Plymouth incinerator approved for Devonport Dockyard
Friday, December 23, 2011
NeilShaw
Follow
A GIANT incinerator is set to transform Plymouth’s dockyard landscape, after the hugely controversial project was given the go-ahead.
Councillors voted 7-5 in favour of the plans for Devonport Dockyard’s North Yard following a heated six-hour debate.
-
MVV Environment Devonport Limited is now poised to begin building the plant next year – to the dismay of residents living in its shadow.
Council chiefs say the plant will save the taxpayer £275million – and prevent cuts to frontline services.
But locals fear they are in for years of non-stop noise, harmful pollution and a traffic onslaught that will see 264 lorries travel to the site every day.
The decision ends years of wrangles over what to do with the city’s waste.
Since the Chelson Meadow landfill tip closed in 2007 Plymouth has been sending its waste to Lean Quarry near Liskeard.
The energy-from-waste plant will run continuously for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, apart from short shut-downs for maintenance.
The main building will be 134 metres long with a 45-metre high boiler house and a 95-metre chimney stack.
It will handle household waste from across Plymouth, South and West Devon, the South Hams, Teignbridge and Torbay, plus some commercial and industrial rubbish, with no limit on where it is from.
Up to 265,000 tonnes of rubbish will be burnt each year, generating steam which will drive a turbine and create electricity.
Six thousand people signed a petition opposing the plans. Ahead of yesterday’s planning committee meeting, around 50 protestors armed with banners and placards congregated at the Council House.
Many were unable to contain their fury while councillors debated the plans, as the chamber was disrupted by sustained outbursts and sarcastic laughter.
Speaking in opposition, Robin Keats, of the protest group Incineration is Wrong, said the plan was being “rushed through”.
He branded incinerators “costly and unreliable”, claiming research suggested they could be linked to increased infant mortality and cancer rates.
St Budeaux Labour councillor Sally Bowie was applauded by the public as she called for a public enquiry, adding: “Not enough research has been done into this”.
Her Conservative colleague Cllr Gloria Bragg said the plant would be a “monstrosity” and a “blight on the landscape”.
She said: “I’m prepared to lose my seat in May in standing with the people of St Budeaux in their opposition.”
The committee heard how the incinerator will sit just 60 metres from the closest home, while a 450 households live within 250 metres.
“There are some significant adverse effects on some people,” planning officer Alan Hartridge admitted. But he said months of work had gone into modifying MVV’s application to make it acceptable.
Mr Hartridge said the building was “not an eyesore”, instead claiming it could become a “landmark feature” due to its maritime-inspired design.
But Labour Cllr Brian Vincent hit back, saying: “We’ve romanticised about it looking like a ship and having fancy bits on it – but it’s an industrial unit. If it were a ship, I wouldn’t want it parked outside my house pumping out smoke for 25 years.”
As part of the deal, MVV will put millions of pounds into the city.
It will set up a community trust to spend £150,000 a year in the local area, contribute £390,000 to landscaping and carry out work to mitigate visual impact.
A lucrative deal with the Ministry of Defence – which owns the land – will see the Naval Base and Dockyard provided with steam and power, cutting Naval Base costs by around 20 per cent.
But councillor Nicky Williams said the plant was “not giving anything to the people of Barne Barton”, which she pointed out was one of the most socially-deprived areas of the city.
“We’re actually imposing this incinerator on the people who have the least chance to argue their case,” she said.
Cllr Tina Tuohy argued that many family homes would be deprived of sunlight, as well as having their existing panoramic views shattered.
Motions from the opposition Labour group to refuse the application, and to defer the decision, were rejected 7-5.
The party split was replicated when councillors voted to approve the plans, to shouts of “hang your heads” and “shame on you” from the public gallery.
Closing the meeting, planing committee chair Cllr John Lock said the plant would “solve Plymouth’s refuse problem for the next 40-odd years”.
Speaking afterwards, city finance chief Cllr Ian Bowyer said the city would save around £275million over the next 25 years – or £11million annually.
“This unlocks a huge financial benefit to local taxpayers,” he said. “If I had to find that money elsewhere there would be significant cuts to frontline services.”
Construction of the plant will create around 300 jobs, although a mere 33 permanent workers will be needed once it is completed.
But Cllr Bowyer, Cabinet member for finance, said further jobs would be created through the knock-on effect, adding: “For the city this is a major deal, running into many millions of pounds”.
And Cllr Michael Leaves, the council’s Cabinet member for waste, said: “This decision comes as a major relief for myself and the people of Plymouth.
“I appreciate some people have got concerns – and we will work with them to alleviate those – but the Environment Agency would never give a permit to anything that wasn’t safe.
“We can now move to the future and hopefully open the plant in 2014, whilst carrying on increasing our recycling.”
MVV Environment Devonport managing director Paul Carey said the company was delighted with the decision – and now wanted to become “part of the community”.
It has vowed to appoint a community liaison manager and run a free visitor centre at the site.
“We see this as the beginning of a journey,” Mr Carey said. “We want to assure those who have expressed reservations or opposition that we are not complacent. It is incumbent on us to prove we can be good neighbours and to win people’s trust.”
Mr Carey said he was “very confident” there would be no long-term health impacts on local residents.
The findings of fresh research into incinerators’ emissions, commissioned by the Health Protection Agency, are also due out soon.
“The science behind it is well-understood,” Mr Carey insisted.
“Our understanding is far greater than it used to be.”
He said the plant would be the quietest the industry has ever seen.
Mr Carey added: “There are over 400 around Europe – and many in city centre locations – so this is not by any means a unique scenario.”
Quizzed on health impacts, Mark Turner, project director for the South West Devon Waste Partnership, which was set up to solve the region’s waste problem, said: “The assurances are there from the Environment Agency.”
And asked about the impact on home-owners, he said: “If there has been a drop in value of housing it will come back up again.”
Plymouth Moor View Labour MP Alison Seabeck vowed to raise the issue with the Secretary of State.
“I don’t think it was a decision that really took into consideration the damage that this plant could potentially do to people’s lives,” she said. “It’s pretty exceptional to have any building of that size this close to people’s houses.”
Labour group leader Cllr Tudor Evans added: “I’m upset by what seem to be attempts to silence local residents. I was prevented from speaking as it wasn’t in my ward, but I have discovered that part of it was so I feel I have been misled.”
WORK SET TO START NEXT YEAR
WORK is set to start next year on building the incinerator on Devonport Dockyard’s North Yard, after the most controversial Plymouth planning application for years.
The Plymouth City Council planning committee decision was the culmination of years of wrangling over building an incinerator to handle waste from Plymouth, Torbay, Teignmouth and the South Hams.
MVV Environment Devonport Limited will take about two and a half years to build the energy from waste (EfW) plant.
When finished, the incinerator will be one of the city’s biggest buildings. The main building will be 134 metres long with a 45-metre high boiler house and a 95-metre chimney stack.
It will handle up to 265,000 tonnes of waste a year, mainly from the three councils involved, but also some commercial and industrial waste from local businesses.
The heat from burning the waste will be used to generate steam, which will drive a steam turbine and generate electricity and heat for the Dockyard and Naval Base.
ANGER AS INCINERATOR IS APPROVED
FURIOUS campaigners have vowed to continue their fight after bitterly opposed plans for Plymouth’s new incinerator were approved.
A fiery planning meeting saw councillors give the multi-million-pound plant at Devonport Dockyard’s North Yard the green light last night.
The decision, taken after six hours of tense debate, paves the way for MVV Environment Devonport Limited to begin building work next year.
When finished, the incinerator will burn up to 265,000 tonnes of rubbish each year.
Handling waste from Plymouth and across the rest of South and West Devon, it will run continuously for 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Council chiefs say the energy-from-waste plant will save the taxpayer £275million – and prevent significant cuts to frontline services.
But nearby residents fear they are in for years of non-stop noise, harmful pollution and a traffic onslaught that will see 264 lorries travel to the site every day.
The closest home is just 60 metres away from the building which, at twice the size of the Civic Centre, will become one of Plymouth’s largest.
Dismayed opponents last night vowed to continue their battle, branding the plant a “monstrosity”.
But council chiefs and MVV bosses stood by the plans.
A SAD DAY FOR PLYMOUTH
MANY Plymouth people reacted with anger and distress following the decision to allow the incinerator to be built.
Crowds gathered outside the Council House at 9.30am yesterday morning and people packed out the public gallery at the Council’s main chamber as well as the Guildhall, where a screen showed a link which filmed the debate.
People booed the Chair and speakers who supported the incinerator proposal, and continually applauded those who spoke out against. They endured more than six hours of reports and passionate speeches only for their hopes to be dashed by the planning committee, who voted 7-5 in favour of the incinerator plans.
Donna Ruiz, who went to Germany to view a similar plant, said: “This is a sad day for all of Plymouth. Such a lovely city will be reduced to taking the rubbish from the rest of Devon and probably further afield.
“All just for two more votes.”
An 11-year-old emailed The Herald and said: “Many people have been crying outside the council house after the incinerator was okayed. I am disgusted.”
Danni Aubry, an environmental campaigner, said she and others would now seek professional legal advice for the next step.
“We need to under-turn this verdict.”
Wendy Miller, of the Green Party, said that as people turned away from packaging and plastics, she didn’t believe there would be the waste capacity needed to justify the plant.
The city would end up burning the waste of even other countries, she warned. She pointed to the worry that this may discourage recycling and suggested alternative methods that made use of food waste, such as composting.
Chemistry graduate Alan Facer said he believed the reports recording emissions were misleading.
He told The Herald: “I’m so angry. They were wrong about the carbon capture because it can be re-used, not burnt. Around 200 tonnes of carbon dioxide will be released into the atmosphere which will affect global warming.”
Margaret Marker, from Beacon Park, said she had lost her husband, father and brother to asbestos related diseases.
“They told us that was safe 30 years ago,” she said.
“I’m worried for my four-year-old granddaughter. How do they know the next generation won’t be affected?”
She said the situation had been a ‘constant worry’ to her family, especially as her son was an asthma sufferer. “How is he meant to escape? He won’t be able to sell his house – there have been six for sale in Harbour Avenue and none taken.”
Andrew Martin and Jane Prowse, who live with their two young daughters in Cardinal Avenue, had similar concerns.
“We always hoped in a few years we might move onto a bigger, nicer house somewhere, but who’s going to buy our house now?”, Jane said.
Andrew added: “Is there compensation for us? No-one has been to our door to talk to us.”
They said they’d already been woken in the morning by drilling work at the site as the foundations were being laid and were worried about further noise issues.
Evelyn Nesbitt, of Beacon Park, said: “It feels like they’re treating us with contempt and I don’t think they’ve listened to any of our views. I believe there’s been a complete lack of democracy. We want a public enquiry.”
Keyham resident Ian Avent said: “They never should have planned it for sea level. It should be at the highest point possible for dispersal of fumes.
“It’s a terrible legacy for our children and I believe it will release tonnes of carbon dioxide which will contribute to global warming.
“There’ll be extra fumes from HGVs which will affect our children, just for the sake of a bit of steam and electricity. It’s a depressing scenario.”
“If noise levels rise to five decibels that is quadruple the amount of normal background noise that people will live with.”
Eva Deacon, from Normandy Way, was concerned about traffic flow problems. “You only have to see the impact from just one lane closing on the Tamar Bridge because of wind to see the disruption – the incinerator will add to the problems,” she said.
Anne Brownlow, of Church Way, said: “We have a seven-year-old grand-daughter and we’re worried about future health effects as well as the traffic around her primary school.”
Tina Lowe, of Saltash Passage, said her main concerns were for her six-year-old son, Jacob, and his future health.
“I feel it’s criminal. I came into this with an open mind and went to the road shows. I asked questions and I cannot see anything that is good about this.”
She claimed it was 1980s technology that had been banned in USA under a Clean Air Act, and also claimed profits from the facility would go back to Germany, where operator MVV Umwelt is based.
She added: “MVV have bought some football shirts for a local football team but what kind of recompense is that?”
She claimed the council had used ‘smoke and mirrors’ and been ‘undemocratic’ in the way it had scheduled the crunch planning meeting just before Christmas. Alison Morris of Cardinal Avenue, a mother-of-one, said: “I feel they have a dim view of the people that live here and that we don’t care, but that’s not true. It feels like they think we live in a slum but we’re working people. They might glam this up with trees and perfumes but they’re just covering it up.”
Lisa Chambers of Newman Road, said: “I believe this really is a crime. At certain times we get a really thick sea mist and if particles get trapped in it and is contaminated it will travel all the way up the Tamar Estuary and affect everyone.
“The chimney just dominates. I’ll look out my window and all I’ll see is this chimney.
“How dare they just think they can come along and take £10,000 off the value of our properties?”
VOW TO FIGHT ON AGAINST THE DECISION
ROBIN KEATS, a 59-year-old electrical engineering lecturer from St Budeaux, has been at the forefront of the Incineration Is Wrong (IIW) protest group. He has vowed to continue the fight against the incinerator
“HAVE the people of Plymouth actually been listened to in any of the consultation?” Mr Keats asked.
“Have Plymouth City Council done their job properly?”
Mr Keats gave an impassioned speech in opposition to the plans at yesterday’s crunch council meeting.
He was threatened with eviction for deliberately over-running the five-minute time-limit.
“MVV get 3,500 pages of paperwork to put their argument across,” he said. “We get five minutes.”
Mr Keats said the technology had been banned in the United States, branding it out-dated.
He added: “They keep telling everyone there’s no problems but MVV seem to have pulled the wool over the council’s and the people’s eyes.