Login Register

Incinerator appeal expected mid-May

By Stroud Life  |  Posted: March 27, 2013

  • Some of the audience at the meeting.

Comments (4)

INCINERATOR bosses have up to six months to decide if they want to appeal a decision to throw out their controversial plans.

Urbaser Balfour Beatty is "minded to appeal" Gloucestershire County Council's planning committee's decision, to refuse their £500million energy-from-waste plant at Javelin Park, Haresfield.

After a tense 11-hour meeting on Thursday, the committee unanimously rejected the application for the burner which the council had invited tenders for.

The council's waste champion Stan Waddington attacked colleagues who turned down the plan. He said: "In its refusal, the committee did not challenge the need for the facility, which will save us £190m."

Council bosses signed a contract with UBB months before the decision was made. However, Mr Waddington denied breaking the contract would cost taxpayers up to £15m, saying there is no financial penalty for rejecting the plans.

Lead campaigner Sue Oppenheimer, from anti-incinerator group Glosvain, said they had "won the battle, but not the war".

Now, an appeal is unlikely before mid-May as planning lawyers are still considering their options before giving advice. If an appeal goes ahead, it will be up to a Government planning inspector to make a ruling. But even if the inspector throws out the plan, Urbaser Balfour Beatty could then appeal within six weeks to the High Court, which has the final say.

A spokeswoman for Urbaser Balfour Beatty said: "We feel that the UBB application was a strong one, sitting well within planning law and local policies that clearly identify a need for residual waste treatment in the county.

"Our priority now is to establish a clear way forward to support the county council in delivering an alternative to landfill."

Read more from Stroud Life

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters


  • recycle_reuse  |  March 27 2013, 2:58PM

    "Hilarous" UBB quote - "Our priority now is to establish a clear way forward to support the county council in delivering an alternative to landfill." Translation - "Our priority now is to protect our potential future revenue stream by forcing the council to have our giant industrial waste burner. We can do this because Waddington signed our contract before he knew he had permission to build the burner."

  • recycle_reuse  |  March 27 2013, 1:59PM

    So UBB (the contractor) could appeal to a government inspector -and possibly to the High Court - in order to be allowed to build something that the council (the customer) decided it didn't want the contractor to build. So an unelected contractor could now take legal proceedings to try to force the customer (us) to build an unwanted incinerator. You couldn't make it up. Clearly, this isn't over yet. It is worth remembering that UBB say it is GCC that specifically asked for an incinerator, while GCC claim that 'they let industry decide' on the best solution. So at least one party here isn't telling the truth. UBB don't care about Gloucestershire. UBB is a business entity and will do whatever it can legally do to maximise it profits. So if they think they can build their first big incinerator in the UK and import all manner of commercial and industrial waste into it to keep the profits flowing, then THAT will be their preferred option. As a Gloucestershire resident do you want that? I don't. I think we should deal with our own rubbish, but not other peoples''. UBB doesn't care where its money comes from. And any arguments about incinerators being completely safe are misleading. The Environment Agency fines UK incinerator companies frequently for safety breaches. Also 'spot monitoring' is often employed - meaning that some emissions are not monitored on a continual basis. So when the EA finally discovers yet another safety breach at a UK incinerator - it could have been pumping out dangerous, illegal emissions for weeks. Examples - One incinerator in South Wales has created a number of illegal dioxin emissions over the last few years - http://tinyurl.com/cy7xq63 http://tinyurl.com/d98k6ot Scottish power genertor Scotgen have had serious dioxin emssions from their plant and have been investigated by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency - http://tinyurl.com/ceuoxjk And there are many others. So now's the time to kill these Mass Burn Incinerator plans once and for all. As a Gloucestershire resident, I demand that my council deals responsibly with waste using the latest, most environmental sustainable solutions. A giant incinerator is not the way.

    |   1
  • BishopHooper  |  March 27 2013, 10:49AM

    Good old Stan Stan the burning man and UBB - just completely failing to see the wood for the tree's and take into account all other considerations. Hopefully the only thing that will go up in flames will be Stans polictical career in May (see what I did there? geddit?) GlosVain NEED your continued support to fight this. Its the wrong solution, using the wrong technology in the wrong building in the wrong location.

    |   1
  • Lecorche  |  March 27 2013, 8:58AM

    They'd be better off coming up with a plan that doesn't involve burning stuff 24/7/365.

    |   1