COUNCIL chiefs at Warrington have approved a waste management strategy that involves building an incinerator in the borough.
But Coun Alan Litton, executive member for environment services (pictured) says the plant will be a state-of-the-art facility similar to incinerators he has seen in Denmark where “you could eat your dinner off the floor.”
He said: “We have visited plants in Denmark and we were very impressed. They are incredibly clean. There was nothing toxic coming out at all – they were shining and spotless and you could have eat your dinner off the floor.”
The strategy also sets tough targets for reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill and increase the amount of waste recycled or composted.
It aims to recover energy from 53 per cent of collected waste by next year – and 75 per cent by 2020.
Other targets include reducing biodegradable waste sent to landfill to 75 per cent of 1995 levels by next year and 35 per cent by 2020 and recycling or composting 40 per cent of collected waste by next year and 50 per cent by 2020.
The incinerator – or Energy from Waste with Combined Heat and Power technology to give the full title – will be built in Warrington and will handle waste from Warrington only.
Size and location have yet to be decided, but it is likely to handle 60-70,000 tonnes per year.
It will generate electricity to be fed into the National Grid and energy – in the form of hot water and steam – to be provided to end users.
The council has already carried out a major public consultation on the strategy.
This showed that 65.71 per cent of people who responded are in favour, or strongly in favour of the incinerator.
But 10.72 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed with it – and there was opposition also from Warrington Friends of the Earth.
They would prefer the council to invest in Mechanical and Biological Treatment of Waste, with separate food waste collections. But the council says it has investigated this and found it to be more costly and involving technology not yet fully proven.
Coun Litton said UK Friends of the Earth appeared to take a different view to Friends of the Earth in Europe, and indeed across the whole world.
“I don’t think we will persuade them to change their mind,” he said
Coun Bob Barr, executive member for planning and regeneration said: “The energy from waste facility will make a huge contribution to reducing the borough’s carbon footprint.”
Waste incinerator to go ahead
77 Comments
Share.
About Author
Gary Skentelbery
Experienced journalist for more than 40 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with three in-house titles and on-line daily newspaper for Warrington. Experienced writer, photographer, PR consultant and media expert having written for local, regional and national newspapers. Specialties: PR, media, social networking, photographer, networking, advertising, sales, media crisis management. Chair of Warrington Healthwatch Director Warrington Chamber of Commerce Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.
7 Comments
“The council has already carried out a major public consultation…?” News to me….
News of the consultation was reported by WWW on June 18. The council actually received £30,000 to cover the cost of the consultation. Some 26 events were attended by council officers, between July 6 and October 23 and presentations were given. Parish councils were all consulted, as were political parties, Friends of the Earth, etc, etc. The consultation was also widely advertised. It is true that only 146 responses were received and the council feels this could be because it was overshadowed by the roll-out of the new kerbside recycling service which occurred at a similar time.
Posted on this forum last year….
———————————————————————————————
I was amazed to see the results of the councils public consultation (homepage / Waste Watchers) where it appears that the vast majority of those taking part were in favour of importing rubbish into Warrington from other towns. I’m always suspicious of figures like that especially when it seems to go against what’s said on open forums like this.
The last time the council made a claim of 95% being in favour of one of it’s proposals, it was exposed as being totally false.
Could it be that the public panel in this instance were invited guests?
Or am I just being paranoid?
———————————————————————————————————-
Mr Skentelbery: As far as I’m aware there’s been no consultation on “Do we want an incinerator”. There may have been consultations on “Do we want to stop sending waste to landfill” – these are entirely different issues. Also note that there is nothing on the council website regarding an incinerator except one document dating back to 2005 that briefly mentions the possibility. I would guess that nowadayds one of the main communication channels between the council and the public is via their website so I would expect something about an incinerator to be on there after such a “major public consultation”. Also, I thought everyone was trying to lower their carbon footprint with climate change being the latest fad. Surely burning waste flies in the face of the whole green initiative.
Oh and lets hope they build it next to councillor Litton’s house seeing as though he’s so keen to have one in Warrington.
NoBurning.
I am not arguing in support of an incinerator. I simply point out that the consultation HAS been reported on this website and, I have no doubt, elsewhere
Unfortunately Councils are routinely rigging consultations to get the responses they desire, apparently under guidance from DEFRA. See http://www.frontofpipe.net. I took part in an unadvertised ‘consultation’ in Cambridge where there were more staff present than consultees. People were given a grand total of ONE option to consider for residual waste.
Those who instinctively feel opposed to incinerators should take heart. Just like the credit crunch, this is another situation where government and the pro-burning experts are dead wrong. Incinerators relieve councils of the burden of having to rethink waste but there are no other benefits. Resources needed for soils and for jobs are destroyed. The energy supposedly produced is a tiny fraction of what is lost when the destroyed materials have to be replaced. Hundreds of toxins are dispersed towards our lungs of which only a handful are monitored. The most deadly ultra-fine particulates are not monitored nor limited in amount. The so-called evidence of safety is funded by those who seek to promote waste-burning and entirely unsuitable for use in decision-making.
I speak internationally on economic and ecological recovery – here is a recent keynote talk at the Irish National Waste Summit: http://www.sbpconferences.com/presentations/Waste2008.asp. It will help anyone interested work out what to do.