Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Bofem Jan 14 2011, 02:10 PM

You may be aware that the BBC always measures large spaces in areas the 'size of Wales', and at the NWN, to help us understand things that are really tall, they prefer "X times as big as the BT Tower in Newbury".

There's "shock" at the "huge" "plant" "processing" "radioactive materials" on a "greenfield site". Got that? It's a REALLY BAD IDEA.

But wait. Some facts (as well as Grundon quotes) are missing.

household waste is increasing at 3% a year in West Berks.

People burning rubbish in back gardens is much more polluting than these new superclean plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration.

Household energy costs set to rise 60% by 2015. So there's huge demand for alternatives to oil, gas and coal.

We have no landfill left. The Hermitage landfill is full up (of carrier bags, leaching battery acid, eternal plastic etc). The nearest is at Sutton Courtenay Abingdon, which is the home to most of London's waste (brought up by train since you ask). So there's no shortage of rubbish to be buried in the ground.

Chieveley's very good at making sure nothing happens at J13. They blocked plans 20 years ago for a business park/warehousing there, so it went to Greenham airbase instead. Worth a thought next time you're snarled up on the A339.

There's an oppportunity for West Berks to have cheaper energy and a cut in council tax if this can be negotiated properly. Remember the EU waste levy means WBC has to pay for every tonne of landfilled rubbish.

I know the NWN hasn't sourced any pro-voices yet, but it maybe not such a bad thing.

Posted by: admin Jan 14 2011, 02:19 PM

Newburytoday approached Grundon for comments yesterday (Thursday) who said they would respond on Monday. Watch this space.....

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 14 2011, 02:19 PM

Produce less waste. Re-use & recycle.

Posted by: Mark NWN Jan 14 2011, 02:27 PM

Hi, I was about to start a thread to ask for the forum input on this topic.

It is an extremely complex issue with a number of important points on both sides which need highlighting, such as the environmental impact and the growing need for such facilities across the UK.

I would welcome your comments, either on this forum or via email mark.taylor@nwn.co.uk

Posted by: Bofem Jan 14 2011, 02:31 PM

Good work and keep going please. A little curious though to ask for a quote AFTER you've published! It looks to most readers like you stitched Grundon up.

If Grundon's....er...rubbish at presentation, then this application deserves to fail. But any chance we can have impartial debate, with the risks AND benefits outlined in any follow-up.

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 14 2011, 03:34 PM

It all has to go somewhere.
There is no such thing as environmentally friendly rubbish.
We all create it and, until we can recycle everything, it has to be disposed of.
It is a case of which is the lesser evil.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 14 2011, 04:08 PM

It is better to focus on not having the rubbish manufactured in the first place.

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 14 2011, 05:19 PM

True, but in our current have everything, throw away society this is just not going to happen.
You are talking of a major culture change there.

Posted by: Bofem Jan 14 2011, 05:33 PM

I think you can....the idea of picking up your own dogs' poo was pretty weird 20 years ago but seems to have caught on.

Grundon's come up with an interesting idea, but like the wind turbines previously, the places where things like this can work are stuffed full of older people who don't care what state they leave the planet in when they shuffle off this mortal coil. So it will of course be defeated - why should they make sacrifices?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 14 2011, 05:33 PM

But if Veolia have the waste contract, and so much was spent on Padworth, what waste will be burnt at Chievely?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 14 2011, 05:38 PM

What is scary here is that I suspect you really do not know the answer........

Posted by: theone09 Jan 14 2011, 05:42 PM

commercial waste I guess? from Grundon's commercial contracts...

Posted by: user23 Jan 14 2011, 05:46 PM

Another gaffe it would seem.

He'll be calling for an enquiry into what waste will be burnt at Chievely next.

Posted by: Bofem Jan 14 2011, 06:13 PM

Garvie-baiting will send you blind, young man.
anyway...do you think we should have an incinerator?

Posted by: Iommi Jan 14 2011, 06:16 PM

Speaks the person who's sole purpose seems to be to ridicule posts that contain anti-council rhetoric. It would be interesting to know what the person behind the user23 'mask' really thinks about things.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 14 2011, 07:50 PM

Like the councillor on the vicar of Dibley. No No No Yes! Except the vicar of Dibley council probably are more sensible than this lot.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 14 2011, 08:11 PM

Or maybe there is another motive. Maybe you should do some digging...

Posted by: Ron Jan 14 2011, 08:27 PM

Why burn it? There are other means of producing energy from waste. As lead engineer I worked on a project where the waste was not sorted at source but at site. It was put through a series of rotating autoclaves where the rubbish was heated by steam. The product coming out was passed through a sorting system to select the recyclables, and then the residue was sent to anaerobic digesters to produce gas. The sludge from the digesters was sent for composting. The gas was used to produce the steam for the autoclaves and the rest went to gas engined generators where the electricity went to the grid. I have a recollection that about 5% was to go to tip, although we were looking at using this fibre residue to produce building materials. The first fullsze protype is just going through its testing. The building was certainly no where near the height of the one put forward for Chievely.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 14 2011, 08:50 PM

The one near Slough is huge!!!

Posted by: Bofem Jan 15 2011, 07:16 AM

Yes yes, but so we can grasp the concept you have to tell us how it compares to the BT Tower in Newbury. (this is not to be confused with spending cuts, which are to be compared in terms of numbers of teachers or nurses).

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 15 2011, 08:35 AM

Twice the height apparently!!! I think the site has been very cleverly chosen, on the basis that Fairhurst Estates have surround the site with trees in the past, and they will no doubt claim that only the stacks will be visible. I have a number of concerns, but they are deeper concerns than just the visual impact of the site.

Posted by: Darren Jan 15 2011, 04:07 PM

So other than produce less waste, and that requires an approach from all angles, how do we resolve our waste disposal problem practically?

Land fill?
Incinerate?
ship it overseas?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 15 2011, 04:25 PM

Something we agree on.

Posted by: gel Jan 15 2011, 05:04 PM

Green fanatics/ Greedy non elected Eurocrats will ensure we will never have access to cheap
energy...even if it is cheap to produce.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 15 2011, 05:25 PM

Even if it costs nothing to produce governments would find some way to tax it or make people pay through the nose for it anyway!

Posted by: Darren Jan 15 2011, 05:38 PM

Long term (5-10 years) yes. But what in the short term (<5 years)?

Posted by: Ron Jan 16 2011, 12:16 AM

See post 18. This is a process that is going to be used in Yorkshire on a 25 year contract. It has the potential to produce a minimum quantity of product for land fill, with the minimum of impact on the surrounding area on an existing brown field site. No inceneration, no tall stacks, no very tall buildings.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 16 2011, 09:18 AM

I like the idea, is it a proven technology?

Posted by: Ron Jan 16 2011, 10:29 AM

The basic technology is and has been for some time. The main problem has been planning, because no one wants an integrated 'rubbish dump' ITBY, no matter what the technology is.

Posted by: Darren Jan 16 2011, 10:37 AM

And there lies the problem. A bit like buying a house in Lower Way and complaining about the sewage works.

"Everyone else's turds smell, except mine..."

Posted by: Strafin Jan 16 2011, 10:40 AM

Not really a good analogy - the sewage works are already there.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 16 2011, 01:37 PM

Any links you can post that explains the technology for us to get a better view on this please Ron?

Posted by: Ron Jan 17 2011, 11:15 AM

The basic technology is typical materials handling equipment. The only unusual pieces are the autoclaves. Most autoclaves used in such plants as producing light weight blocks are static machines. These rotate, and feeding them with high pressure steam through a rotating, reliable seal took some engineering, particularly as you have to open both ends, one for charging and one for discharging. All this carried out at a fairly high rate to achieve the plant outputs

Posted by: wetpawprints Jan 17 2011, 01:12 PM

Think you will find that Grundon already use this technology http://www.grundon.com/how/hydroclave.htm

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 17 2011, 05:43 PM

http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3074

After the Amey experience with WBC I hope they are not the technology owners!!!

Cannot find any designs for the facility, or cost comparisons. I (cynically) suspect the simple incinerator is cheaper to build & operate......


Perhaps the chimneys could be disguised as trees - like mobile phone masts?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 17 2011, 06:02 PM

http://www.allerton-waste-recovery-park.co.uk/

Info in the FAQs about what the building will look like.....

http://www.satiche.org.uk/arken/allince.htm

With cgi pics of the proposal - big chimney!!!

Posted by: Ron Jan 17 2011, 08:33 PM

No, the Yorkshire site is not Allerton. The system used by Grundon is a very small, low capacity unit and is part of the incinerator system, their main disposal being by incineration. The one I refer to has NO incineration, all disposal being done by anaerobics or composting. The only burning is of the generated gas in boilers for steam and engines to generate electricity.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 17 2011, 09:08 PM

I admit I simply looked in Yorkshire for something like you described. I'm no expert, let alone in waste disposal. I usually create it!
See if you can find the project so others can see the options available

Posted by: Bofem Jan 17 2011, 09:51 PM

Well, whatever the merits and pitfalls of these incinerators, as everyone's made their mind up it's a really bad idea, we shall never know.

TBH, Grundon might as well have burnt £50,000 instead of preparing such a contentious planning application 4 months before local elections. I think we just need BNP and UKIP to condemn it, and we've got the full set.

http://www.mychieveley.co.uk/index.php?page=2&id=35& to the invite plastered all over Chieveley.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 17 2011, 10:06 PM

Have they? Are they the people who will make the decision?
Grundon will not have spent £50k on a non-starter....... They will be going through all the feedback and planning their path/tactics.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jan 17 2011, 10:34 PM

i'm really worried about the impact it will have on the view of the M4 and the Motorway services as seen from the gravel pit, a bit of a bugger that !

Posted by: Bofem Jan 17 2011, 11:49 PM

Well, they'd better have something special to turn this presentational disaster around. It's over a week since the public meeting, and still no comeback from Grundon. Why have they fallen at the first hurdle.

I see they've hired http://www.nexcommunications.co.uk/. run by a rather colourful ex-Tory councillor (or should that be Tory ex-councillor).....anyway, the No.2 at Southampton City Council a while back. They would only have done this had they expected some of the rampant nimbyism our village cousins seem to excel at.

All I can think of is WBC planning told Cllr Hilary Cole in Chieveley, who told the parish council, who organised a meeting, and invited neighbouring villages etc etc. Lib Dems are universally opposed to incinerators, the Tories won't want to lose a senior councillor over it (and we all know "Labour can't win here"), so it's pretty much dead in the water before so much as a planning application.

A shame as it's an interesting idea.

Posted by: Bofem Jan 18 2011, 03:39 PM

The level of debate on this is quite telling with the http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=15653from WBC's big cheese.

There seems to be some implication that business waste just vanishes, and that only domestic waste matters (obviously to WBC as businesses get to choose their own waste contractor). This is naive.

If these incinerators aren't built, then the http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/waste/documents/stats-release101216.pdf would go DOWN. In other words, all the efforts local people make in sorting their rubbish at home would be rather pointless, if the supermarkets etc we buy from are burying their waste in the ground.

We could grasp the nettle here, and say OK Grundon, we'll listen to your plans, and we'll agree to them IF we can get some of the feed-in tariff locally. But instead, we've thrown the whole thing out to save one Tory seat from changing hands.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 18 2011, 05:02 PM

A predictable response really. It does not matter what is in the proposals, the nimby element get the loudhailers out.

Some people will complain about anything. There was petition to stop Subway on the A4 in Thatcham getting planning permission.

Posted by: Strafin Jan 18 2011, 08:59 PM

I believe there were some concerns about the parking set up for Subway, not the store itself.

Posted by: Bofem Sep 20 2011, 11:11 AM

I was walking through Chieveley at the weekend and the lanes approaching the village are full of rubbish.

Just down from School Road there's dozens of empty vodka bottles, rolls of wire, drums of used cooking oil, tins of paint....it's not flytipping, it's built up over years.

I thought this was a precious AONB, but it seems the people of Chieveley don't care about the countryside? Or is this something us townies don't understand about AONBs?

Posted by: Bofem Dec 15 2011, 02:54 PM

Should WBC change it's stance on this incinerator now that WBC http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=18646etc.

After the shameful dealings with Standard Life, the council have a chance to stop the cuts to Mencap/Shopmobility etc.

What's not to like?

Posted by: user23 Dec 15 2011, 09:53 PM

Shameful dealings?

I thought in the information from Richard's FOI request it turned out to be quite a good deal for local taxpayers.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 15 2011, 10:10 PM

I like the incinerator idea - it strikes me as a good way of disposing of the industrial waste we must all take responsibility for producing, it creates some useful electricity, it creates employment, and if it's designed well it'll look great in the landscape.

What I'm becoming less and less enamoured with is local government's grant-funding of the local third-sector social service industry because it does nothing to promote efficiency and choice. What I would very much like to see is a complete move to personal budgets with no grant-funding of organisations whatsoever, so that service users have freedom to shop around and market competition drives up the quality of service and creates a level playing field for new providers to come in with a better service.

Of course, that still needs money to pay for it, and I would like to see my local politicians looking to serve the best interests of us all and accepting what is a very attractive proposal from Grundon.

Posted by: Ron Dec 15 2011, 11:20 PM

Incineration is always very emotive. There are other, just as efficient means, of dealing with all forms of waste. The last project I worked on used steam in the process. The only burning was of bio gas in boilers and gas engines.

Posted by: FactFile Dec 16 2011, 08:11 AM

Yes. Get over it. Move on.

Posted by: Bofem Dec 17 2011, 08:09 AM

I have. I'm talking incinerators, and the refreshing juxtaposition of a company that wants to cut my tax bill and ones like Kennet Shopping which like to subsidise developments with my taxes.

If energy projects are financially beneficial in lean times, surely WBC should be encouraging more of them, instead of trying to blow them out of the water before an application is lodged.

Posted by: Mikey3 Jan 19 2012, 03:08 PM

Bofem – I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear that the application has been lodged with WBC here: http://publicaccess.westberks.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=LW6RJ8RD04Z00 and is open to comments until 31st of January. I agree that there could be great financial benefits which are much needed given the state of the economy.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 19 2012, 04:30 PM

It seems that the big guns are lining up to blow Grundon's plans out of the water - the Department of Transport say they will veto the plans (didn't realise they could do that) and the MOD are seriously unhappy with the proposal.

Looks like the £1 million a year may go to some other, more deserving council.

Posted by: Mikey3 Jan 19 2012, 05:35 PM

Blackdog - the article seems to suggest that Grundon do not believe the highways issue scuppers their plans and they will be able to forge some kind of agreement. Not sure about the MOD though, aviation lights would be pretty standard, but it doesn't specify the objections of the DIO, so can't really comment.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 19 2012, 06:15 PM

Perhaps the Highways folk will just take the £1 million a year. I guess Grundon could build a road around the services if they aren't allowed to go through them - but the objections go beyond the access issues. It sounds like a very expensive hurdle for Grundon to get over.


They have also lodged an objection on behalf of soldiers living in at Denison Barracks and made the first steps to claiming cash to pay for the updating of maps/charts/whatever.

However, objections from these government agencies will make it much easier for WBC to turn down the application (as I suspect they want to) and far more difficult for Grundon to get WBC's decision overturned on appeal.

Posted by: spartacus Jan 19 2012, 06:47 PM

Grundon should be able to argue that one away quite easily. The army are still intending to move the geographic regiment to RAF Wyton... If there are any soldiers remaining in Denison Barracks they will be VERY small in number. Probably unsustainable for a military unit in terms of maintaining security so it's likely that the School of Military Survey will also up sticks and depart from Hermitage, probably to Chicksands as has been mooted for quite some time now...

Posted by: gel Jan 19 2012, 07:05 PM

Someone could do their public duty & report this to Streetcare who normally will quickly remove

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 19 2012, 08:34 PM

Dof T seem only to be stating the proposes access is over their land (the service area) and they do not agree to allow such use. Indeed, if the area is a 'Motorway' service area it truly may not be used for access. Methinks that represents a slip up. At least it seems Grundon have assumed it is not a motorway service area and also that the access would not be an issue.

I don't know of any current plan to vacate Dennison entirely. With so many troops to accommodate from Germany the Army is not giving away many sites at all. DIO would submit the objection on the basis the Officers and Soldiers might be disturbed by noise etc. The School has a number of valued overseas students and would want to set out a position to protect that interest. The objection will not be 'on behalf of' the students as in they asked DIO to object for them. I think charging for the cost of the mapping is a bit cheeky, seeing as the updating and creation of maps is the core business of the place.

I doubt the 'setback' NWN trumpet is actually as serious as implied.....

Posted by: Mikey3 Jan 20 2012, 12:37 PM

Are you suggesting that the NWN may have exaggerated the story in order to make a headline?!?

Surely not!

Posted by: scott Jan 20 2012, 02:22 PM

Chieveley United No To Site!

Posted by: Ron Jan 20 2012, 03:53 PM

That has just cost me a new keyboard! It didn't like the tea I just deposiited down it.

Posted by: Ron Jan 20 2012, 03:54 PM

That has just cost me a new keyboard! It didn't like the tea I just deposiited down it.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 20 2012, 10:40 PM

Rare for a football club to turn down a pitch?

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 14 2012, 11:45 AM

Well, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-17708818 is a surprise

Posted by: jaycakes Apr 14 2012, 02:43 PM

An area of "outstanding natural beauty"?

Give over. It's berkshire.

Posted by: Vodabury Apr 14 2012, 07:14 PM

Leave the car at home tomorrow, and take a walk or a cycle along the canal path through Marsh Benham, Kintbury and to Hungerford. There is beauty to behold.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 14 2012, 09:51 PM

And not every shed with a big chimbly is an eye-sore.

Posted by: Vodabury Apr 14 2012, 10:10 PM

I bet you could get some runner beans growing over that roof.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 14 2012, 10:26 PM

As (I assume) another is excluded this year the design could always be used to enter Shed Of The Year.....

Posted by: jaycakes Apr 15 2012, 02:53 AM

Can't, a local councillor resident will complain the chimney is an eyesore.

Posted by: Ron Apr 15 2012, 03:32 PM

See the people next door to the Grundon site are already quoting the 'down graded' planning laws to put their case forward.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 15 2012, 04:20 PM

Of course, Grundon could yet appeal.......

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 15 2012, 06:20 PM

Perhaps they should get Standard Life to apply for them? Quick solution for them perhaps?