IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Chieveley incinerator, 3-0 to the nimbies
Turin Machine
post Jan 17 2011, 10:34 PM
Post #41


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,682
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



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 !


--------------------
Gammon. And proud!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bofem
post Jan 17 2011, 11:49 PM
Post #42


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 485
Joined: 28-May 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 924



QUOTE (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.


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 Nex Communications. 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.







--------------------
Newbury's #1 ill-informed internet poster
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bofem
post Jan 18 2011, 03:39 PM
Post #43


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 485
Joined: 28-May 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 924



The level of debate on this is quite telling with the latest comments from 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 52% of commercial waste currently recycled 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.



--------------------
Newbury's #1 ill-informed internet poster
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jan 18 2011, 05:02 PM
Post #44


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Jan 18 2011, 08:59 PM
Post #45


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



I believe there were some concerns about the parking set up for Subway, not the store itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bofem
post Sep 20 2011, 11:11 AM
Post #46


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 485
Joined: 28-May 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 924



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?


--------------------
Newbury's #1 ill-informed internet poster
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bofem
post Dec 15 2011, 02:54 PM
Post #47


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 485
Joined: 28-May 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 924



Should WBC change it's stance on this incinerator now that WBC can collect £1m a year in tax from the facility, plus a further £125k a year for charities/schools etc.

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?


--------------------
Newbury's #1 ill-informed internet poster
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Dec 15 2011, 09:53 PM
Post #48


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Bofem @ Dec 15 2011, 02:54 PM) *
Should WBC change it's stance on this incinerator now that WBC can collect £1m a year in tax from the facility, plus a further £125k a year for charities/schools etc.

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?
Shameful dealings?

I thought in the information from Richard's FOI request it turned out to be quite a good deal for local taxpayers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Dec 15 2011, 10:10 PM
Post #49


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Bofem @ Dec 15 2011, 02:54 PM) *
Should WBC change it's stance on this incinerator now that WBC can collect £1m a year in tax from the facility, plus a further £125k a year for charities/schools etc.

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?

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.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ron
post Dec 15 2011, 11:20 PM
Post #50


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 271
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 277



QUOTE (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.


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FactFile
post Dec 16 2011, 08:11 AM
Post #51


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 15-May 09
Member No.: 58



QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 15 2011, 09:53 PM) *
Shameful dealings?


Yes. Get over it. Move on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bofem
post Dec 17 2011, 08:09 AM
Post #52


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 485
Joined: 28-May 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 924



QUOTE (FactFile @ Dec 16 2011, 08:11 AM) *
Yes. Get over it. Move on.


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.



--------------------
Newbury's #1 ill-informed internet poster
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikey3
post Jan 19 2012, 03:08 PM
Post #53


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 18-January 12
Member No.: 8,495



Bofem – I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear that the application has been lodged with WBC here: WBC Planning 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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jan 19 2012, 04:30 PM
Post #54


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikey3
post Jan 19 2012, 05:35 PM
Post #55


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 18-January 12
Member No.: 8,495



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jan 19 2012, 06:15 PM
Post #56


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (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.

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.

QUOTE (Mikey3 @ Jan 19 2012, 05:35 PM) *
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.

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.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Jan 19 2012, 06:47 PM
Post #57


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,840
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (blackdog @ Jan 19 2012, 06:15 PM) *
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..

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...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gel
post Jan 19 2012, 07:05 PM
Post #58


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 948
Joined: 11-September 09
From: Thames Valley
Member No.: 337



QUOTE (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?

Someone could do their public duty & report this to Streetcare who normally will quickly remove blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jan 19 2012, 08:34 PM
Post #59


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (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.


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.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikey3
post Jan 20 2012, 12:37 PM
Post #60


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 18-January 12
Member No.: 8,495



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jan 19 2012, 08:34 PM) *
I doubt the 'setback' NWN trumpet is actually as serious as implied.....


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

Surely not!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 04:19 PM