Bugleonline

The BUGLEONLINE IS NOW ONLINE!  This covers all the local campaigns, the A120 protest and the Incinerator at Rivernhall.  Please see site for latest news! 

www.bugleonline.co.uk

Notice of Peaceful Protest Against Regional Waste Site and Incinerator

Notice of Peaceful Protest Against Regional Waste Site and Incinerator

Tuesday 16th September 4pm at the Polish camp entrance, Rivenhall Airfield

District Councillors James Abbott and Phil Hughes are once again organising a peaceful protest at Rivenhall Airfield to coincide with the “public consultation” being carried out by Golder/Gent Fairhead into their plans for a regional waste site and waste incinerator at the rural location.

Residents are invited to join the protest starting at 4pm on Tuesday 16th September and the local media are welcome to attend to cover the protest.

We will gather along the public footpath just past the Polish Camp. If coming by car, please try to car share and park on the short stretch of road that goes off to the left just before the Polish Camp (we will signpost this).

If coming from Kelvedon, take the road past the church and over the railway line, keep going for a mile or so until you see a lane to the right which will be signposted to the protest.

If coming from Silver End/Rivenhall/ Witham, take the road to Kelvedon at the Parkgate Farm junction (this will be signposted to the protest) and continue until you see the lane to the left just after a sharp bend which will also be signposted to the protest.

The public exhibition is being held to coincide with the submission by the developers of their formal planning application to Essex County Council. This is for a regional waste site, including a waste incinerator. Over 95% of the waste being trucked to the site could come from outside Braintree District. The developers are claiming that it will not cause any impacts. This is clearly nonsense. There will be emissions to the atmosphere - which local people will breathe in. There will be hundreds more HGVs on local roads and the A120 at Bradwell. Several acres of woodland will be destroyed to make way for the development and the habitats of protected and BAP species either destroyed or disturbed. There is no guarentee that the developers will not seek further expansion, including the possibility of using the nearby gravel pits for landfill, which they have tried to do in the past.

There is simply no need for this massive centralised waste site in Braintree District, and far more sustainable ways of dealing with waste are already showing strong progress - Braintree District is almost at 50% recycling and composting now, 12 years ahead of the 2020 target of 50% set by Essex County Council. Any further infrastructure that is needed should be based at a district level, handling district wide wastes - such as material recycling facilities and anaerobic digestion plants based on existing industrial areas - which ironically the Government Minister Joan Ruddock recently praised. The Rivenhall Airfield site is nowhere near any existing industrial estates  - it is in the countryside and to get to the site, waste lorries will need to use a private haul road across fields and across local lanes.

If built, the centralised waste sites for Essex (just 2 are planned) will be run largely by transnational waste corporations and will stifle progress in recycling as they need large amounts of non-recycled waste to operate and to burn. There is also a real risk that waste collections will be taken away from local authorities and privatised, making it even harder for local communities to have any say on decision making.

The aim of the protest is to show the continued strength of opposition to the use of the airfield as a major waste site, as communities have successfully done since the early 1990s. It will also mark the start of a campaign to get as many letters as possible to the County Council to object to the planning application. The last planning application for Rivenhall Airfield in 2007 was voted on by a handful of County Councillors, none of whom represented this area - or even any part of Braintree District. The County Council only allowed one person to speak at the meeting against the plans. Given that the current proposal is for an even larger capacity site - one of the largest waste sites in Europe - with a gross capacity of nearly a million tonnes of waste a year, this cannot be allowed to happen again.

At the very least, there should be a public inquiry, so that local people, groups and councillors can have their say.

We do hope you will join us on September 16th.

For further information:

Cllr. James Abbott 01376 584576   mobile 07951 923073

james_abbott@btinternet.com

We are using the regional Green Party website as a base for material for the campaign for the time being. If anyone can set up a website dedicated to the campaign, it would be very welcome as we want to make this an a cross-community campaign.

For the time being, please visit

www.eastern.greenparty.org.uk

and click on “Stop the Incinerator”

Next stage:

To get letters out to thousands of residents in the Witham, Rivenhall, Silver End, Cressing, Bradwell, Coggeshall, Kelvedon, Feering areas - if you can help, please get in touch.

Waste PFI project

To help stop Essex County Council developing its Waste PFI project, please write to DEFRA asking for the PFI bid to be halted (and please forward to all those you think might also support our campaign).

Thanks

James Abbott

Essex Green Party

A letter sent to the Transport Minister 9th June 2008

9 June 2008

Mr T Harris MP

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport

House of Commons

London SW1 0AA

Dear Mr Harris

A120 Braintree to Marks Tey Improvements

Reference my letter to you in January 2008 and to several letters to the Highways Agency prior to that, I once again write to voice my deep concern at the manner in which this project is being handled. I am particularly perturbed by your 3rd June 2008 response in the house to Brooks Newmark’s question enquiring as to what progress had been made since your meeting with him and Bernard Jenkins on 15th November 2007. At that meeting you expressed an intent to get to a point where decisions could be made within a six month period. To summarise your latest statement, you seem to remember holding meetings but you are not in a position to make any decisions nor will you be for the foreseeable future, the main issue being a steep rise in costs.

I presume you are aware that there are thousands of citizens in North Essex who are fully aware of the undertaking you made last November and who now once again feel deeply let down by yet another bout of procrastination. It is now three years since the conclusion of the appallingly conducted Public Consultation and in the time since then we have heard nothing from the Highways Agency other than advice about delay and from Ministers we have received nothing but a series of progressively less credible statements advising similarly of delays due primarily to cost.

It is patently obvious to me that this project is not going to proceed in the way set out in the Public Consultation. The priority needed to elevate it above competing demands simply does not exist now nor will that ever be the case so would you please account to me precisely why this absurd situation is being allowed to go on. A political decision is now needed that will once and for all put an end to the Public Consultation proposals and place responsibility for dealing with A120 bottlenecks in the hands of those parties best equipped to manage what is a perfectly straight forward sequence of local road improvements.

I urge you to deal with this matter promptly. Thousands of frustrated and blighted people are depending on you to make the political decisions necessary to move matters forward and failure on your part to do so will simply generate even more cynicism and derision.

Whilst I would much prefer a direct political response to this letter, I assume that ministry protocol will apply and that I will receive a response on your behalf from the Highways Agency. Rather than the bland standard response may I ask that some comment be made firstly on the underlying prioritisation and funding issues and secondly on my unanswered request in my last letter for some insight into how policy is changing in response to transport caused environmental impairment and also how policy is changing as future traffic models change in response to rising fuel costs.

Yours sincerely

K R Winckle

Eco town?

Correct me if I am wrong but, is it not more eco friendly to use sites in towns which already have a transport infrastructure and facilities rather than concreting over green fields? 

Is this an issue which is dictated not by eco friendliness but rather a fashion exploited by developers to build more and more?  Furthermore I find it ironic to talk about developing in an environmental way (10′000 houses) and then ploughing up the countryside for a major motor way.  Am I the only one confused?

Parliament question concerning A120 expansion

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2008-06-03a.636.5&s=speaker%3A11443#g640.1

  

House of Commons debates

Tuesday, 3 June 2008

Oral Answers to Questions — Transport

Topical Questions

Brooks Newmark. (Whip, Whips; Braintree, Conservative)

As the Minister will be aware, traffic along the A120 leading to Braintree gets worse and worse every day. An announcement on the extension of the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey is long overdue. When can my constituents expect an announcement?

 Tom Harris.   (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport)

The hon. Gentleman and I have had a number of discussions on this scheme, I seem to remember, and of course he is keen to know what progress has been made since our last meeting. I will be able to make an announcement in due course. It will not be an early announcement, but I am happy to give the commitment that he will be kept up to date with any decisions taken. The major problem is the steep increase in the cost of the scheme, but working with my officials we will try to find some way forward, and I will keep him fully informed.

 

PROTEST AGAINST A POTENTIAL WASTE INCINERATOR

This entry was sent to the A120forum by Cllrs. James Abbott and Philip Hughes.  Although the A120forum has nothing to do with this protest and is primarily concerned with contesting the Proposed A120 Southern Route, we fully support the opposition to the plans.

WASTE SITE PROTEST 4PM TUESDAY JUNE 17TH

Please come and support our protest against a potential waste incinerator and major waste site in the countryside at Rivenhall Airfield, Essex. The protest is being held at 4pm, Tuesday June 17th. This is to mark the start of a “public consultation” on the proposals. 

We will meet on the public footpath that runs close to the site (for directions, please see below or contact James). This will be a peaceful protest open to all to take part (ie not a party political protest). The local press will be invited. We want to try and get as many people there as possible to show the strength of feeling against the industrialisation of the countryside and the burning of large quantites of waste.  

The developers have a previous consent for what they call a “recycling and composting facility” - a quaint description for a 62 acre industrial development. That scheme was to process over 500,000 tonnes per annum of waste. The new scheme is even bigger. A pre-planning application submission has been made to develop a more intensive use of the site, which includes a waste incinerator handling almost 200,000 tonnes per annum. The site will handle municipal, commercial and industrial waste from across Essex and other counties in Eastern Region - a clear breach of the proximity principle. Many hundreds of HGVs per day would access the site off the already heavily congested A120 at Bradwell and then use a haul road across the countryside which will cross local lanes. The large catchment of the site would mean that many other local roads could be affected.    

 Industrial development is also planned as part of the new scheme, which will add further to traffic by including a large amount of export of materials off site.There will be environmental impacts. The applicants have consistently tried to downplay these on the earlier application, but the new element of the incinerator and industrial development makes it harder to use “greenspeak” to make such claims. Emissions of pollutants will be significant and there are many villages around the airfield which could be affected by the emission plume, depending on the wind direction, including Kelvedon, Feering, Coggeshall, Bradwell, Cressing, Rivenhall - and Silver End which is less than a mile from the site. Several acres of woodland will be destroyed, including trees planted by airmen from WWII. The woodland is a known bat habitat. The open areas of the airfield and surrounding fields are also a habitat for hares, deer, owls, herons, etc.  

Please come and support this protest on June 17th at 4pm.

For further information, please contact: District Cllrs. James Abbott and Philip Hughes tel 01376 584576 (and this leaflet printed and published by James Abbott and Philip Hughes at Waterfall Cottages Rivenhall Essex CM8 3PR)   

Directions: We will put up temporary signs to direct people to the protest. From Silver End, take the Parkgate road to Kelvedon and just after a sharp bend look for a lane signposted on the left. Go down the lane to the Polish Camp small business area. We will be gathering near there. From Kelvedon, take the road past the church and over the railway line on to Hollow Road and keep going for a mile or so until you get to the lane to the Polish Camp on your right. You can tell the developers what you think about their scheme: Contact: Golder Associates (Rivenhall Airfield) Kensal House 77 Springfield Road, Chelmsford CM2 6JG                                     Email: cbushell@golder.com

http://www.golder.co.uk/rivenhallairfield/RivenhallAirfield_comments.asp

Is the Marks Tey Consortium influencing the route?

Marks Tey Consortium.pdf (Size: 95.69K

New town West of Marks Tey, a push for the PSR?

Printed in the  Gazette.

http://www.gazette-news.co.uk:80/misc/print.php?artid=2300394

Marks Tey: 10,000 home eco-friendly town

LAND to the west of Marks Tey has been earmarked as the site of a major new settlement in

Essex.The long-awaited dualling of the A120 could come with any development, initially mooted as containing between 6,000 and 10,000 homes, built by the Marks Tey Consortium.Planning consultant Andy Stevens today said the group has access to some of the land where the new A120 could go and may help fund it.“There is the possibility that the road could happen or happen sooner specifically as a result of the new development,” he said.Although the consortium was not successful in its bid to create a Government approved eco-town, such as the one set to be built near the M11 in Elsenham, the latest eco-friendly schemes would be considered if and when the settlement is built.The town will be designed to encourage as little car use as possible, with shops and jobs in the town and regular buses ferrying people to the Tollgate shopping centre and into

Colchester.
The Gazette revealed earlier this year a separate plan by Andrew Martin Associates for a blueprint to build 10,000 new homes on land around Marks Tey and Stanway.The houses, which would be built in stages, would sit alongside employment, schools, community facilities, leisure and open spaces. Tuesday 27th May 2008
By James Calnan

Waste Plant

I know that this is not part of the A120 forum’s lobby, however, it is extremely important to notify all about the developments concerning the waste plant which is a great threat to our communities.  Please read this and inform others.

NEWS

from Essex Green Party

Essex County Council consultation on waste:

Misleading and designed to get people to support waste incineration say Greens 

Essex Green Party is working with Essex Friends of the Earth and campaign groups to warn the residents of Essex that the County Council’s current waste consultation is both misleading and carefully crafted to get people to support their preferred plan of waste incineration, without ever mentioning the word.

The consultation runs until 5th May 2008. The Green Party is urging people to take part, but to beware of the leading questions that could trap people into voting for a huge incinerator in Essex. The consultation is designed to support the County Council’s PFI bid to Government, which will start a process of privatising much of the waste and recycling in Essex and lock taxpayers into contracts lasting decades with private waste companies.

The consultation questionaire “The future of waste in Essex” is available in council offices, libraries and is being delivered door to door.  It can also be completed on-line at www.essex.gov.uk

The Green Party is urging people to support high targets for recycling, in questions 1 and 2, but not to agree with question 3 and question 4, which are designed to get people to support incinerating waste. The Green Party is also urging people to make it clear in question 5 that the County Council must not renege on its “no incineration” pledge, made repeatedly to electors at county council elections by no less than Lord Hanningfield himself.

Cllr. James Abbott, Essex Green Party Co-ordinator said

“We cannot stress enough the importance of this consultation. This could be the last chance to stop the County Council from incinerating waste in Essex - something they promised never to do, but something they have been quietly planning for years.

The consultation document, cynically complete with images of butterflies, fields and bottlebanks, contains numerous misleading statements and glaring omissions:

It states that there will ALWAYS be waste that cannot be recycled or composted. This is an assumption. Communities across the UK are making great strides in reducing waste - such as getting rid of plastic bags. Manufacturers and retailers are coming under pressure to stop producing non-recyclable packing. 

In the document, the County Council proposes the use of Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) to deal with black bag waste. But it fails to state that its’ preferred option, as detailed in its PFI bid to Government, is to have just 1 or 2 huge MBT plants, handling hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste per annum, drawing HGVs from across the county.

The consultation has not a single word to say about the fact that its PFI bid includes commercial and industrial waste going to the MBT plants. Planning consent has already been given by the County Council for a waste site handling over half a million tonnes of municipal, commercial and industrial waste in the countryside at Rivenhall Airfield. This would add hundreds of HGVs onto the A120 at Bradwell every day.

The consultation has also got not a word to say about the process or quanties involved in ”generating electricity in an energy plant” from MBT residues. The PFI documents have revealed that the County Council is basing its bid on a large incineration plant, burning over 250,000 tonnes of residual municipal waste per annum at Rivenhall Airfield. The Green Party has also uncovered, using the Freedom of Information Act, that the County Council has secretly been discussing this option with the site owner for years - but did not reveal this when planning consent was given in March 2007. 

The consultation says nothing about how much commercial and industrial waste could be burnt in the proposed incineration plant.

Whilst carefully referring to the waste burning as being in an “energy plant”, purely for PR purposes, such a plant would be in function and in law, a waste incineration facility (EU Waste Incineration Directive).

In the consultation, Essex County Council claims that over 50% of the MBT residue could be “a valuable source of renewable energy”. Thanks to the Green Party’s campaign to reveal official waste documents to the public in 2007, Essex County Council is now no longer giving the impression it is 100%. But they are still not giving the facts. Government guidance is that only 35% should be classed as renewable and that 65% should be classed as fossil fuel ADDING to climate change, not reducing it.

The document contains nothing about the materials contained in the MBT residue to be incinerated. Successful recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion, which we strongly support, greatly reduces the amount of biomass in the residue, leaving a high proportion of non biomass content such as plastics. When burnt, plastics produce about the same amount of carbon dioxide as coal (US EPA). Burning plastics also produces toxic ash (not even mentioned in the consultation) - and highly toxic exhaust gases, which cannot be entirely removed by filters.  

These issues are complex. But that is no excuse for the County Council to try and pull the wool over the eyes of the residents of Essex, who have consistently opposed waste incineration.”

ENDS

For further information, please contact:

Cllr. James Abbott, Essex Green Party Co-ordinator