Incinerator Options

[Richard Garvie]

So some very interesting things came out at the Incinerator meeting tonight. Here are some of the things discussed:

* The original planning consent is alledgedly in breach. Apparently, the quarry only had consent for twelve years. West Berks are trying to take legal action against Grundon, but if a new application goes in before it's gone through the various chanels, apparently West Berks can take no action for the breach? (the breach is that they could quarry for twelve years, then supposedly return the land to green field / agricultural use - why wasn't this enforced?)

* Consultation is planned for 12th February, and application could be submitted as early as a week later.

* Traffic - Around 85,000 incoming lorries per year are projected, and as some of the waste won't be able to be processed at the site, there will be incoming and outgoing waste.

* Richard Benyon supports residents but his "hands are tied" on the matter. (I guess we can take it he is not going to be fighting this?)

* Those at the meeting wanted to know who approved use as a quarry when the site is in the AONB?

* Commercial waste is relatively small in West Berkshire, so the site could handle waste from as far away as Europe. As there is no commercial waste plan in West Berkshire, the council cannot prove this facility is not required.

* The site was identified for potential waste use in 1998, and the report is still live. Who commissioned it?

From what I'm told, the only grounds to fight it is the AONB. Because the site is presently a quarry, that argument doesn't hold much weight. If the application is turned down here, chances are it will go to a Government inspector. If Mr Benyon isn't fighting it, what hope is there. One of my colleagues is directly affected by the plans, and will be fighting them and giving support to the action group where required. But I think it's important to try and establish answers to the questions above. If you can add to the detail above, please add below.

Also, does anyone on here have experienced in that sort of industry who could assist the action group with arguments to try and prevent this?

[dannyboy]

85000 lorries a year.

are you sure about this?

[Richard Garvie]

85000 lorries a year.

are you sure about this?

According to the meeting tonight. - this is going on information provided from some notes taken this evening. I obviously was not present.

[dannyboy]

According to the meeting tonight. - this is going on information provided from some notes taken this evening. I obviously was not present.

well lets see now -

assuming 5 day week, 52 weeks = 260 working days.

85000 / 260 = 326 lorries a day.
10 hour day = 32 lorries an hour, or one every 2 minutes.

Sack your researcher.

[Iommi]

well lets see now -

assuming 5 day week, 52 weeks = 260 working days.

85000 / 260 = 326 lorries a day.
10 hour day = 32 lorries an hour, or one every 2 minutes.

Sack your researcher.

I'm more concerned about the alleged breach of planning that West Berkshire Council have not managed properly.

[dannyboy]

I'm more concerned about the alleged breach of planning that West Berkshire Council have not managed properly.

How would any council know of such a breach?

[blackdog]

How would any council know of such a breach?

By checking that Grundon were complying with the planning conditions that they (WBC) imposed on the quarry.

Is it too much to expect that planners do their job?

[Iommi]

How would any council know of such a breach?

Well if not said council, what is the point in having planning covenants in place?

[dannyboy]

By checking that Grundon were complying with the planning conditions that they (WBC) imposed on the quarry.

Is it too much to expect that planners do their job?

Maybe the incinerator is grundon's idea of a use for the site now that they can no longer quarry it.


It is only an alleged breach with the supposed idea the site be returned to pasture. If this was the case, then the only way I know to do this is fill the whole you have made with something. Normally youdo this with landfill.

Maybe the locals could end up with that instead?

[Iommi]

Like I said: what is the point in having planning covenants in place? Other than to deceive the constituents in thinking that planning are working for the good of the environment and its stake holders.

[dannyboy]

Like I said: what is the point in having planning covenants in place? Other than to deceive the constituents in thinking that planning are working for the good of the environment and its stake holders.

I'd wait to see if there was a breach first.

Site is marked for waste use in 1998 ( about 12 years ago ) Filling in disused quarries, once you are no longer using them is normally done by filling them back up with refuse. So, ingoring the tedious claim that all councils are just tossers who could not organise a piss up in a brewery, maybe Grundon have stopped using the site for mineral extraction ( their 12 years is up ) and have applied to a change of use. But instead of filling it up with household waste ( not to environmentally PC these days ) they have pulled a fast one & applied for planning to build an incinerator.
In this senario there a simple answer - quarrying has stopped & Grundon are doing the right thing & applying for planning to build something else on the site.

[blackdog]

Maybe the incinerator is grundon's idea of a use for the site now that they can no longer quarry it.


It is only an alleged breach with the supposed idea the site be returned to pasture. If this was the case, then the only way I know to do this is fill the whole you have made with something. Normally youdo this with landfill.

Maybe the locals could end up with that instead?

As there is a desparate need for a landfill site in the area perhaps this would be the best use for the site? Not so profitable for Grundon perhaps?

[Richard Garvie]

As there is a desparate need for a landfill site in the area perhaps this would be the best use for the site? Not so profitable for Grundon perhaps?

Landfill should be banned in my opinion, but then there is the question "what do you have instead"? I'm not completely anti-incinerators, I just think they should be put in suitable places.

Danny, the site was allocated for use as a quarry for a period of twelve years. At the end of that period, the agreement was that the land be returned to greenfield / agricultural use. That was the terms of the agreement, and that is what should be enforced.

What I would like to know is who approved this site for use as a quarry in an AONB, who allocated it for potential future waste use in 1998 and why the council are only looking into the breach situation now? As someone else said above, why was nobody monitoring the site and then enforcing the conditions of the original planning. As it turns out, the minute Grundon apply for the incinerator, the investigation into a breach will carry no weight at the planning decision. So once again, the council and it's "performance" is sluggish.

[Ron]

As I have said else where 'Why burn it?'. There are other ways of dealing with 'rubbish' that recovers the recyclables and sends potentially only about 5% to land fill.

[dannyboy]

Landfill should be banned in my opinion, but then there is the question "what do you have instead"? I'm not completely anti-incinerators, I just think they should be put in suitable places.

Danny, the site was allocated for use as a quarry for a period of twelve years. At the end of that period, the agreement was that the land be returned to greenfield / agricultural use. That was the terms of the agreement, and that is what should be enforced.

What I would like to know is who approved this site for use as a quarry in an AONB, who allocated it for potential future waste use in 1998 and why the council are only looking into the breach situation now? As someone else said above, why was nobody monitoring the site and then enforcing the conditions of the original planning. As it turns out, the minute Grundon apply for the incinerator, the investigation into a breach will carry no weight at the planning decision. So once again, the council and it's "performance" is sluggish.

To my knowledge there has been some sort of quarry at the site for a lot longer than 12 years - decades.

If you lay aside the assumption that if WBC are involved there must be a problem, there is no sluggishness. Grundon apply for an increase in the area for mineral extraction. It is granted, with the previso that 12 years is the maximum term for quarrying. As this term is over ( last year ) Grundon are asking to do something else with site. 1998 + 12 = 2010.

My guess is Grundon had the idea for other uses for the site a long time ago. That is business. If they fail in their application they'll have to return the site to grass as per the original application.

No panic, no ineptitude, no reason to get upset.

[dannyboy]

As I have said else where 'Why burn it?'. There are other ways of dealing with 'rubbish' that recovers the recyclables and sends potentially only about 5% to land fill.

Depends what kind of waste Grundon are thinking of bringing to the site. Could be clinical waste etc.

[dannyboy]

As there is a desparate need for a landfill site in the area perhaps this would be the best use for the site? Not so profitable for Grundon perhaps?

Landfill is only short term whereas an Incinerator is bringing long term employment to the site.

[Iommi]

I think we should start burying dinosaurs and prehistoric plant life, so that we will have some oil in the future.

[dannyboy]

I thin we should start burying dinosaurs and prehistoric plant life, so that we will have some oil in the future.

Update that idea to food waste & diseased farm animals. Biofuel of the future.

[Patman]

Hi All, I’m new to the forum and have read some of the posts on here with great interest over the past week whilst I’ve sorted out the problems validating my registration. I live in Curridge with my wife and two children, hence my particular interest in this thread.

I attended the meeting at the Curridge WI Hall last Wednesday night (26th Jan) and believe the strength of feeling in the local area against this outrageous proposal was reflected by the large turnout.

It's quite clear to me that Grundon have everything to gain from this and virtually nothing to lose, apart perhaps from any credibility that they are a company that places value on environmental concerns or has any consideration for the local community. This is about generating huge profits.

I for one have faith that the planning process in due course will reject the application, even if Grundon appeal the decisions, as surely they will. However, from their perspective this lengthy process will, if nothing else, afford them time to put off the costly process of reinstating the quarry to Greenfield/arable landuse and they may even secure a recommendation for an alternative site that may be considered more suitable.

It won't, I fear, be such a comfortable ride for the local residents over the next couple of years.