Multi-million pound incinerator approved in Worcestershire

Malvern Gazette: Multi-million pound incinerator approved for Worcestershire Multi-million pound incinerator approved for Worcestershire

A MASSIVE rubbish-burning incinerator has been voted through at Worcestershire County Council – 16 years after it was first proposed.

Today's crunch debate to bring the £165 million plant to Hartlebury trading estate, which will be open by 2017, was backed by 42 votes to 11 amid tense scenes at County Hall.

The decision brings an end to years of uncertainty, with work on constructing the massive plant getting underway in the spring.

It came despite last-ditch pleas from campaigners, who claimed it would damage the environment, prove too costly and could be made redundant by new technology within years.

But the criticism was rejected by politicians, who insisted it was the best value-for-money option, would prevent a landfill crisis, and would benefit taxpayers.

The plant will handle up to 200,000 tonnes of rubbish from Worcestershire and Herefordshire, burning it to generate electricity to connect to the national grid.

At the start of the debate Rob Wilden, from Herefordshire and Worcestershire Action Group, said: “You’ll be transporting 200,000 tonnes of waste across our beautiful county, shame on you.

“When confidence in your position turns to aloof arrogance, the warning signs are there for all to see.”

Fellow campaigner Louise Brookes said: “We are deeply concerned about the cost to taxpayers.

“Recycling is important because it pays - burning our resources is not wise.”

But councillors said the plant is desperately needed because the county’s landfill space is forecast to be full by 2024, meaning time is running out for alternatives.

A report by the authority’s officers says although the cost of dealing with the county’s waste by 2042 would be £1.6 billion, not having an incinerator and carrying on using more landfill would see it top £2.1 billion.

Councillor Adrian Hardman, the leader, said: “What we’re coming up with is an imaginative and creative solution to a problem we must solve.

“We need a long-term waste disposal solution and this is the best, cheapest way – if we delay this move, we face major risks.”

Councillor Fran Oborski said she felt the council was “galloping down the road of old technology” but Coun John Campion, a Tory, said it had “been debated many times” and had to be accepted.

Conservative Councillor Maurice Broomfield, who represents the area and voted against it, said it would discourage people to recycle and pleaded to throw it out.

It was backed by the entire opposition Labour group, apart from Councillor Paul Denham, who walked out of the chamber and reappeared once the voting was over.

Despite opposition from the Green Party, UKIP and a handful of independents or minor party politicians, it was also backed by the Liberal Democrats and the controlling Conservatives apart from Coun Broomfield.

The site will be run by West Mercia Waste Management but will be handed back to Worcestershire and Herefordshire councils to operate from 2023.

The construction will create 255 jobs, while 45 permanent roles will be available once it opens.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:02pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Jabbadad says...

No Suprise there then, Another case of the Tories not taking the Best Value decision, even though there are much cheaper plants actually working sucessfully.
It's really worrying as to HOW / WHY they came to this decision, unless of course the Tories at County Council are now experts in Incinerators and know something we mere mortals don't. But I don't recognise the experts within our councillors does anyone else?
Looks very ominous for our Vulnerable Older Peoples services.
No Suprise there then, Another case of the Tories not taking the Best Value decision, even though there are much cheaper plants actually working sucessfully. It's really worrying as to HOW / WHY they came to this decision, unless of course the Tories at County Council are now experts in Incinerators and know something we mere mortals don't. But I don't recognise the experts within our councillors does anyone else? Looks very ominous for our Vulnerable Older Peoples services. Jabbadad
  • Score: -3

2:32pm Thu 16 Jan 14

brooksider says...

Jabbadad wrote:
No Suprise there then, Another case of the Tories not taking the Best Value decision, even though there are much cheaper plants actually working sucessfully.
It's really worrying as to HOW / WHY they came to this decision, unless of course the Tories at County Council are now experts in Incinerators and know something we mere mortals don't. But I don't recognise the experts within our councillors does anyone else?
Looks very ominous for our Vulnerable Older Peoples services.
I don't think it is necessarily a party issue, the Conservatives of Gloucestershire voted against a planned incinerator.
I think it is more to do with our County Council not understanding the economics and the environmental ramifications behind this plant. Unfortunately it just joins a long list of costly errors on their part and they do not seem to be able to get the big decisions right.
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: No Suprise there then, Another case of the Tories not taking the Best Value decision, even though there are much cheaper plants actually working sucessfully. It's really worrying as to HOW / WHY they came to this decision, unless of course the Tories at County Council are now experts in Incinerators and know something we mere mortals don't. But I don't recognise the experts within our councillors does anyone else? Looks very ominous for our Vulnerable Older Peoples services.[/p][/quote]I don't think it is necessarily a party issue, the Conservatives of Gloucestershire voted against a planned incinerator. I think it is more to do with our County Council not understanding the economics and the environmental ramifications behind this plant. Unfortunately it just joins a long list of costly errors on their part and they do not seem to be able to get the big decisions right. brooksider
  • Score: 1

2:42pm Thu 16 Jan 14

green49 says...

I do think we need to burn our rubbish that cannot be recycled, NOT bury it and form more hills like Throckmorton, that already has and will produce more problems as the years go by, lets create energy and put it on the grid for the benefit of everyone.

WHY is that a problem for people??? maybe the project is too big?, i once worked for a company that had a system that burned all its own waste and didnt need any other form of fuel, it heated water, did heating in the winter and the excess was passed to other places that were local, the technology today is far better lets use it, we will have less dumping, less mess, so i firmly believe we got to burn it otherwise we will be full up.

Why not build a small complex when building commercial sites, its a no brainer as far as i am concerned.
I do think we need to burn our rubbish that cannot be recycled, NOT bury it and form more hills like Throckmorton, that already has and will produce more problems as the years go by, lets create energy and put it on the grid for the benefit of everyone. WHY is that a problem for people??? maybe the project is too big?, i once worked for a company that had a system that burned all its own waste and didnt need any other form of fuel, it heated water, did heating in the winter and the excess was passed to other places that were local, the technology today is far better lets use it, we will have less dumping, less mess, so i firmly believe we got to burn it otherwise we will be full up. Why not build a small complex when building commercial sites, its a no brainer as far as i am concerned. green49
  • Score: 9

4:31pm Thu 16 Jan 14

skychip says...

How will this be paid for - PFI I suppose. More debt, let's hope it really does the job.
How will this be paid for - PFI I suppose. More debt, let's hope it really does the job. skychip
  • Score: 2

5:26pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Jabbadad says...

Brooksider your loyalty is embarrassing. In case you have forgotton The Tories Control Worcestershire County Counci, and The Government with Cleggy & Co Coat Tail hanging.
Our City is currently almost run By Labour, but are acting as Tories when it comes to older people.
Brooksider your loyalty is embarrassing. In case you have forgotton The Tories Control Worcestershire County Counci, and The Government with Cleggy & Co Coat Tail hanging. Our City is currently almost run By Labour, but are acting as Tories when it comes to older people. Jabbadad
  • Score: -4

5:50pm Thu 16 Jan 14

brooksider says...

Jabbadad wrote:
Brooksider your loyalty is embarrassing. In case you have forgotton The Tories Control Worcestershire County Counci, and The Government with Cleggy & Co Coat Tail hanging.
Our City is currently almost run By Labour, but are acting as Tories when it comes to older people.
I have no loyalties when it comes to this fiasco.

I suspect the only reason this incinerator has been approved is political expediency on behalf of both the Conservatives and Labour.

The plan is seriously flawed and I am sure many Councillors know it.
They also know if they didn't vote it through, there is a large penalty clause in the contract and they would look stupid for letting it get to this stage without any of them questioning the business case.

The fatuous argument that landfill will be full by 2024 is just a smokescreen for their incompetence.
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: Brooksider your loyalty is embarrassing. In case you have forgotton The Tories Control Worcestershire County Counci, and The Government with Cleggy & Co Coat Tail hanging. Our City is currently almost run By Labour, but are acting as Tories when it comes to older people.[/p][/quote]I have no loyalties when it comes to this fiasco. I suspect the only reason this incinerator has been approved is political expediency on behalf of both the Conservatives and Labour. The plan is seriously flawed and I am sure many Councillors know it. They also know if they didn't vote it through, there is a large penalty clause in the contract and they would look stupid for letting it get to this stage without any of them questioning the business case. The fatuous argument that landfill will be full by 2024 is just a smokescreen for their incompetence. brooksider
  • Score: 1

6:50pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Jabbadad says...

brooksider i apologise.
brooksider i apologise. Jabbadad
  • Score: -1

8:47pm Thu 16 Jan 14

brooksider says...

Jabbadad wrote:
brooksider i apologise.
No need, thanks
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: brooksider i apologise.[/p][/quote]No need, thanks brooksider
  • Score: 0

9:08pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Small Town says...

Anything that brings much needed employment to the Worcester / Kidderminster area must be a positive, no discussion.

Those with their hands in the air need to live in the real world and realise it's our rubbish so only right it's dealt within our region.

Roll on the start of construction.
Anything that brings much needed employment to the Worcester / Kidderminster area must be a positive, no discussion. Those with their hands in the air need to live in the real world and realise it's our rubbish so only right it's dealt within our region. Roll on the start of construction. Small Town
  • Score: 2

1:13pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Good Over Evil says...

Small Town wrote:
Anything that brings much needed employment to the Worcester / Kidderminster area must be a positive, no discussion.

Those with their hands in the air need to live in the real world and realise it's our rubbish so only right it's dealt within our region.

Roll on the start of construction.
Small Town = Small Mind
[quote][p][bold]Small Town[/bold] wrote: Anything that brings much needed employment to the Worcester / Kidderminster area must be a positive, no discussion. Those with their hands in the air need to live in the real world and realise it's our rubbish so only right it's dealt within our region. Roll on the start of construction.[/p][/quote]Small Town = Small Mind Good Over Evil
  • Score: 1

6:23pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Mrfade says...

So this is the £120 million incinerator that is now going to cost £165 million just to build it. The lifetime costs are quite likely to reach or even exceed £1 billion and the waste contract will be at least £1.6 billion. So we are already spending almost £40 million per annum and this is going to increase, but £6 million , but there are so many unforeseen changes over the next 30 years , who knows what it will cost.
We could easily be paying in excess of £50 million jus for waste in the next few years. .All county councillors where sent cost comparisons of much cheaper options where instead of increasing the budget we could be decreasing cots by approximately £1 million pounds per month.
there has been no costed options appraisal of these alternatives used by many other councils.
By 2023 we could have be saving £18 million per annum approximately on comparative costs . Revenue from recycling can and is being achieved by many councils. it is also happening in Worcester city, I believe.

After hearing about what went on yesterday and the length of time the Labour and indeed the Lib Dems groups spent bemoaning the cuts they all with the only exception of Cllr Paul Denham. Couldn't get their hands up quick enough.

I believe that several offers have been made to the Leaders of the Labour groups both at County and Worcs City level, and they have been ignored or refused. Do they really care about the cuts, it seams not. Vote Labour or Lib Dem get Tory. How sad.
So this is the £120 million incinerator that is now going to cost £165 million just to build it. The lifetime costs are quite likely to reach or even exceed £1 billion and the waste contract will be at least £1.6 billion. So we are already spending almost £40 million per annum and this is going to increase, but £6 million , but there are so many unforeseen changes over the next 30 years , who knows what it will cost. We could easily be paying in excess of £50 million jus for waste in the next few years. .All county councillors where sent cost comparisons of much cheaper options where instead of increasing the budget we could be decreasing cots by approximately £1 million pounds per month. there has been no costed options appraisal of these alternatives used by many other councils. By 2023 we could have be saving £18 million per annum approximately on comparative costs . Revenue from recycling can and is being achieved by many councils. it is also happening in Worcester city, I believe. After hearing about what went on yesterday and the length of time the Labour and indeed the Lib Dems groups spent bemoaning the cuts they all with the only exception of Cllr Paul Denham. Couldn't get their hands up quick enough. I believe that several offers have been made to the Leaders of the Labour groups both at County and Worcs City level, and they have been ignored or refused. Do they really care about the cuts, it seams not. Vote Labour or Lib Dem get Tory. How sad. Mrfade
  • Score: 1

6:13pm Sat 18 Jan 14

PrivateSi says...

Let's just hope they get it right, a lot more quickly next time... Compared to letting EDF & China build & fund a NUCLEAR Power Station of 3000mW at £17 billion 'QUOTE' the £165 million incinerator for 16 mW has 1/3 higher setup costs / watt... The NUKE STATION has been APPROVED...

BUT: We only have 31 Incinerators and 4000 Landfills... AND I'M WELL biased against all nuclear except THORIUM CYCLE (and possibly fusion) REACTORS which are in DEVELOPMENT... We should build 69 25mW Landfill based Incinerators in the next 5 years and continue improving energy efficiency whenever possible (smart appliances etc.)...

Still offer incentives to industry to SELF-POWER as much as possible, esp. large factories... Let's see what happens will solar panels in the next 5 years too... and FORGET FRENCH NUCLEAR POWER... MORE POWER PLANTS, WELL SPREAD = greater National Security and a FAIRER JOB / EXPERTISE DISTRIBUTION

1, FOREIGN owned / run nuclear power station running on the most EXPENSIVE & DEADLY FUEL on the planet, or many, State Owned Incinerators burning WASTE... Recycling plants (that make the pellets) should ideally be built alongside Incinerators...
Let's just hope they get it right, a lot more quickly next time... Compared to letting EDF & China build & fund a NUCLEAR Power Station of 3000mW at £17 billion 'QUOTE' the £165 million incinerator for 16 mW has 1/3 higher setup costs / watt... The NUKE STATION has been APPROVED... BUT: We only have 31 Incinerators and 4000 Landfills... AND I'M WELL biased against all nuclear except THORIUM CYCLE (and possibly fusion) REACTORS which are in DEVELOPMENT... We should build 69 25mW Landfill based Incinerators in the next 5 years and continue improving energy efficiency whenever possible (smart appliances etc.)... Still offer incentives to industry to SELF-POWER as much as possible, esp. large factories... Let's see what happens will solar panels in the next 5 years too... and FORGET FRENCH NUCLEAR POWER... MORE POWER PLANTS, WELL SPREAD = greater National Security and a FAIRER JOB / EXPERTISE DISTRIBUTION 1, FOREIGN owned / run nuclear power station running on the most EXPENSIVE & DEADLY FUEL on the planet, or many, State Owned Incinerators burning WASTE... Recycling plants (that make the pellets) should ideally be built alongside Incinerators... PrivateSi
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree