 |
A campaign for sustainable methods of waste management |
Full Council must rule on Binn Farm's gasifier plan, Letter published in Perthshire Advertiser, 9 December 2011
(Return to main Binn Farm page)
No part of the development plan in Perth and Kinross mentions the construction of any type of waste incinerator at Binn Farm or anywhere else in the county. Nor does the Tayside Area Waste Plan. We have therefore asked for an assurance from PKC's development quality manager Nick Brian that the Binn Farm gasifier application, approved by the development control committee on October 19, will now be considered by the full Council.
We have also asked councillors to reject the application for the following reasons:
(1) SITA UK presented the committee with misleading information;
(2) Gasification is an unproven technology, and the health of local people should not be put at risk for an experimental plant with the potential to produce harmful emissions;
(3) There is strong legal precedent for a local authority re fusing planning permission for waste gasification facilities, for example in Derby;
(4) Other local authorities such as Lancashire County Council have rejected incineration as it is expensive, unnecessary and unpopular.
At the planning committee meeting on October 19, SITA UK representative Anne
Marie Wilshaw was asked why the company now wished to build a waste gasification plant, rather than a conventional incinerator (for which it received planning permission in 2007).
Ms Wilshaw replied: "We weren't, at the time, able to back any gasification technology but, since then, we have been looking into it. We now put our name to this type of technology and have developed it elsewhere in the country, namely in Surrey."
In the light of such a confident claim it is perhaps understandable that the development control committee unanimously approved the proposal.
However we have since discovered that SITA UK has not developed a gasification
incinerator at all ~ at least not beyond the design stage.
Furthermore, a few days after the Binn Farm decision, the Advertising Standards Authority found SITA guilty of issuing misleading publicity material to Surrey residents. Specifically, the company had claimed that waste gasification was a "proven technology" and was operating successfully in Dumfries and Iceland. In fact
neither of those sites were operating successfully, used different fuel and had serious
emission problems.
In October this year the Department of Energy and Climate Change described gasification as: "Emerging and unproven technologies for the treatment of waste biomass and mixed municipal waste where there are number of technical issues to resolve, for example, achieving intended throughput and air emission standards."
GAINS forwarded these concerns to the Chief Executive of Perth and Kinross Council, Bernadette Malone, who replied: "Whilst I appreciate your concerns about the statements made by Ms Wilshaw it is not the responsibility of Perth and Kinross Council to check the validity or accuracy of any claims made by applicants or objectors and cannot have regard to any information which comes to the attention of the Council after the date of determination."
GAINS disagrees with this position. The Council has a duty to ensure a safe and reliable method of waste management. In June this year, .isle of Wight Council announced that it was seeking alternative waste management solutions because the
island's gasification incinerator had proved unreliable (it was closed for most of 2010 due to excessive dioxin emissions).
There is strong legal precedent for a council to refuse planning permission for such a
plant. Last year Derby Council rejected a planning application for a waste gasification
plant at Sinfin Lane.
The applicant appealed, and the case was heard by the Planning Inspector (the English equivalent of the Planning Reporter).
The company lost its appeal, in spite of being awarded an operators license by the
Environment Agency (the English equivalent of SEPA).
The Planning Inspector agreed there were serious concerns about emissions. The gasification technology was, she stated, unproven, and was not comparable to other
plants.
Additionally, the Inspector confirmed that the fear of harmful effects on the health of
people living close to an industrial plant, whether or not it is justifiable, is capable of
being a material consideration. Written objections to the proposed plant at Binn Farm clearly show that local people have grave concerns over possible health effects.
Other local authorities have rejected incineration because it is expensive, unnecessary and unpopular.
The waste management strategy of Lancashire County Council is unequivocal: "This
strategy confirms the authorities' stance regarding the alternatives to incineration. Accordingly, the County Council continues to oppose the siting of any proposal for mass burn incineration of municipal waste in any Lancashire District."
San Francisco City and County has also rejected incineration outright. If they can do it, so can Perth and Kinross Council.
In summary we believe:
(a) The full Council should reject the gasifier application at the first opportunity;
(b) Scottish Ministers should support such action;
(c) The Council should review its contract with SITA UK to burn 40,000 tonnes of waste each year at the proposed plant until the company can show solid evidence that the technology is safe and reliable.
Michael Gallagher,
Secretary,
Green Alternatives to
Incineration In Scotland,
33 Precinct Street,
Coupar Angus,
PH13 9DG.