disposal, because this decision will discourage councils throughout the country, from implementing recycling initiatives. Worse still, this decision demonstrates to the corporate interests involved, that the health of the nation is indeed for sale; it's just a question of how much slush money it will take, to buy it.    The BBAC continue to oppose this development and incineration in general terms as an aspect of a modern municipal waste disposal policy. We will be holding both the Environment Agency, and the Developers respective companies, personally accountable for the myriad of health and environmental issues that their short-sighted and greedy policies will invariably create.     The BBAC are calling on all concerned citizens, anti-incineration campaigners and activists throughout the UK, to lobby both the Environment Agency and the Labour party to start representing the public instead of the profiteers; by actively pursuing a policy of implementing recycling and industrial composting plants as viable alternatives to municipal waste incineration.

Kidderminster Incinerator stopped!!

SKI - 11 July 2002

We have received the decision of the Planning Inspector re the appeal by  Mercia Waste Management against the refusal of planning permission for an  integrated waste management facility at Kidderminster. Our appeal has been  dismissed. The Inspector has therefore upheld the Planning Authority¹s  decision to refuse permission for the facility to be built.  Over the next few weeks, the Company will be carefully considering the  grounds on which the appeal has been rejected, along with our partners the  Councils, before deciding what actions to take.  For information, there is no further right of appeal against the decision.  However there is a right of legal challenge should there be some problem  with the way the Inspector has approached the Decision. We will be examining  the Inspector¹s judgement carefully.  Area Director of Mercia Waste Management Phillip Sherratt said, ³We are  naturally very disappointed in the decision. Along with our advisors and our  Client, the Counties, we must carefully review all the points covered in the  Planning Inspector¹s decision notice, which is some 50 pages long.  ³This facility was a pivotal component in the Councils¹ integrated waste  management strategy that we are contracted to deliver and so all parties  must consider carefully how we move on to achieve the Councils¹ objectives.  ³In the meantime, householders in Herefordshire and Worcestershire are  continuing to generate waste at the rate of over 1000 tonnes every day, and  we shall continue to provide a safe and environmentally secure service to  the best of our ability, and in full compliance with all statutory  requirements.²  - ends -  Contacts:   Spokesperson: Phil Sherratt, Area Director, Severn Waste Services on  01386 443376  For general enquiries: Ian Barber, Marketing Director on 01386 425243  Sylvia Herbert, Public Relations Officer on 01386 443376, fax 01386 446757,  email enquiries@severnwaste.com  Editor¹s Notes:  ? Future statements will be made available on this website  ? Severn Waste Services is charged with delivering the waste management  contract for Mercia Waste Management, the company that has a 25 year  contract under the Private Finance Initiative to deliver Worcestershire  County Council and Herefordshire Council¹s integrated waste management  strategy - a strategy that was designed to meet government targets for waste  reduction and increased recycling. Currently, only about 12% of the  Councils¹ waste is recycled. Severn Waste currently operates 16 household  waste sites across Worcestershire and Herefordshire, as well as the Hill and  Moor landfill site near Pershore, where household waste that is not  currently recycled is taken for disposal.  ? Any enquiries relating to the future of the waste management strategy in  Herefordshire and Worcestershire and in relation to the contract between  Mercia Waste Management and the councils should be addressed to Richard  Wiggington, Superintendant Officer, Waste Management at Worcestershire  County Council on 01905 763763.  ? Copies of the full decision can be obtained from The Planning  Inspectorate, Decision Letter Library, 3/15A Kite Wing, Temple Quay House, 2  The Square, Temple Quay, BRISTOL BS1 6PN Tel: 0117 372 8759. There may be a  nominal charge.

EU to curb dioxins levels in food/feed from today

NIFE - 01 July 2002

BRUSSELS - Food and animal feed manufacturers across the European Union  must abide by strict new limits on permitted levels of cancer-causing  dioxins from July 1, the European Commission said last week.      Dioxins are accidental by-products generated mainly through incineration by  the chemical and pharmaceutical industries and can be absorbed through the  skin or eaten in food.    Scientific studies have linked them to birth defects and brain damage.    Dioxins remain in the atmosphere for a long time and once absorbed by  animals become trapped in their fatty tissues.    EU health boss David Byrne said that from Monday food or feed products  exceeding set permissible limits would be removed from the food chain as  part of an EU strategy to improve the safety and quality of feed and food  after recent food scares.    "Very few countries in the world have any binding limits for the presence  of dioxin in place," Byrne said in a statement.    "Thus the EU is paving the way forward to improved public health  protection," he said.    The maxmimum dioxin levels for meat from ruminant animals such as cows and  sheep has been put at two pg (picogrammes per gramme of fat) while dioxins  in pig and poultry meat are fixed at one pg.    In 1999 dioxins were discovered in Belgian food which were thought to have  entered through animal feed.    Belgium saw its meat and dairy exports banned by many countries around the  world as a result.      REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

4 WEEKS FOR REGIONAL RUBBISH STRATEGY RESPONSES

FoE, Essex - 30 June 2002

Can you send your comments and thoughts on the draft RWTAB strategy to me please? Time is running out to wake the public up about the draft regional waste strategy - deadline for responses 31st July! We need to be out on the streets with stalls getting people to realize that the draft strategy means polluting incinerators, with our recycling collections and composting managed badly by the incinerator operators. We need to get the press in each region to publicize the scam. Confidential major waste contracts will be given out.    Each county will be permitting (if they haven't already done so) a waste disposal company Onyx (Vivendi/Viridor/WRG etc) or SITA (Suez/Entec etc) or Shanks to take over the collection (if they can) AND disposal contracts to build expensive centralised MRFs alongside the emerging incinerators (with confidential contracts).    You may remember that not long ago the Environment Agency produced a regional report which said that if we only recycled and composted 40% (the highest figure suggested in their calculations) the whole region would only need two small incinerators. Since then it has been widely recognized that around 50% or over recycling and composting is already being achieved in many countries in the EU.     It should also be remembered that our agricultural eastern region should be composting the garden waste for returning valuable nutrients to our depleted soils. As around one-third of domestic waste is garden waste, composting, not incineration, is the way forward. Unfortunately, mass waste disposal companies are not composting properly, with the result that 'compost' has been of such poor quality it has had to be dumped in landfill.    Waste strategy consultation: 'Self-sufficiency' or 'Proximity Principle':    At both the Harlow and the Bury workshops, the attendees made the point that recyclables have to move beyond county boundaries which are artificial boundaries and that it was not right to try to artificially restrict necessary movement of waste. For example, paper going to Aylesford in Kent, aluminium up to Warrington (where they import 70% of their alu cans), plastics to Peterborough (where they import 80% of their plastic bottles). It is collection and baling centres which must be locally-based at each town, not centralised.    I also made the point at both meetings that our Waste Plan Inspector said that you cannot stop movement of waste, which is a commodity, but that our officers ignored his advice..... Onyx/SITA etc would prefer that recyclables are burned within the county waste contract's boundaries I am sure!! Especially paper and plastics, which they love to collect in pink plastic bags or wheelie bins 'commingled' with baked bean cans which produces an unmarketable paper and also keeps the recycling contracts in the control of the incinerator operator. 40% gets wasted, and they have the best combustibles sorted for them!    I haven't finished reading the draft yet but like all mixed rubbish it doesn't smell nice!! I have seen flaws, omissions and double-entendres such as the slides shown to the Bury St. Edmunds little group of a dozen or 15 dear little well-meaning 'stakeholders'. A host of RWTAB people were hovering and 'observing' the workshop and commented on the knowledgeable participants(?).     The consultation had slides and print-outs which concentrated heavily on self-sufficiency, minimisation, landfill etc. and had only 8 minutes left to discuss disposal (they added 15 minutes on to the meeting), e.g.:  'Self-sufficiency. After 2010 only residues (or where no other option for treatment of waste) will be acceptable into landfills in the region'  I pointed out both at the Harlow meeting and the workshop that the EU counts sorting recyclables at the kerbside as 'treatment' or 'pre-treatment' and the remainder as 'residues' which can be landfilled which means you can increase recycling and composting and reduce landfill year by year. The draft avoids mentioning it and pussy-foots round the issue at 2.15 saying the definition 'is still being considered' (yes, by our Government!).    RECOVERY:    On these consultation slides the Government recycling targets are not mentioned (they are on the Lewis Herbert slides). figures for MINIMUM RECOVERY TARGETS are given:    'Targets:    Challenging but achievable targets should be adopted by all Authorities/commercial waste producers.    Minimum levels of RECOVERY:  Municipal Waste - recovery of 40% at 2005, 50% at 2010 and 70% at 2015.   Commercial & Industrial Waste - recovery of 66% at 2005, 75% at 2015.  Maximise the level of recycling.  Annual Monitoring.'    These are even higher 'recovery' (= recycling, composting, Anaerobic Digestion OR incineration of waste) than the Government's Waste Strategy 2000 of 45% recovery (min 30% recycling) by 2010, and 67% (min 33% recycling) by 2015. The recycling targets have been widely ridiculed because Austria, Switzerland, Holland and Germany and many many Canadian, North American, Australian and New Zealand recycling figures were about 50% or over already by 2000.    RECYCLING AND RESIDUES    I have yet to see any raised recycling targets in the draft regional strategy. I have yet to see mention of the fact that incineration in practice only reduces what is burned by about half by weight (figures from Edmonton available for 1996 and 1997 show over 50% sent to Pitsea landfill, with fly ash and bottom ash mixed, plus waste which bypasses the plant during shutdowns, maintenance and because it is non-combustible).    I did mention at the Bury workshop that I wasn't happy that Essex had had to receive the 'residues' of London incinerators and mentioned the Edmonton residues formerly went to Pitsea and half SELCHP residues went to Aveley in Essex and half to Kent before they started 'recycling' the toxic ash into building blocks. That went down like a lead balloon - glazed expressions from the observers! It's probably beyond their comprehension.    So the 'recovery' % by incineration has to be halved (or incineration capacity doubled) to reduce the waste by any set %. Incineration is the slowest and most expensive way to reduce landfill requirement.     EU LANDFILL, COMPOSTING, PACKAGING DIRECTIVES:     A EU Landfill Directive key objective is to reduce the amount of putrescible/biodegradable waste going into landfill because it rots down, creating methane, a potent global warming gas, and leachate which causes pollution problems. Garden waste is roughly one-third of MSW and paper and card roughly one-quarter. It is not requiring us to build incinerators to burn it. It wants us to compost and recycle this.     In fact the emerging Composting Directive will recommend that we collect garden and kitchen waste and the Packaging Directive will require 55% of packaging including paper and card to be RECYCLED by mid 2006 BY LAW! At present 55% is the average recycling/composting of packaging across the EU. Britain is at the bottom of the heap as usual. So will we have food mountains and paper mountains soon, having ignored the other Directives and spending waste budgets and taxes piling up cars, fridges, etc.?     The EU are requiring Britain to reduce the biodegradable fraction of our domestic waste by two-thirds. Govt says 60% of domestic waste (MSW = Municipal Solid Waste) is biodegradable (BMW = Biodegradable Mixed Waste). To comply with the EU Directive we should be reducing this biodegradable element by two-thirds by 2020. This is only 40% of the domestic waste. This is not difficult and we could compost two-thirds of the garden waste and recycle and/or compost two-thirds of the paper almost immediately, not by 2020!!!    WASTE GROWTH A MYTH - BUT WHAT IS GROWING?    All waste is measured by weight. Waste growth is a myth - but wet weather increases weight of garden waste (one third of MSW); and commercial waste has been filtering into the Civic Amenity Sites since the landfill tax was set, because it's free. I've watched it going in myself. Very detailed professional kerbside waste audits in Essex showed level waste arisings for four or five years. However, wheelie bins increase waste by 30% to 50% because anything can go in such as bricks and car batteries - all hidden rubbish.    WHEELIE BINS & WHEELIE BIN TRUCKS:    Wheelie bins and wheelie bin trucks are an anathema to good separated kerbside recycling collections. When you separate your waste no part of the waste stream is suitable for a wheelie. The trucks are expensive, slow and inefficient. They lock the council into the system having invested in the beastly ugly and smelly cumbersome things.     The trucks have to go to each wheelie bin to pick it up separately, clogging up urban areas, whereas binmen can pick up a load of light rubbish or plastic bottle recycling bags and take them to a central pile to be collected. The trucks are environmentally bad in urban areas but rural areas too, having to visit dispersed houses with all that diesel pollution.    I am shortly going to run a fifth seminar (probably at Chelmsford) and bring to Essex the lastest success stories of economic, efficient and effective kerbside collection of properly separated dry recyclables, and kitchen waste to be collected at the kerb to be invessel composted, and, separately, garden waste for composting at farms in windrows. Enzo Favoino and Matt Pumphrey are ready to come. I want to bring the PCVs over, the efficient electric recycling buggies for urban areas, and Worku Lakew will show how these collect more than a large truck for 95% cost reduction.    From local, to Government, to regional, we must campaign at all levels. Email, write or phone if you would like to attend (might be July or more likely in September). We need some funding from councils or elsewhere to get Enzo over from Italy and bring Worku's urban electric recycling buggies down from London.    Best wishes to everyone in the Zero Waste campaign.    Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator Essex FoE, Director Zero Waste Alliance,  4 Shears Crescent, West Mersea, Essex, CO5 8AR.  (01206/383123)

BRAINTREE IS FIRST COUNCIL IN ESSEX TO ADOPT ZERO WASTE CHARTER LAUNCHED LAST WEEK AT WESTMINSTER

FoE, Essex - 30 June 2002

On Wednesday Braintree was the first Essex council to adopt the Zero Waste Charter and Ten Point Plan launched at Westminster. Braintree's MP Alan Hurst supported the Charter at the meeting hosted by Guildford MP Sue Doughty and attended by Cllr Terry Sutton and MP Bob Russell for Colchester council, who hope to also adopt the Charter.    The concept of Zero Waste spread from Canberra and Western Australia to New Zealand - the first country to adopt Zero Waste by 2020 - and to Toronto and the largest US state of California. Bath & N.E. Somerset, the first British council to adopt a Zero Waste policy, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth signed the Charter at Westminster.     Launching the Zero Waste Charter to recycle and compost 50% by 2010, 75% by 2015 with a Zero Waste target for 2020, speakers told of the urgency to save resources, cut pollution and global warming gases and stop dumping or burning our valuable resources.  It calls for urgent doorstep collection for recyclables and garden waste and a ban by 2006 on landfilling biodegradable waste which creates methane and leachate in landfill.     The Zero Waste Charter demands the end of mixed waste incineration, and transparent disposal contracts for a maximum of ten years. Landfill Tax must be extended to incineration and used to fund recycling programmes and a Zero Waste Agency established to promote recycling and act as a guardian of public health.     15,500 Essex people and eleven councils objected to the final consultation on the Essex Waste Plan, which permits incinerators at six identified sites 'or at other locations'. These objections were processed in twelve workings days and rejected by the Conservative administration when they rubberstamped the Plan last year.    Braintree's motion also asks the county council again to change the wording of the waste plan's notorious incineration policy W7G. In May the Conservative county administration blocked a proposal by the Labour and LibDem minority groups to start the processes necessary to change the wording of W7G. It was confirmed in the recent High Court case that there is no legal requirement to permit incinerators in waste plans.     The motion also agreed to ask the Government to retrospectively remove the 'NFFO' subsidies promised to 29 incinerators in 1998 including Braintree's identified site at Rivenhall Airfield. These incinerators were promised subsidy and connection to the National Grid under the final 'NFFO agreement'.     NFFO - Non Fossil Fuel Obligation - was set up to support renewable energy and cut global warming gases. £420 million, which should have supported renewable energy such as wind and solar power, has already been paid out to subsidise Britain's twelve polluting incinerators. Far more energy is saved through recycling materials than can be produced from burning valuable resouces, which also creates global warming gases.     Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator of Essex Friends of the Earth said:    "Well done Braintree council! The Government must listen to people from across Britain who want recycling and composting - not polluting incinerators and landfill!"

WASTE INCINERATOR BATTLE TAKEN TO WESTMINSTER

Zero Waste UK - 18 June 2002

PRESS RELEASE: 24th June 2002  Essex Friends of the Earth,  4 Shears Crescent, West Mersea, Essex, CO5 8AR  (01206/383123)      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------      WASTE INCINERATION BATTLE TAKEN TO WESTMINSTER - CAMPAIGNERS PUT PRESSURE ON GOVERNMENT TO CHANGE BRITAIN'S WASTE STRATEGY      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------      The Government is currently reassessing their Waste Strategy 2000 after public outcry at incinerator proposals across Britain from Hull to Guildford to Essex as incinerator companies are given 25 or 30-year contracts by county councils which allow them to build huge incinerators to burn waste. Pressure for a new recycling and composting strategy came from the Parliamentary Select Committee in its damning report last year.     Councils like Guildford are fighting incinerator sites. Labour just lost control of Hull after 60 years to the LibDems over the agreed incinerator. 25,500 Essex people and eleven councils objected to the Essex Waste Plan which permits incinerators at six identified sites 'or at other locations'. They were ignored by the new Conservative county council - elected on a 'no incineration' manifesto - when they rubberstamped the Plan last year.    Anti-incineration campaigners and MPs from across the length and breadth of Britain converged on Westminster for a Parliamentary meeting 'Beyond Recycling - Towards Zero Waste', hosted by Guildford's MP Sue Doughty, the LibDem waste spokesperson. Zero Waste policies are being adopted worldwide to eliminate waste and incineration.    The 'Zero Waste Charter and Ten Point Plan' was launched, and signed by Greenpeace incineration campaigner Miranda Holmes, Friends of the Eartth's Executive Director Charles Secrett, Ralph Ryder of Communities Against Toxics, Joelle van Tinteren of newly-formed UK Zero Waste Alliance, and Marion Williams, of Labour's environment campaign, SERA. Essex MPs Bob Russell and Alan Hurst helped launch the Charter.     Speakers told of the urgency of the environmental need to reduce global resource and energy waste and pollution and halt the culture of wasteful one-use-only products. To move to polluting incinerators is madness, driven by the major waste incineration multi-nationals like French companies Onyx and SITA - Britain is the only expansion zone!     The concept of Zero Waste - with no incineration - has spread from Canberra, Australia and New Zealand - the first country to adopt Zero Waste by 2020 - to Toronto and California. Bath & N.E. Somerset, the first British council to adopt a Zero Waste policy, signed the Charter at Westminster. Colchester and Braintree are now considering it.    The Charter calls for recycling targets of 50% by 2010, 75% by 2015 and a Zero Waste target for 2020. It calls for doorstep collections for recyclables and garden waste and a ban on landfilling organic waste by 2006.     It demands the end of waste incineration and transparent contracts for no longer than ten years. Landfill Tax must be extended to incineration and used to fund recycling programmes and a Zero Waste Agency established to promote recycling and act as a guardian of public health.     Afterwards, Moses was on College Green with the Zero Waste Ten Commandments on his tablet of stone! The Essex recycling and incineration giant dragons battled it out, with the Essex Wonderland characters - the Mad Hatter with his Westminster incinerator teapot and Alice carrying the recycling message. Campaigners from Newcastle, Derby, Hull, Norfolk, Bedfordshire, London, Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex and Kent joined us.     INNOVATIVE ELECTRIC RECYCLING VEHICLES WILL WIN THE WASTE WAR!    But the stars for the day were two low cost electric recycling vehicles used in three London Boroughs and ideal for congested or narrow urban streets such as Guildford, Hull, Chelmsford or Colchester. They move silently along the pavements collecting 3 to 4 tonnes per day - more than a huge truck - at a daily cost of 7p to recharge the battery!     Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator of Essex Friends of the Earth and a Director of the newly-formed UK Zero Waste Alliance, said:    "The Government must listen to people from across Britain who want Zero Waste - recycling and composting - not incinerators and landfill. If district councils are serious about recycling and kerbside collection of separated high quality recyclate, and they want to save overheads, then the brilliant electric recycling buggies used in London are the answer to urban congestion and pollution. The Essex districts' consultants Ecologika recommended them for Chelmsford and Colchester - let's get some in Essex!"

'MAD HATTER'S TRIAL' on County Hall steps.

FoE, Essex - 17 June 2002

Protest against Conservative county councillors refusal to change the Waste Plan's incineration policy.     Wonderland protest at the Conservative county councillors' continued refusal to stop incinerators being built in Essex. Last month they blocked a motion put by the Labour and LibDem county minority groups to start the processes necessary to change the wording of W7G, the policy in the Waste Plan which permits incinerators to be built in Essex.    Lord Hanningfield has repeatedly said that Essex is legally obliged to include incineration in the Waste Plan, in spite of Government statements to the contrary. Last December Minister Michael Meacher again said there is categorically no such legal requirement.     There must be a waste plan and a strategy to deal with waste. There must be a robust policy about incineration to deal with incinerator applications, which can of course be excluded from the plan area, as proposed by the Consortium of eleven district councils.    District councils are also demanding that the wording of the incineration policy is changed after the March High Court case again established that it is not unlawful to exclude incineration. Judge Sullivan described Lord Hanningfield as 'confused' and his offer of a referendum as 'irrational'. It would have no status in planning law.    The spoof Wonderland midsummer madness panto 'Who Will Save the Tarts?' brought the county portfolio-holders to give evidence in front of the Wonderland judge, the Queen of Hearts: the Mad Hatter (Lord Hatterfield), the March Hare (Ron Billions of Tarts) and the Cook, (Kitchen Tray). The Knave of Hearts, was in paper chains, accused of wanting to burn the tarts.     The March Hare said: "Even if we eat the very demanding 60% of the tarts there will still be one million tarts to burn!" The Queen said he couldn't do his sums properly and called Alice to give evidence, who pleaded that the children of Wonderland wanted to eat all of the tarts. The Queen ruled that the Wonderland Tart Plan would be changed so no tart incinerators would be built in Wonderland!     The Government has repeatedly stated that local authorities have the choice of waste facilities in consultation with their local communities. Alice carried the real Essex evidence that ECC has ignored 25,500 objectors and eleven district councils who want to reduce, re-use, recycle and compost all Essex waste.     Alice presented Essex County and Braintree councillor Phil Barlow a copy of the Zero Waste Charter and Ten Point Plan which both Braintree and Colchester councils are proposing to adopt and which was launched at Westminster yesterday.    Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator of Essex Friends of the Earth said:    "What can we do to stop incinerators in Essex when we have such obstinate county hall politicians who refuse to start the processes necessary to change the wording of the incineration policy W7G, which permits incinerators at six Essex identified sites 'or at other locations'?"

Chineham (Basingstoke) construction stopped on Global Day of Action

Greenpeace - 17 June 2002

For immediate release: Monday 17th June 2002    CONSTRUCTION OF NEW INCINERATOR HALTED BY ACTIVISTS -GOVERNMENT MISLEADS  PUBLIC OVER NEW RUBBISH BURNERS    Activists from anti-incineration groups across the country joined forces  with Greenpeace today to halt construction of the new Basingstoke  incinerator. At 6.30 am 100 activists invaded the Basingstoke plant, due to  open in October. If allowed to start burning household rubbish the new  incinerator will emit large quantities of dioxin chemicals that get into the  food chain and cause cancer. The Government recently warned that a third of  UK adults and half of Britain's babies and toddlers take in more dioxins  than is safe.    Today (17th June) is global anti-incineration day with protests in fifty  countries around the world. It looks set to be the biggest protest against  incineration to date. Greenpeace is participating as a member of GAIA, the  Global Anti- Incineration Alliance. Taking part in the Basingstoke  occupation are representatives from incinerator action groups from Hull,  Bradford, Essex, Derbyshire, Brighton, Kent, London, Milton Keynes,  Guildford and Wales.     Despite recent Government claims that only a "handful" of new waste  incinerators will be built in Britain, Greenpeace research published today,  shows that by 2010 alone Britain will have 43 new incinerators, in addition  to the 15 currently operating. (1).     The 100 activists from groups opposing new incinerators in their areas or  trying to get existing plants shutdown have pledged to continue their  occupation until construction is permanently halted on the plant. Some  people have locked themselves onto machinery while others have occupied the  roof of one of the buildings. A team of climbers has set up camp in  helicopter cargo nets suspended from the framework of one unfinished  building and another activist has occupied the top of a nearby crane.    Greenpeace incineration campaigner Mark Strutt said,    "People from across the country have come here to say enough  is enough. We don't want more incinerators to poison our food with cancer  causing chemicals. We must ban incinerators now. We are already at a stage  where the government is warning that half of Britain's babies and toddlers  take in more dioxins than is safe.    "The Government is trying to mislead the public by claiming  only a handful of new rubbish burners will be built when in fact 43 are in  the pipeline. Politicians are clearly trying to downplay the role they want  these poisonous plants to play in dealing with our waste because they are  worried about massive public outcry. We hope today sends a clear message  that people don't want or need incinerators."    People don't need to live near an incinerator to risk exposure to cancerous  dioxins. Over 95% of human exposure comes through our food especially fat in  milk, meat, eggs and fish. Dioxins can travel for miles on air currents and  contaminate farmland. Animals and fish take up dioxins from the food they  eat and also from any soil or sediment they also consume while eating, for  example cows consume significant amount of soil when grazing. According to  the Food Standard Agency, the Basingstoke incinerator, which is in an  agricultural area, will add to dioxin levels in the human food chain. (2)    Incinerators release many other toxic chemicals as well as dioxins. These  chemicals include heavy metals and acid gases as well as fine particles,  which can damage lungs.    The Basingstoke plant claims it will be a "combined heat and power station",  however generating energy from waste this way is extremely inefficient. It  is a huge waste of energy to remanufacture new materials instead of  recycling them. Burning plastics gives off the most energy but plastics are  made from oil so burning them not only emits highly toxic chemicals but also  gives off global warming gases. Britain already has a massive resource of  green energy such as wind, wave and solar power and investing taxpayer's  money in so called 'energy from waste' schemes is depriving these genuine  sources of money.    Hampshire has a recycling rate of 25% which is currently better than much of  the UK but is put to shame by other towns and cities around the world.  Recycling and composting has enabled the city of Edmonton in Canada to cut  municipal waste by 70%, Canberra in Australia and Flanders in Belgium by  59%. In the UK, Wye in Kent recycles 75%. Many more regions in the UK could  reach 60% recycling in the next few years but this will not be an option for  Hampshire. Three new incinerators will mean they are committed to burning  nearly 400,000 tonnes of rubbish every year for the next 20 years

INCINERATION CAMPAIGNERS IMMEDIATELY LODGED APPLICATION TODAY TO APPEAL

FoE, Essex - 07 May 2002

TORIES PLEDGED NO INCINERATION. WHY DID THEY SCUPPER LIB/LAB MOTION TO REWORD INCINERATION POLICY W7G IN THE WASTE PLAN?   INCINERATION CAMPAIGNERS IMMEDIATELY LODGED APPLICATION TODAY TO APPEAL AGAINST THE HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------        The motion put forward today by the LibDems and supported by the Labour group, who added a useful amendment, proposed started proceedings to change the wording of the incineration policy W7G (full wording below emails). This would comply with the stated anti-incineration position of all three political groups at County Hall and the Consortium of eleven Essex councils. It would not have required the Waste Plan to be torn up. The Waste Plan Inquiry Inspector said the Plan has to be reviewed very soon now anyway.         However, this vitally important initiative was blocked by the Conservatives. The proceedings in the council chamber unfortunately showed the true Tory colours. Straight after the motion was scuppered by the ECC Conservative ruling group, the three claimants lodged their application to appeal against the High Court judgement.        The Conservative amendment took out the final crucial words of the motion "to commence the processes necessary in order to reword the Essex & Southend Waste Plan so that it better reflects the County Council's stated opposition to incineration in Essex, and provides a more suitable framework for dealing with any planning applications for incinerators in the County." The LibDems and Labour could not support the gutted motion.        Today LibDem and Labour councillors put on record in the council chamber that the High Court judgement had confirmed that there is no legal requirement to permit incineration in waste plans, that the judge described Lord Hanningfield as 'confused' and 'irrational', and that his suggestion of a referendum had no status in law.        An extraordinary statement by Lord Hanningfield suggested that the Waste Plan "had nothing to do with the way we deal with waste in our county*", and that we had to "devise a way to get rid of the waste over the years". Gerard McEwen said he was "irritated" by this motion, that talking about incineration was "boring" and we are wasting time.        Phil Barlow said that Hertfordshire has a 'no incineration' waste strategy. Jenny Holland said the court judgement made it 'chrystal clear' there is no legal requirement and that the 'empty promises of a referendum had no validity'. Was the professed Conservative opposition to incineration 'real or illusory'?         Paul Sztumpf made it clear that the Waste Plan would stand until altered, which would not leave a vacuum, while the county reviewed the Plan to alter the wording. He said the Conservative amendment 'takes the heart out of the motion' to change the wording of the incineration policy W7G.        Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator for Essex Friends of the Earth says:         "Last July the Conservatives said were forced to include incineration in the Waste Plan. This motion was delayed until after the local elections. Their arrogant refusal now to change the incineration policy when it was proved there was no legal requirement, might have shocked some of their supporters at elections in proposed sites such as Basildon, Epping, Colchester and Rochford.        We must therefore keep challenging the flawed Waste Plan and incineration policy W7G until all the legal opportunities have been exhausted. We risk doubling the present costs of nearly £30,000 but donations of over £10,000 have been received already."        (*N.B. The Waste Plan is the land-use planning document on which all incinerator applications will be judged. Incineration policy W7G permits incinerators at six identified sites "or at other locations".)        Donations towards the legal costs can be made out to EarthRights Solicitors, marked on the reverse 'Waste Legal Challenge Fund', and sent to Little Orchard, School Lane, Molehill Green, Takeley, Essex, CM22 6PJ.

High Court Challeng lost - but with significant policy wins

FoE, Essex - 04 April 2002

We thank people for £9,000 received in donations already towards the £25,000 costs of the High Court challenge to Essex County Council's adoption of the incineration policy W7G in the Waste Plan. Our grounds were rejected by the judge, but most importantly we established that there is no legal requirement to include incineration in waste plans.     Geoffrey Gardner, in evidence for the county council, stated: "Neither in the reports nor in any oral statement at the meetings was there any suggestion that legal advice 'required' that the Plan should not exclude incineration"(1). Where did it come from then?    Our evidence included a letter from Lord Hanningfield which said: "we have taken advice and the exclusion of incineration from our Waste Plan would be unlawful" (2).    In a BBC Essex interview on 11th January Lord Hanningfield said: "The county council are totally against having incineration." John Hayes asked: "Why include it in the Waste Plan? That's not a legal requirement." He replied: "Because we have to by requirement of law ... If the High Court rules otherwise ... it'll have to presumably change the law of the land." (3)    Justice Sullivan said that the idea of a referendum had no standing in law and described councillors as 'confused'. We have now cleared up the confusion in the High Court! What's more it is already giving ammunition to campaigners against an incinerator in Hull whose councillors were also told they could not legally exclude incineration from the Plan.    We call on the Conservative county council to urgently adopt the alternative wording proposed by the Consortium of eleven district councils to exclude incinerators in Essex. Otherwise we will not be able to stop incinerators at the six identified sites 'or at other locations', as has happened at Maidstone and Portsmouth against the councils' wishes.     If anyone would like to send a donation, however small, and we have had generous donations from £5 to £1,000, please make a cheque out to EarthRights Solicitors (write 'Waste Legal Challenge Fund' on the reverse) and send it to EarthRights Solicitors, Little Orchard, School Lane, Molehill Green, Takeley, Essex CM22 6PJ.      (1) Witness statement of Geoffrey Gardner for ECC and SBC, 10/12/01  (2) Evidence submitted 14/11/01, Lord Hanningfield, ECC leader, letter to Blake (10/5/01)  (3) Evidence submitted, transcript BBC Essex interview John Hayes with Lord Hanningfield 11/1/02.

HIGH COURT CHALLENGE TO ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL - KEY PRINCIPLES CONCEDED BY COUNTY YESTERDAY

FoE, Essex - 26 March 2002

Lawyers for the three individuals challenging the Essex & Southend Waste Plan are 'quietly confident' that the challenge will be upheld. Key principles were established and Geoffrey Gardner, witness for the county council, conceded that he had given incorrect information to county councillors at the crucial Select Committee meeting last July. Judgment will be given in the High Court tomorrow, Wednesday, from 10.30am.     Last July the decision was made by the new Conservative administration to adopt the controversial Waste Plan, which permits incineration at six identified sites 'or at other locations'. This was in spite of previous vociferous cross-party opposition to incinerators in Essex and a strong pledge against incineration from the Conservatives during the election. It was claimed it was unlawful to exclude incineration.    Legal requirement for incineration: Yesterday William Upton, barrister for the three claimants, Neville Jessop, Graham Pooley and Paula Watson (nee Whitney), established that there is no legal requirement to permit incinerators in county waste plans, as repeatedly stated by county councillors. This was confirmed by the barrister for the county council and their witness, Gardner, denied giving councillors such misinformation. There is no Government requirement for incineration.    'Referendum' invalid in planning terms: Upton also established that a referendum, such as proposed by Lord Hanningfield when the new Conservative administration agreed to adopt the Waste Plan, would have no validity in planning terms and was meaningless.     Incorrect information: Geoffrey Gardner conceded he had given misinformation to councillors, two-thirds of whom were new, at the Select Committee which had been charged with scrutinising the Cabinet's decision to recommend adoption of the Waste Plan with the controversial incineration policy W7G. He maintained this would not have affected their decision. The incorrect information included:  That 'current' recycling levels were 10%-15%. In fact the Essex current 2000/2001 recycling average was 22%, with lowest recycling 16% (Braintree and Chelmsford) and the highest 30% (Brentwood). Even the previous year, 1999/2000, was an average 18%, from 13%-24%.   That we were 'running out of landfill': In fact it was established at the 1999 public inquiry that 15 years' of landfill capacity had been allocated, 5 more than should be allocated in advance. There is 50 years' potential landfill available at Stanway. As recycling and composting improves the need for landfill is diminishing and operators are asking for extensions in order to fill holes! All types of waste landfilled in Essex from all sources has reduced by 25% since 1997 (Environment Agency data).   Scaremongering: The county council's skeleton argument lodged at the eleventh hour on Friday included the claim that if the challenge is won it would be a 'catastrophic outcome' for the county and that '6 years of work' and 'substantial sums of Council tax payers money would have been wasted'. In fact if the Consortium's proposed amendments are adopted agreement could be reached within about a month between the lawyers.     The reason the plan is so inconsistent and the challenge had to be brought is that it has been railroaded through since 1999 when the deposit draft should have been properly reworded to reflect the cross-party commitment for no incinerators in Essex.    Curiouser and curiouser: In Gardner's first response to the challenge (10/12/01) he stated that Essex County and Southend Councils: "made a conscious decision having regard to all the considerations raised in objections at the Public Local Inquiry and in the Inspector's report not to have an automatic presumption against incineration".     Friday's statement 7.4 (i) for the county council says: "there is no reason to believe that the Councils would perform a volte face and substitute the carefully reasoned recommendations of the Inspector for a blanket 'no incineration' policy." This belies Lord Hanningfield's statement on BBC Essex on 11th January this year: "I agree totally with the campaigners. We don't want incineration. We're absolutely against it .."      Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator for Essex Friends of the Earth says:  "It is a pity we have had to go to these lengths to have to challenge the decision to adopt the Waste Plan against the 'no incineration' pledges of the Conservative group. We have now proved there is no legal requirement to include incineration. If we win tomorrow the Plan can be reworded to exclude incineration. Why are the county officers fighting this?"

Transcript of Lord Hanningfield interview, finishing at 7.25am on Friday 11th January 2002

FoE, Essex - 11 January 2002

. Excerpts repeated during the day including the midday news.  The interview was conducted by morning show presenter John Hayes.    John Hayes: “Essex County Council says it will vigorously defend itself against any legal fight which has been launched against the possibility of incinerators being used to burn domestic rubbish. Campaigners lodged papers with the High Court this week which argue that a Judicial Review should be granted into the council’s decision to include burners in its Waste Plan. The authority says they may be built if we can’t recycle enough of our waste. I’m joined by Lord Hanningfield, the Leader of Essex County Council. Good morning to you, Lord Hanningfield.    Hanningfield: “Good morning”.    Hayes: “One obvious question: why fight against a Judicial Review if it’s granted to the campaigners? Surely all that would do, would allow everyone to examine the Plans, and that must be in the public interest?”    Hanningfield: “Well, we – I mean – it’s a legal process – it’s a Government requirement – um, er – the campaigners are quite welcome to go for a Judicial Review – we have to comply with the law of the land, and it will be interesting to see if the judge rules against the law of the land.”    Hayes: “What is a Government requirement exactly?”    Hanningfield: “The Government requirement is to prepare a Waste Plan. I must state straight away that there is a lot of misinformation around. We don’t want to build incinerators. The county council are totally against having incineration. If we were forced into it by outside circumstances, I’ve publicly said over and over again, we would have a referendum in our county before we even contemplated the idea of having an incinerator in it.”    Hayes: “It’s a Government –“    Hanningfield: “I agree totally with the campaigners. We don’t want incineration. We’re absolutely against it and that’s why thank you for allowing me to be on this morning, so I can state clearly our case because it keeps getting quoted that we want incinerators. We don’t. There are going to be no incinerators in our county.”    Hayes: “But why include it in the Waste Plan? That’s not a legal requirement.”    Hanningfield: “Because we have to by requirement of law – I am duly an elected member – there are lots of legal requirements. If you – we are a planning authority and the Government and the law of the land says that you have to be able to defend a planning application. If someone puts a planning application to build a nuclear power plant beside your offices we can’t stop it. Obviously we would refuse it. We have to have the right requirement, legal requirement, to be able to defend the planning application and this is what we’re doing and it’s the law of the land. If the High Court rules otherwise, well, it’ll be – it’ll have to presumably be to change the law of the land.”  Hayes: “Well, it’s a legal requirement to have a Waste Plan, but it’s not a legal requirement to have ..ur ..”    Hanningfield: “It’s a legal requirement to have in that Plan – if you look at the small print that we have to do from .. and I’m advised obviously by a fleet of lawyers, barristers, councillors, counsels and I can only take their advice. I don’t want, and am not going to have while I’m anything to do with it, incinerators in our county.    Hayes: “You’re being very clear, but the Minister Michael Meacher has told the Commons there is no legal requirement on councils to have incinerators.”    Hanningfield: “No, well I agree, there’s no – we – if you look at the Government small print he’s – and I absolutely agree with that, but the Government small print behind his answer also says we have to have the framework to be able to prevent planning applications, and that is we have to state a case so that we can defend a planning application against incinerators, so you must look at Government small print. I agree with the answer that we’re not going to have incinerators so there’s a lot of fuss about nothing.”    Hayes: “Right, so in a word do you intend to sanction the use of incinerators in Essex?”    Hanningfield: “No, without the public of Essex agreeing to that in a referendum, so that I agree with the campaigners. They are going for a Judicial Review against the process. We have legal processes which I have to abide by as Leader of the Council. I have no choice in that. If the judge rules otherwise, he’ll be going against the law of the land and so if they wish to fight that they can fight it.”    Hayes: “Thank you very much indeed for joining us on the programme today. That’s Lord Hanningfield, the Leader of Essex County Council.”    Time: 7.25am.    Transcript by Paula Whitney from official BBC tape.

Lagal Challenge lodged against Essex & Southend Local Waste Plan

FoE, Essex - 14 November 2001

A legal challenge was lodged at the High Court and papers served on Essex  County Council and Southend Borough Council on 14th November, by Neville  Jessop, Graham Pooley and Paula Whitney who are legally liable for any  costs incurred.    If you wish to help the Essex Waste Plan legal challenge: please make  cheques out to ‘EarthRights Solicitors’, and send to Little Orchard, School  Lane, Molehill Green, Takeley, CM22 6PJ (write Waste Challenge Fund on  reverse)    We have already incurred legal costs of around £6,500 up to this point.   Accounts have already been received for almost £2000. We would be very  grateful for any financial support from councils, councillors or from  members of the public.    A response will be lodged by the county council soon, after which we will  have two weeks to gather up the remaining evidence and decide if we wish to  proceed. If we do so, costs could be incurred of £50,000 if we lose the  case. If we win we would not have to pay their costs. We believe we have  a strong case.    This is the last and only final chance to try to stop the Waste Plan before  it is used by a waste incinerator company as the basis to take on a 25 or  30 year contract with Essex County Council for our Essex domestic waste.     They only need such a long contract to build incinerators. The Waste Plan  permits incinerators. The sites for potential incinerators are identified  in the Waste Plan. In Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex and Kent this has already  been done.     Two of the three Hampshire sites - Portsmouth and Marchwood - have both  just lost public inquiries to stop French company Onyx incinerators because  their Waste Plan permits them and sites were identified. Britain’s largest  incinerator was given permission at Maidstone in Kent - no public inquiry  was permitted.    In Surrey, Sita, the other major French incinerator giant, has the contract  for all Surrey’s waste and sites for three incinerators. There have been  ructions and the Guildford MP lost his seat. In Sussex, Onyx and Viridor,  both of powerful utility company Vivendi, are the two waste companies  competing for the contract!    Onyx has provided hospitality to councillors, officers and members of the  public from Essex for many years. Visits to Onyx incinerators at Lewisham,  Birmingham and in France have been arranged by Essex County Council.     Onyx has won some county council waste contracts already, and has contracts  at Maldon and Tendring. Leigh Environmental is now ‘Onyx Leigh’.     Onyx and Sita run most of the twelve British incinerators, which had 899  illegal breaches since 1996 - ten incinerators had 553 breaches in 1999 and  2000 alone. The Environment Agency named Onyx and Sita incinerators as two  of the three worst industrial polluters in their ‘Hall of Shame’ in 1999.

Full Council - Southend Borough Council

Essex - 26 July 2001

Despite everything done already, and further representations to Southend BC, which were mostly rejected as arriving too late - in a named vote - the Conservatives rubberstamped the Essex and Southend Waste Plan - despite Lib/Lab protests that 'or at other locations' could well include Southend.

Public Meeting, Pitsea Leisure Centre

Essex - 23 July 2001

A public meeting was held at Pitsea Leisure Centre, where a packed audience heard an update in the Essex and Southend Waste Plan, and fired their own questions to the chair.    Lord Hanningfield had been invited to attend to answer the public and allay their fears, but he had declined the invitation.    Rob Hill, NIFE campaigner stepped in to take the chair. The panel addressing the meeting included Paula Whitney, Friends of the Earth, Peter Thompson, Colchester Borough Councillor (Stanway), Richard Llewelyn, Basildon District councillor and representing the Waste Consortium, and Kevin Blake, Basildon District councillor.    Bob Spink, MP Castle Point also contributed from the front of the meeting.    The panel gave an update on the Waste Plan, and how it had been processed so far by Essex County Council. It was agreed by all, and by the audience, that there had been inadequate public consultation, and everyone expressed dismay at how the objections that were put forward had been completely ignored. "Not one word of any objection was ever read out to the Council for discussion at any of their meetings" said Rob Hill. Peter Thompson explained that the whole process "has been a shambles, at the Select committee, witnesses were not given a fair hearing, and the public representative was even heckled by councillors on the committee"    Kevin Blake, reading an apology from John Baron MP, Billericay (who was on holiday) read out several questions that Mr. Baron had presented at Westminster. Bob Spink informed the audience of his activities in the House. He agreed that public protest is beginning to change the view of Government. In six months, the Prime Minister's response had changed from "they have to go somewhere" to "only as a last resort". Public pressure is changing Government.    The audience were mostly surprised, and in the case of all conservative voters in the audience, deeply disappointed, that it was the Conservative members at County Council who had voted in the Plan in its current form, after promising they were the only party who would stop incineration in Essex. The panel, stated quite firmly that all over the country, and especially in Essex, that all parties are against incineration. Richard Llewelyn confirmed that everyone on the Waste Consortium worked so hard together on waste issues and against incinerations that most weren't aware which party the other members belonged to. This was emphasised by Basildon Council's all party declaration that Basildon is an Incinerator Free Zone.    Bob Spink informed the meeting that he "didn't like what he had heard, as this was not what he was being told by Essex County Council". He promised to take the matters raised at the meeting to Lord Hanningfield personally.    Everyone in the audience, from all sides of the political fence were of one voice - no incinerators for Essex!    The meeting closed after collecting written questions from the audience to present to Lord Hanningfield, and letters were signed to present to Southend Borough Council before their review of the Waste Plan at Cabinet today and full council on Thursday. Many of the audience had also signed up as helpers to the campaign, going away with petition forms and other information, to campaign in their own areas.

Full Council Meeting, Basildon District - Basildon declared an "Incinerator Free Zone"

Essex - 19 July 2001

In answer to the letter delivered to the Leader of the Council at the end of our NIFE march in Basildon, the Council have declared Basildon an "Incinerator Free Zone"    The motion was proposed by Cllr John Potter (L), Leader of the Council, and was seconded by Cllr Malcolm Buckley (C)    This is the first all party motion put to Council    Making Basildon an Incinerator Free Zone marks the feelings Basildon Council has on incinerators and is a clear statement to Essex County Council that they do not want one in Basildon. John Potter, urged all other Districts to make similar declarations at their local level.

Full Council Meeting, Essex County Council

Essex - 17 July 2001

Following scenes of Alice in Wonderland outside County Hall, the Full Council voted on the Essex and Southend Waste Plan. Lord Hanningfield spent some time decrying incineration, emphasisng that he, and the County do NOT want incinerators, and then continued that Essex would not build any incinerators for four years and not before a referendum    Can't he make his mind up - we either don't want them, or we are going to build them in four years time!    In fact he has given us nothing. It will take two years to issue the contracts, then around another two years for planning applications to be rejected by the local authorities, but to then be passed at High Court in planning appeals - we gain nothing from his promise that was not in the original schedule of the Plan    We are promised a referendum before Essex CC build any incinerators. Will we get a referendum before any private developers build incinerators? Once the planning appeals are won - it will be too late - we need the referendum NOW    He further claimed that although Essex County Council do not want incinerators, this policy is being forced on them by the government. A later vote to accept a small delay, while the lawyers from the Waste Consortium, who believe firmly that there is no directive from government forcing us to include incineration in the Plan, talk to the lawyers from Essex CC, was rejected    In the end, in a named vote, the current document - Essex and Southend Waste Plan - Proposed Modifications - which includes 17 clauses that will litter Essex with incinerators - was passed by the Council without further modification.    All Labour and Liberal Democrats voted against the plan.    The following Councillors - (all but one of them Conservative - and flying in the face of their national manifesto and their fellow party members in the District parties) - voted for the plan at the Full Coucil Meeting, as did those present at the Cabinet and E&T Select Committee meeting. You may want to write to them!    ** Basildon Crouch: Donald William Morris (C), 24 The Hastings, Wickford, SS11 7EQ **  Basildon Westley Heights: David Walsh (C), 4 Sherwood Close, Langdon Hills, SS16 6JQ  ** Billericay North: Anthony Michael Hedley (C), 2 Boleyn Close, Billericay CM12 0YZ **  Billericay South: Kay Twitchen (C), 9 Moat End, Thorpe Bay, Southend SS1 3QA  Wickford: Iris Pummell (C), 36 Third Avenue, Shotgate, Wickford SS11 8RF    (** These councillors then voted FOR declaring Basildon an "Incinerator Free Zone two nights later in their roles as Basildon District Councillors - At which establishment were they following the party line, with no regard for their own consciences or their electorate?    E & T S Cttee: Anthony Hedley. Cabinet: Kay Twitchen; Iris Pummell.    BRAINTREE DISTRICT (Rivenhall site - Gent Fairhead - promised NFFO  subsidy):    Bocking: Simon Michael Walsh (C), Gibraltar Mill Road, Gt Bardfield CM7 4QG  Braintree East: Nigel David Edey (C), Farriers Bridge Street, Coggeshall, CO6 1NP  Braintree West: Roger Walters (C), Highfields, 13 Hoppit Mead, Braintree CM7 1HY  Halstead: Joseph Pike (C), 21 Bois Field Terrace, Hedingham Rd, Halstead CO9 2DF  Hedingham: David Finch (C), Blacksmiths Cottage, Borley, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 7AE  Witham South: Keith Bigden (C), 3 Priory Court, The Street, Hatfield Peverel CM3 2HE    E & T Select Cttee: Walsh, Walters and Bigden.    BRENTWOOD DISTRICT (between Basildon and North Weald Airfield sites)    Brentwood Hutton: John Roberts (C), 2 Park Avenue, Hutton, Brentwood CM13 2QL  Brentwood North: Philip Baker (C), 120 Hanging Hill Lane, Hutton, CM13 2HN  Brentwood Rural: Roger Dyson (C), 4 Huskards Back Lane, Fryerning, CM4 0HR  Brentwood South: Lionel Lee (C), 22A Primrose Hill, Brentwood, CM14 4TL    E & T S Cttee: Roberts, Lee.    CASTLE POINT BOROUGH (near Pitsea and Rayleigh (both taken out by Inspector  because Green Belt sites, but likely to be challenged by applications later  anyway)    Benfleet: Jillian Reeves (C), ‘Langelinie’, 221 Vicarage Hill, Benfleet, SS7 1PG  Canvey Island West: Ray Howard (C), Raydale House, Canvey Road, Canvey SS8 0QD  Hadleigh: Ron Williams (C), 41 Poors Lane, Hadleigh, Benfleet, SS7 2LA  William Dick (C), 77 Sandown Road, Thundersley, Benfleet, SS7 3SH    E & T S Cttee: Howard. Cabinet: Ron Williams    CHELMSFORD BOROUGH (Sandon site - Bretts)    Broomfield and Writtle: Wendy Cole (C), 237 Main Road, Broomfield, CM1 7AS  Springfield: Peter Martin (C), Longwood Chase, The Ridge, Little Baddow, CM3 4RZ  Stock: Lord Hanningfield (C), Pippins Place, Helmons Lane, W. Hanningfield CM2 8UW  Woodham Ferrers and Danbury: Norman Hume (C), 8 Hyde Green Danbury CM3 4QU    Cabinet: Lord Hanningfield and Peter Martin.    COLCHESTER BOROUGH (Stanway and Old Heath sites)    Constable: Anthony Clover (C), Darbys, 32 High Street, Dedham CO7 6HA  Drury: Jeremy Lucas (C), 15 Inglis Road, Colchester CO3 3HU  Mersea and Stanway: Christopher Manning-Press (C), 24 West Lodge Road, Colchester  Tiptree: Anthony Peel (C), Elm House 21 Tollesbury Road, Tolleshunt D’Arcy CM98UB    Cabinet: Manning-Press    EPPING FOREST DISTRICT (North Weald Airfield site)    Chigwell: Michael John Tomkins (C), 124 Hainault Road, Chigwell, IG7 5DL  Loughton St. Johns: Colin Finn (C), 16 Church Close, Loughton IG10 1LQ  Loughton St. Mary's: David Linnell (Ind), 20 Eleven Acre Rise, Loughton, Essex IG10 1AN.  North Weald and Nazeing: Anthony Jackson (C), Currance House, Upland Road, Epping  Ongar: Gerard McEwen (C), Heathlands, Willingale Road, Norton Heath CM4 0LW  Waltham Abbey: Elizabeth Webster (C), Rosemead, Pynest Green Lane, Waltham Abbey    E & T S Cttee: Jackson, Webster    HARLOW    (None)    MALDON DISTRICT (Close to Rivenhall and Stanway sites - possible Bradwell  site)    Maldon: Brian Mead (C), 5, London Road, Maldon CM9 6HD  Southminster: Robert Boyce (C), 63 Lawlinge Road, LatchIngdon, CM3 6LY  Tollesbury: Rodney Bass (C), Five Corner, Maypole Road, Wickham Bishops CM8 3NW    E & T S Cttee: Mead and Boyce; Cabinet: Bass    ROCHFORD DISTRICT (Rayleigh site still vulnerable to application)    Rayleigh North: Stephen Castle (C), 4 George Close, Canvey Island, SS8 9PU  Rayleigh South: Mavis Webster (C), White Gables, Castle Drive, Rayleigh, SS6 7HT  Rochford North: Tracey Chapman (C), 30 South Street, Rochford, SS4 1BQ  Rochford South: Roy Pearson (C), 131 Shoebury Road, Great Wakering, SS3 0BA  Rochford West: Elizabeth Hart (C), 6 Hawthorne Gardens, Hockley, SS5 4SW    E & T S Cttee: Castle, Pearson. Cabinet: Chapman, Hart    TENDRING DISTRICT (No site at the moment)    Brightlingsea: Derek Robinson (C), Brentor, Brightlingsea Road, Thorrington, CO7 8JH  Clacton East: Catherine Jessop (C), Portlands, Harwich Road, Great Bromley, CO7 7UH  Frinton and Walton: Michael Page (C), 101 Hall Lane, Walton, CO14 8HW  Tendring Rural East: Charles Lumber (C), Ash Farm Thorpe Road, Weeley CO16 9JJ  Tendring Rural West: Sarah Candy (C), Wisteria Cottage, Shop Road, Little Bromley    Cabinet: Robinson.    UTTLESFORD DISTRICT (No site at the moment)    Dunmow: Susan Flack (C), Little Garnetts, Bishops Green, Great Dunmow CM6 1NF  Saffron Walden: Robert Chambers (C), Low Mead, Upper Pond Street, Duddenhoe End, Saffron Walden  Stansted: Richard Wallace (C), 53 Chapel Hill, Stansted Mountfitchet, CM24 8AE  Thaxted: John Whitehead (C), Sheering Hall, Takeley, Bishops Stortford, CM22 6PD    E & T S Cttee: Wallace (Chair), Whitehead    We have been misled, lied to, and significantly misrepresented by the people we voted into power to serve and protect us, and they have been misled and misguided by the people whose salaries are paid for out of our pockets.    Essex people will see justice

Select Committee Meeting

Essex - 05 July 2001

More of the same.     Our representation was no published to all the committee, giving us 5 minutes to cover 26 pages of our submission, Marion Williams was given one minute to present the Ecologika presentation, and the Conservative members heckled the NIFE presentation.    Cllr. Ron Williams gave incorrect figures and struggled to remember the specific details being argued - he may know what clause 'WJ7' is - but the rest of us are fighting 'W7G'.    The Waste Consortium were heard but ignored, and the vote - with no whip (?) - came down precisely according to the party split on the floor - the left voting in favour of more consultation, the right voting to accept the plan as it stands.    A complete waste of time if you ask me.

ECC Cabinet Meeting

Essex - 26 June 2001

It happened - just like we knew it would.    Cllr Ron Williams gave a fairly long, though broken and at times at a loss for the facts, report, in which he stated that there are no plans in the waste plan for incineration. He also informed us that he felt there was no need despite the 14,000 representations received indicating 34,000+ specific objections, to change clause W7G (the one that specifically allows incineration at six major waste sites and 'at other locations').    He also felt - following an emergency meeting with the Waste Consortium yesterday evening, that although they expressed a number of concerns, that these were not necessary for inclusion at this hearing. He feels justified in recommending adoption of the waste plan with no change. This would avoid a lot of to-ing and fro-ing between ECC and Southend BC to get the changes ratified, and it would prevent the need for a further period of public consultation.    Kay Twitchen - the newly appointed 'cabinet minister' for waste was not present at this major decision meeting on the waste issue.    The Lib Dems spoke against the proposal not to change the plan and specifically clause W7G to one of 'no incineration' . Labour followed suit, and questioned the decision making process, the lack of review by select committees, on the minimal (but barely legal) amount of public consultation - despite a policy of empowering the people - and he suggested the item may be 'called in'.    Assuring us that the ECC wants to work with its partners and the Waste Consortium (who are completely against incineration) he then moved that the item be accepted for the next full council meeting - to 'Accept the Waste Plan with no change'. Item closed.    After the public left in disgust, followed by the press, Labour and Lib Dems did 'call in' the plan - which subject to acceptance onto the portfolio by the newly elect conservative chair, should now go before the Environment Select Committee - who meet on July 5th at 2 p.m. - we think - subject to confirmation.    The people of Essex have been misled, lied to, and utterly deceived. The conservatives have taken just 18 days to do a complete U-turn on one of the most important issues in the County Council election - their pledges, manifestos and promises, all broken in less than three weeks.    14000 formal respondents making some 34000 objections have been utterly ignored.    13000 petition signatures totally disregarded.    The members of the Working Together agreement tossed aside.    The people of Essex obviously are not included in the considerations of the Conservative majority at County Hall. Now they have had our vote - we count for nothing.    We will not stand by and let the get away with it.

NIFE Rally - County Hall Chelmsford

Essex - 26 May 2001

At the Rally on Saturday outside County Hall a petition to Lord Hanningfield, Leader of Essex County Council with over 13,000 signatures was presented..    It asked for a pledge from all parties separately to pledge that they will eliminate incineration from the Essex and Southend Waste Plan in the new administration if their county council prospective candidates are elected.    A pledge was given by Paul Sztumpf, present Labour Chair of the ECC Environment Committee that his group would work to reinstate their proposed amendment to replace the Incineration policy with ‘A presumption against incineration’. This was overruled in December by the Conservative group. It was confirmed that the present wording of a subclause agreed by the Conservative administration and the officers is meaningless, woolly wording which would not stop any incinerator application being successful. Leader of ECC LibDems, Ken Jones, also pledged to oppose polluting waste incineration and to also support the wording ‘A presumption against incineration’ replacing policy number W7G which permits incinerators. However, we have had planning advice which suggests that a ‘presumption against incineration’ will be challenged because it was not part of discussion at the public inquiry. Neither would it stop applications coming forward and being likely to succeed after expensive public inquiries. A complete ban was discussed, and could be upheld at a short Inquiry if challenged by an incinerator company.    Could you please ask people to write immediately to the three key politicians: Lord Hanningfield, Paul Sztumpf and Ken Jones at County Hall, asking that they pledge to change the wording of W7G when it comes back for approval to the new administration after the election, asking them to change Policy W7G to ‘INCINERATION OF WASTE WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE WASTE STRATEGY BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH THE AGREED ‘WORKING TOGETHER’ RECYCLING STRATEGY (AS AT PARA. 1.10)'.    Regrettably, no Conservative cabinet member was available to receive the Petition, in spite of the unanimous opposition to waste incineration from MEP Richard Howitt, national politicians from all parties, campaigners, Labour and LibDem county group spokespeople speaking at the Rally. Therefore no pledge could be given on behalf of the Conservative administration at County Hall.    (FOE Press Release - rally organisers)

D-Day

Essex - 25 May 2001

Over 13,000 objections were hand delivered to Essex County Council, where they were personally accepted by Geoff Gardner, Head of Strategic Planning, just a few hours before the deadline. 10,011 from Basildon alone. These of course did not include the thousands of objections posted directly in the earlier stages of the campaign. He didn't smile much.

Dioxin Balloon Launch

Essex - 19 May 2001

200 balloons tagged "This balloon represents poisons that will be released from the Basildon Waste Incinerator Plant, were launched by campaigners and parliamentary candidates from all parties - they were last seen headed South and up - very UP!

Basildon Town Centre March

Essex - 19 May 2001

Well over 100 people joined us in our march across Basildon, including parliamentary Candidates from Basildon and Billericay constituencies - concluding in the Leader of Basildon Council agreeing to propose the motion - make Basildon an Incinerator Free Zone