Web Site topics
Please click on the link of your choice, from the selection below
Edgcott Incinerator

StewkleyGreen are alarmed about the carcinogenic fall out and carbon footprint of a new Energy from waste incinerator (better described as a wasted energy incinerator, as it is less than 15% efficient compared with 80+% for the latest incinerators) proposed by Bucks CC at Edgcott near Bicester, WSW of Stewkley so we are in the high fallout area for dioxins and other pollutants.
Incinerators account for 52% of the UK´s dioxins pollution.
The 96m high chimney will ensure the pollution will reach Stewkley in significant amounts. It will also be an eyesore across Aylesbury Vale as it is one and a half
times higher than the Bucks CC office in Aylesbury.

Following concerns raised by StewkleyGreen, Stewkley Parish Council have repeatedly written to Bucks CC with well reasoned arguments to reject the proposal to build the incinerator, only to have them rejected out of hand. After prolonged petitioning from 24 Parish Councils, AVDC councillors and a petition with well over 26,000 signatures; the decision to implement MBI was called in for review by Bucks CC scrutiny committee ( full details on BCC meeting details ) on 11 January 2011. The result was that there is a substantial case to answer and the matter should be referred to the whole BCC cabinet (now on 28/2) Decision. See also the SAVI press release.
Clr John Cartwright put forward 10 reasons to reverse the decision and 12 unanswered financial questions , these were supported by Stewkley Parish Council letter and SAVI. The cabinet met in february and dismissed all representations. WRG have now summitted a planning application that must be responded to by 8 April 2011! a draft letter to planning is available.

Our MP- John Bercow has urged everyone concerned about this incinerator to write to Planning Development Control, County Hall, Walton Street, Aylesbury HP20 1UY   E-mail quoting reference number 11/20000/AWD before the 8th April explaining their objections (e.g. Health, Traffic etc.) to the proposal. He said that he believed that clear hand written letters have the most impact, followed by typed letters then emails. Emails can be copied to   Cnlr John Cartwright ,   John Bercow MP ,  SAVI , and   Stewkley Parish Council
if you use webmail and the email links above wont work send me an email and i will reply with them.
For more background information, a draft letter to Bucks CC and who to send it to, see below.

For more information on StewkleyGreen contact Roger 240 794

for more details see the STOP Aylesbury Vale Incineration - SAVI
and Stewkley Parish Council
and a pragmatic review.
and the alternative to MBI.
and ATT and MBI compared
and the the health risks by Dr. Dick van Steenis MBBS .
and the SAVI alternative technologies .
and one of the latest alternative technologies
and how Cambridge avoid incineration completley
a full list of contacts name, role, address, email, webpage. or in pdf

DRAFT Letter

Dear Mr Shakespeare

I am very pleased to hear that the decision to proceed with this project is to be thoroughly reviewed by the County Council Cabinet.
I live in Stewkley 9 miles north East of this proposed incinerator,
I have children, and am very concerned about their health as they grow up in the village.
I suffer from asthma,
My family have a history of cancers and I am particularly concerned about anything that might contribute to my getting cancer too.
I am concerned about the environment, pollution and global warming.

I understand that Landfill isnít a sustainable solution, but Bucks CC seems to be going from one bad solution to one equally bad and unsustainable. You must be aware that MBI is banned in many countries including in Europe, Ireland & Scotland and has been rejected by many English County Councils. It canít be long before there are penalties similar to those currently imposed on Land fill for MBI, that has frequently been described as ďLandfill in the skyĒ these would totally undermine a 30 year economic payback which must not be underwritten by Bucks Community Charge payers. Furthermore I believe the Austrian company that developed this technology is in financial difficulty, so we may well find that by the time this plant is commissioned there wonít be a proper support structure which will inevitably involve the CC in even more expense. This technology is almost obsolete now. I believe that the costs of dismantling this incinerator, knocking down the 90m high chimney and disposing of the accumulated toxic waste have not been included in the costings of this project, I would like reassurance that Bucks County community charge payers will not have to pay for all these shortcomings.

There are many better (more efficient, more sustainable, more safe, less polluting, lower health risk etc.) solutions to our waste problems that are being adopted round the country such as MBT in Cambridge and multiple small ATT plants. Plasma Gasification and the new Vantage processor may be other solutions that havenít been given serious consideration either. In Aylesbury Vale we are behind in recycling which means there is a great opportunity for improvement. A demand for unsorted combustible waste will only hinder progress in recycling.

It may be difficult to quantify the health risks, but it is undeniable that many potential carcinogenic risks have been identified for MBI that have not been clearly disproven. It may be true that if the plant worked at 100% efficiency for all 30 years that the health risks would be minimal, but this has never been achieved and WRG have a poor record of environmental infringements. Surely for a high population area that is heavily dependent on trade and tourism this is an unnecessary risk to take when the alternatives donít have similar health risks. Aylesbury Vale is currently considered one of the more attractive parts of the country to live in, which has many economic advantages. It would be short sighted to give this up to a plant that depends on dirty waste trucked in from outside the county.

I believe it is EU & Government policy that waste should be dealt with at sites as near as is practicable to the source. Such a large plant must run contrary to that sensible directive, and weaken our standing in the long run, And it will lead to further congestion from lorries on our roads.

After so many questionable decisions made behind closed doors and much public opposition which has raised many objections and put forward many alternatives; the County Council has done little to refute the concerns or consider the alternatives until now. I hope the cabinet will take the decision to abandon this project now and pay the cancelation costs which must be much less that the ongoing costs of this project. If you cant do this then I think it must be referred to the full council for an open discussion, so we know what is being proposed, and why.

I look forward to a full and impartial review of this issue, as I would like to feel proud that we have a progressive green County Council with credentials that we can be proud of: as are the electorate of Devon County Council, Leicestershire County Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, Lincolnshire County Council and Suffolk County Council which seem to have handled waste management in a more enlightened manner.