Waste strategy in tatters as councillors veto incinerator plans

7:22pm Monday 19th October 2009 in News Photograph of the Author By Andrew Ffrench, covering Didcot and Wallingford. Call me on 01865 425425

Residents demonstrate outside County Hall Residents demonstrate outside County Hall

Oxfordshire County Council’s £100m plans for a waste incinerator were dealt a bodyblow today when its own planning committee rejected schemes to build at both Ardley and Sutton Courtenay.

The committee had been recommended to approve both planning applications by Viridor at Ardley — the council’s chosen tenderer — and a rival bid by Waste Recycling Group for Sutton Courtenay.

But they threw out both applications on the grounds that they conflict with district council Local Plans for both areas, which aim to protect the open countryside from “large permanent buildings”.

Protesters who have fought against both schemes were delighted last night – but it remained unclear what the next step by both Viridor and Oxfordshire County Council would be.

County spokesman Paul Smith said: “Following the decisions today, the county council will consider its options.”

The proposed Ardley incinerator would be able to burn up to 300,000 tonnes of non-recylable waste a year. The county council’s cabinet last month chose Viridor’s tender to run a facility for 25 years.

The planning committee rejected Viridor’s application by nine votes to five, while WRG’s bid was rejected by seven votes to six.

Jon O’Neill, chairman of Ardley Against the Incinerator, thanked councillors who voted against giving planning permission.

He said: “It was good to see councillors making their own decisions and not being whipped along party political lines.

“There may be a chance for Viridor to appeal against this decision and we will be ready to fight.”

Callum MacKenzie, a spokesman for Sutton Courtenay against the Incinerator, said: “This is great news for Oxfordshire.

“WRG could not convince councillors that they would properly seal off any hazardous waste before it was transported for disposal and I think that tipped the balance in our favour.

“The vote was too close for comfort, but I think WRG would be foolish to persist with their plans now.”

Fellow Sutton Courtenay campaigner Edmund Rowley-Williams added: “This is very good news, but we remain on our guard in case WRG try to reverse the process.”

Out of 15 county councillors on the planning committee, 10 were Conservative, two Labour and two Liberal Democrat, with Ploughley Tory county councillor Catherine Fulljames deciding not to vote after she was advised that she should declare an interest.

She lives near Ardley and said: “I would have voted against the incinerator because it would have been an eyesore and traffic in the surrounding area would have increased significantly.”

Ardley campaigners told the committee they were concerned about increased traffic on the B430 and on the M40.

John Tanner, Labour county councillor for Isis, said: “Putting waste in holes in the ground is the worst thing you can do.

“The next worst thing you can do is set fire to it.

“Cherwell district council’s objection to the Ardley incinerator is that there would be a permanent industrial building in rural open land.

“This is yesterday’s technology and nobody knows how much waste will be created over the next 25 years.”

Following the meeting, Alan Armitage, Liberal Democrat county councillor for West Central Oxford, said the two firms could appeal against the council’s decision.

He added: “They could appeal to the Government and an appeal could prompt a planning inquiry.”

Comments (28)

7:42pm Mon 19 Oct 09

Kinetic says...

A great result for now but no doubt this will not be the end of certain councilor's ambitions to incinerate Oxfordshire. Lets hope that sense continues to prevail.
A great result for now but no doubt this will not be the end of certain councilor's ambitions to incinerate Oxfordshire. Lets hope that sense continues to prevail. Kinetic

7:43pm Mon 19 Oct 09

mark.dot says...

This is good news for Oxfordshire. Although many of us argued that there is no need for this type and scale of incineration, we need to keep reducing waste. If we don't have enough waste to justify an incinerator, we won't get one. Ever.
This is good news for Oxfordshire. Although many of us argued that there is no need for this type and scale of incineration, we need to keep reducing waste. If we don't have enough waste to justify an incinerator, we won't get one. Ever. mark.dot

7:29am Tue 20 Oct 09

tanchris says...

Not -in-my-backyard syndrome raises it's head! Sutton Courtney already has an eyesore on it's doorstep,so by developing it, surely the area would be enhanced! So it's back to digging holes is it?
Not -in-my-backyard syndrome raises it's head! Sutton Courtney already has an eyesore on it's doorstep,so by developing it, surely the area would be enhanced! So it's back to digging holes is it? tanchris

9:06am Tue 20 Oct 09

Megs says...

Although County Councillors rejected both incinerators on the grounds that the proposals conflicted with the county's policy of no large scale industrial development in rural locations (greenfield sites) - incidentally tanchris, the eyesore you mention will be demolisshed in 2015 in line with the planning permission conditions it was given - the councillors did miss the opportunity to state that they also wished to comply with the legally precendented (at Kidderminster) planning condition of public perception of risk. All in all both applications fail on fundamental planning grounds
Although County Councillors rejected both incinerators on the grounds that the proposals conflicted with the county's policy of no large scale industrial development in rural locations (greenfield sites) - incidentally tanchris, the eyesore you mention will be demolisshed in 2015 in line with the planning permission conditions it was given - the councillors did miss the opportunity to state that they also wished to comply with the legally precendented (at Kidderminster) planning condition of public perception of risk. All in all both applications fail on fundamental planning grounds Megs

9:49am Tue 20 Oct 09

doozer says...

Also, tanchris, if you were familiar with the argument regarding the incinerator....you would know that 'digging more holes' is certainly not the answer...but neither is using a potentially dangerous, inefficient, unenvironmentally friendly, uneconomical form of burning. What would be nice would be for OCC to acknowledge the existance of better methods...and then look into them as options...before choosing 'Old' technology.

But you know this....don't you?

You'll also know that the harmful effects of burning rubbish - the effects on human-healt,h won't only effect 'my back yard'...but will effect a large surrounding area...so if you live anywhere in Oxfordshire (and indded some info suggests anywhere in the UK), then YOU will be affected by incineration.

But you may know this already too.
Also, tanchris, if you were familiar with the argument regarding the incinerator....you would know that 'digging more holes' is certainly not the answer...but neither is using a potentially dangerous, inefficient, unenvironmentally friendly, uneconomical form of burning. What would be nice would be for OCC to acknowledge the existance of better methods...and then look into them as options...before choosing 'Old' technology. But you know this....don't you? You'll also know that the harmful effects of burning rubbish - the effects on human-healt,h won't only effect 'my back yard'...but will effect a large surrounding area...so if you live anywhere in Oxfordshire (and indded some info suggests anywhere in the UK), then YOU will be affected by incineration. But you may know this already too. doozer

10:40am Tue 20 Oct 09

Nick Mawer says...

Firstly let us congratulate the good sense of those Councillors at OCC who voted against the construction of these toxic waste factories.
This is however not the end of the story, because unless we stop sending rubbish to landfill the European Union will start hitting us with swinging fines. This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequence. The bureaucrats in Brussels certainly did not envisage that countries would start producing thousands of tonnes of Carbon Dioxide and toxic waste because it was easier to do that than increase rates of re-cycling.
So we have it in our hands to stop any requirement for incinerators by re-cycling more and persuading suppliers to reduce packaging.
Then we either tell Brussels where to stick their landfill charges, or we shut up and pay up.
Firstly let us congratulate the good sense of those Councillors at OCC who voted against the construction of these toxic waste factories. This is however not the end of the story, because unless we stop sending rubbish to landfill the European Union will start hitting us with swinging fines. This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequence. The bureaucrats in Brussels certainly did not envisage that countries would start producing thousands of tonnes of Carbon Dioxide and toxic waste because it was easier to do that than increase rates of re-cycling. So we have it in our hands to stop any requirement for incinerators by re-cycling more and persuading suppliers to reduce packaging. Then we either tell Brussels where to stick their landfill charges, or we shut up and pay up. Nick Mawer

11:05am Tue 20 Oct 09

Megs says...

Also let's not forget that landfill taxes apply only to bio-degradable waste - plenty of systems to deal with that
Also let's not forget that landfill taxes apply only to bio-degradable waste - plenty of systems to deal with that Megs

11:09am Tue 20 Oct 09

colbart says...

Next step Didcot power station??.

They are planning to convert from coal.
Next step Didcot power station??. They are planning to convert from coal. colbart

11:23am Tue 20 Oct 09

Steve Gerrish says...

If Oxfordshire County Council had decided back in 2004 (when first public consultation was held) to become well informed about the pros and cons of all the different technologies, with the help of truly independent advice, and then tendered for their chosen technology, they would not be in this predicament today. This is probably only a delay in an already severly delayed process, unless officers and Councillors decide to take a rational look at all the information that has come to light as a greater number of people have become aware of the issues and increased their understanding. I live in hope that face-saving will not influence any decisions taken from this point forward.
If Oxfordshire County Council had decided back in 2004 (when first public consultation was held) to become well informed about the pros and cons of all the different technologies, with the help of truly independent advice, and then tendered for their chosen technology, they would not be in this predicament today. This is probably only a delay in an already severly delayed process, unless officers and Councillors decide to take a rational look at all the information that has come to light as a greater number of people have become aware of the issues and increased their understanding. I live in hope that face-saving will not influence any decisions taken from this point forward. Steve Gerrish

11:59am Tue 20 Oct 09

Pensfold says...

The proposed mass burn incinerators emit small particles which the World Health Organisation has shown are damaging to the health of people in the area and are too small to be filtered out.

The solution is to use "plasma converters" which incinerate the waste in an enclosed unit without any emissions to the atmosphere. They are also smaller buildings, have no chimney and are lower cost than mass burn incinerators.
The proposed mass burn incinerators emit small particles which the World Health Organisation has shown are damaging to the health of people in the area and are too small to be filtered out. The solution is to use "plasma converters" which incinerate the waste in an enclosed unit without any emissions to the atmosphere. They are also smaller buildings, have no chimney and are lower cost than mass burn incinerators. Pensfold

12:08pm Tue 20 Oct 09

ItsTom says...

Just dump it all in the Thames
Just dump it all in the Thames ItsTom

12:29pm Tue 20 Oct 09

GEC says...

I am so pleased that members of the planning committee saw sense - well done and many thanks to them. Well done, also, to the Ardley and Sutton Courtenay groups who have worked to hard to fight against this. Guess it's now a case of 'wait and see' what Viridor and WRG decide to do ...
I am so pleased that members of the planning committee saw sense - well done and many thanks to them. Well done, also, to the Ardley and Sutton Courtenay groups who have worked to hard to fight against this. Guess it's now a case of 'wait and see' what Viridor and WRG decide to do ... GEC

1:06pm Tue 20 Oct 09

Michael Ryan says...

Those who doubt the health effects of incineration should send a letter under FoI to the Health Protection Agency asking for data on both rates of illness and also rates of premature deaths at electoral ward level around existing incinerators at Edmonton, SELCHP, Tyseley, Sheffield, Wolverhampton, St Mark's Hospital (Northwick Park, Brent), Stoke-on-Trent etc.

The letter back from HPA will confirm that they haven't examined any of the above data. This failure by HPA hasn't stopped them pontificating on the health effects of incineration and it hasn't stopped Councillors, the Environment Agency, Primary Care Trusts & many MPs from believing them.

We, the taxpayers, are bankrolling the above & the HPA have fallen down badly on the job they are supposed to be doing. The HPA needs to be disbanded and the last five years salaries paid to all staff seized.

It's our lives that are being tossed away by the negligence of the HPA.

See Justin McCracken's letter to me about the HPA's failure at www.ukhr.org

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Those who doubt the health effects of incineration should send a letter under FoI to the Health Protection Agency asking for data on both rates of illness and also rates of premature deaths at electoral ward level around existing incinerators at Edmonton, SELCHP, Tyseley, Sheffield, Wolverhampton, St Mark's Hospital (Northwick Park, Brent), Stoke-on-Trent etc. The letter back from HPA will confirm that they haven't examined any of the above data. This failure by HPA hasn't stopped them pontificating on the health effects of incineration and it hasn't stopped Councillors, the Environment Agency, Primary Care Trusts & many MPs from believing them. We, the taxpayers, are bankrolling the above & the HPA have fallen down badly on the job they are supposed to be doing. The HPA needs to be disbanded and the last five years salaries paid to all staff seized. It's our lives that are being tossed away by the negligence of the HPA. See Justin McCracken's letter to me about the HPA's failure at www.ukhr.org Kind regards, Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury Michael Ryan

1:24pm Tue 20 Oct 09

PrewB says...

After yesterday's meeting my faith in the council has been (somewhat) restored. It was a relief to hear many of the councillors arguing their points having clearly researched the facts and taking their responsibility in this decision seriously. The members of the public who were given a 3 minute slot to make their point did a fantastic job - there was so much to say and not enough time but the right decision was made in the end. Now we have to focus on reducing our landfill even more until we find the correct alternative to this unacceptable method of waste disposal.
After yesterday's meeting my faith in the council has been (somewhat) restored. It was a relief to hear many of the councillors arguing their points having clearly researched the facts and taking their responsibility in this decision seriously. The members of the public who were given a 3 minute slot to make their point did a fantastic job - there was so much to say and not enough time but the right decision was made in the end. Now we have to focus on reducing our landfill even more until we find the correct alternative to this unacceptable method of waste disposal. PrewB

1:33pm Tue 20 Oct 09

SWinSC says...

To show how poorly OCC have managed this whole process - look at Dorchester on Thames - just some 3-4 miles downstream of the proposed SC incinerator. Its been accepted as one of just 6 nationwide 'zero waste' centres as part of a plan to make England a zero waste nation. Then they have this monstrosity potentially spewing its toxic waste on Dorchester residents..
To show how poorly OCC have managed this whole process - look at Dorchester on Thames - just some 3-4 miles downstream of the proposed SC incinerator. Its been accepted as one of just 6 nationwide 'zero waste' centres as part of a plan to make England a zero waste nation. Then they have this monstrosity potentially spewing its toxic waste on Dorchester residents.. SWinSC

1:39pm Tue 20 Oct 09

SWinSC says...

Just to back up PrewB's comment - I attended the meeting and it was gratifying to see many councillors articulating valid concerns over these applications. I would have preferred however to have seen more of them stating opposition to incineration full stop. Clr John Tanner was an exception and he made some powerful comments about this dinosaur technology that must have influenced his colleagues.
Just to back up PrewB's comment - I attended the meeting and it was gratifying to see many councillors articulating valid concerns over these applications. I would have preferred however to have seen more of them stating opposition to incineration full stop. Clr John Tanner was an exception and he made some powerful comments about this dinosaur technology that must have influenced his colleagues. SWinSC

1:40pm Tue 20 Oct 09

rabbs says...

Strange that Catherine Fulljames did not vote. Surely the whole point - and your duty - of representing your local area as a councillor is that you can express the views (objective or subjective) of the local people you represent. Of course you will have an interest, it is your local area!? No other councillor abstained and surely they would be impacted by the developments in some way or another - pollution, traffic etc. Waste of a vote in my view.
Strange that Catherine Fulljames did not vote. Surely the whole point - and your duty - of representing your local area as a councillor is that you can express the views (objective or subjective) of the local people you represent. Of course you will have an interest, it is your local area!? No other councillor abstained and surely they would be impacted by the developments in some way or another - pollution, traffic etc. Waste of a vote in my view. rabbs

2:20pm Tue 20 Oct 09

johnwards says...

Rabbs, she was told that if she voted that Vidor would have had good grounds for appeal. So rather than risking this she didn't vote, good on her. It was very strange however that the panel wasn't given the advice, I'm not sure if Catherine could have given her permission for that advice to be published.

She was told that she could have 10 minutes to speak but the Chairman only gave her 5 minutes which ran to 6 until he cut her off and was very rude to her. She rightly walked out at this point.

Being Scottish it is actually impossible to vote for a Tory but Catherines concern on this matter and her honesty may convince me to change my mind next time around...well to vote for her not the Tories...
Rabbs, she was told that if she voted that Vidor would have had good grounds for appeal. So rather than risking this she didn't vote, good on her. It was very strange however that the panel wasn't given the advice, I'm not sure if Catherine could have given her permission for that advice to be published. She was told that she could have 10 minutes to speak but the Chairman only gave her 5 minutes which ran to 6 until he cut her off and was very rude to her. She rightly walked out at this point. Being Scottish it is actually impossible to vote for a Tory but Catherines concern on this matter and her honesty may convince me to change my mind next time around...well to vote for her not the Tories... johnwards

2:25pm Tue 20 Oct 09

Querying says...

Steve has hit the nub of this problem. The Council failed in its duty in not carrying out a proper analysis of the alternatives and then consulting with the public effectively. Rather, despite widespread public concern, it tried to force through this ill conceived incinerator proposal, with its considerable financial and health and environmental risks.



Steve has hit the nub of this problem. The Council failed in its duty in not carrying out a proper analysis of the alternatives and then consulting with the public effectively. Rather, despite widespread public concern, it tried to force through this ill conceived incinerator proposal, with its considerable financial and health and environmental risks. Querying

2:45pm Tue 20 Oct 09

johnwards says...

It was plain to see from the figures that this plan was crazy.

Current levels of residential waste is 170,000 tonnes and falling. The plan was to build a 300,000 capacity incinerator.

Vidor were asked if they would be interested in a smaller capacity facility, of course they said no as they wouldn't be able to make all the extra money from the other counties that would have imported their waste.

If we do need an incinerator then it needs to be a small scale of 50,000 tonnes and centrally located in an already industrial area. Not in the countryside, the outskirts of Oxford would be idea.

That is of course if the technology is as good as they say it is, and lots of people say it isn't...
It was plain to see from the figures that this plan was crazy. Current levels of residential waste is 170,000 tonnes and falling. The plan was to build a 300,000 capacity incinerator. Vidor were asked if they would be interested in a smaller capacity facility, of course they said no as they wouldn't be able to make all the extra money from the other counties that would have imported their waste. If we do need an incinerator then it needs to be a small scale of 50,000 tonnes and centrally located in an already industrial area. Not in the countryside, the outskirts of Oxford would be idea. That is of course if the technology is as good as they say it is, and lots of people say it isn't... johnwards

4:49pm Tue 20 Oct 09

Michael Ryan says...

I wish the Councillors at Shropshire could read the blog here as they have totally ignored health issues and despite declaring "no incinerator" during the 2004 Public Inquiry into waste, they signed a deal with Veolia and are treating the issue as a "hands off matter" as Veolia have a 27-year contract.

Shropshire Council have also ignored the fact that Veolia have a contract with Dow Corning, in Midland, Michigan, to operate a plasma gasification plant to safely dispose of hazardous waste that had formerly been trucked to incineration in Texas.

Plasma gasification is the safest & cheapest method of waste disposal and leaves zero ash for landfill - unlike incineration.

Plasma gasification is cheaper & safer than incineration & leaves no residue for landfill. What more do you want?

The Inspector at the Shropshire Waste plan public inquiry was very interested in plasma gasification & quizzed Dr van Steenis on it. Here we are, over 5 years later & still no plasma gasification in UK.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
I wish the Councillors at Shropshire could read the blog here as they have totally ignored health issues and despite declaring "no incinerator" during the 2004 Public Inquiry into waste, they signed a deal with Veolia and are treating the issue as a "hands off matter" as Veolia have a 27-year contract. Shropshire Council have also ignored the fact that Veolia have a contract with Dow Corning, in Midland, Michigan, to operate a plasma gasification plant to safely dispose of hazardous waste that had formerly been trucked to incineration in Texas. Plasma gasification is the safest & cheapest method of waste disposal and leaves zero ash for landfill - unlike incineration. Plasma gasification is cheaper & safer than incineration & leaves no residue for landfill. What more do you want? The Inspector at the Shropshire Waste plan public inquiry was very interested in plasma gasification & quizzed Dr van Steenis on it. Here we are, over 5 years later & still no plasma gasification in UK. Kind regards, Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury Michael Ryan

8:10pm Tue 20 Oct 09

Sophia says...

First Brookes now this. If councillors start excercising their own judgement instead of just doing whatever officials tell them, where will it al end?
First Brookes now this. If councillors start excercising their own judgement instead of just doing whatever officials tell them, where will it al end? Sophia

9:51pm Tue 20 Oct 09

EB says...

ItsTom wrote:
Just dump it all in the Thames
Not enough room - let's dump it all in your head, it's big enough and there's clearly nowt else in there...
[quote][p][bold]ItsTom[/bold] wrote: Just dump it all in the Thames[/p][/quote]Not enough room - let's dump it all in your head, it's big enough and there's clearly nowt else in there... EB

10:06pm Tue 20 Oct 09

rabbs says...

johnwards - thank-you for correcting me. I am completely horrified that this is what happened. It sounds like she was badly treated.
johnwards - thank-you for correcting me. I am completely horrified that this is what happened. It sounds like she was badly treated. rabbs

12:36am Wed 21 Oct 09

Richard Clarke says...

Fundamental to OCC’s case was the argument that the WRG incinerator would somehow blend into the Didcot power station landscape on a brown field site. Both these assumptions are false, but on Monday that did stop the abrasive Planning Committee’s chairman Councillor Steve Hayward from pontificating about the future of Didcot.

In an attempt to persuade councillors that the scenic Vale would not be dominated by a monstrous incinerator, he mused that some form of clean-coal power station would arise after 2015 when the Didcot A plant has to be demolished. Much as electricity operators might welcome Councillor Hayward’s planning pre-consent, there is little chance of a clean-coal station at Didcot.

It would not be profitable, as its operations would be constrained by engineering realities. Millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide would have to be carried by rail to the North Sea coast, doubling the coal-related freight load on an already over-loaded network. If the waste gas were piped out you could drive a bus down the inside of the pipe and, in any case, there are no nearby spent gas reservoirs to pipe it to!

Might I suggest that OCC send a delegation to Didcot to get some facts, given the great importance of now finding a 21st Century solution for Oxfordshire’s waste materials?

Below the skyline, and away from the planning furore, there is excellent low carbon research being conducted and it is to be hoped that one day much of the Didcot site might follow the South Oxfordshire tradition of becoming a world leading research centre.

Richard Clarke, Abingdon
Fundamental to OCC’s case was the argument that the WRG incinerator would somehow blend into the Didcot power station landscape on a brown field site. Both these assumptions are false, but on Monday that did stop the abrasive Planning Committee’s chairman Councillor Steve Hayward from pontificating about the future of Didcot. In an attempt to persuade councillors that the scenic Vale would not be dominated by a monstrous incinerator, he mused that some form of clean-coal power station would arise after 2015 when the Didcot A plant has to be demolished. Much as electricity operators might welcome Councillor Hayward’s planning pre-consent, there is little chance of a clean-coal station at Didcot. It would not be profitable, as its operations would be constrained by engineering realities. Millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide would have to be carried by rail to the North Sea coast, doubling the coal-related freight load on an already over-loaded network. If the waste gas were piped out you could drive a bus down the inside of the pipe and, in any case, there are no nearby spent gas reservoirs to pipe it to! Might I suggest that OCC send a delegation to Didcot to get some facts, given the great importance of now finding a 21st Century solution for Oxfordshire’s waste materials? Below the skyline, and away from the planning furore, there is excellent low carbon research being conducted and it is to be hoped that one day much of the Didcot site might follow the South Oxfordshire tradition of becoming a world leading research centre. Richard Clarke, Abingdon Richard Clarke

12:51am Wed 21 Oct 09

lespaulthroughamarshall says...

Thankyou OCC Councillors - and thank (some of) you for your responses to letters. You have renewed my faith in politicians. However, as work has clearly already started on the site before the application was made, will OCC now be prepared to deal positively with Viridor if they continue to work in contravention of the planning decision ?
Thankyou OCC Councillors - and thank (some of) you for your responses to letters. You have renewed my faith in politicians. However, as work has clearly already started on the site before the application was made, will OCC now be prepared to deal positively with Viridor if they continue to work in contravention of the planning decision ? lespaulthroughamarshall

6:02pm Wed 21 Oct 09

TessaSC says...

Thank goodness the OCC saw sense but as we all know, it can take very little to make people change their minds and it was too close for comfort for Sutton Courtenay. We must stay vigilant. I would like to say my thanks to the OCC members who voted against and also a huge heartfelt thanks to those who have campaigned so tirelessly. I have done and will continue to do my little bit but nothing compared to some of you. We cannot have an incinerator - there will not be one - simple!!
Thank goodness the OCC saw sense but as we all know, it can take very little to make people change their minds and it was too close for comfort for Sutton Courtenay. We must stay vigilant. I would like to say my thanks to the OCC members who voted against and also a huge heartfelt thanks to those who have campaigned so tirelessly. I have done and will continue to do my little bit but nothing compared to some of you. We cannot have an incinerator - there will not be one - simple!! TessaSC

4:40am Thu 22 Oct 09

Filet O Fish says...

To all the self congratulating saddo NIMBYS above. Firstly, you offer no viable alternative. Secondly We can all present statistics and so called facts from whatever organisation we choose, to support our arguement. Lets see how smug you will be when your council tax rises massively because of greatly increased waste disposal costs.
To all the self congratulating saddo NIMBYS above. Firstly, you offer no viable alternative. Secondly We can all present statistics and so called facts from whatever organisation we choose, to support our arguement. Lets see how smug you will be when your council tax rises massively because of greatly increased waste disposal costs. Filet O Fish

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