Oxford MailSecond incinerator plans scrutinised (From Oxford Mail)

Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting OXFORD NEWS to 80360 or email us

Second incinerator plans scrutinised

PLANs to build a second incinerator near Bicester are being discussed by councillors.

Buckinghamshire County Council’s development control committee on Tuesday started a hearing over plans for a burner handling 300,000 tonnes of waste a year at Greatmoor Farm, in Calvert, nine miles from Bicester.

The incinerator, proposed by Waste Recycling Group, would mean an extra 84 lorry trips around Bicester a day.

Campaigners said the proposal would make Bicester “the filling in an incinerator sandwich” after plans for a burner at Ardley were approved last year.

Bicester Town Council and parish councils in the area, including Marsh Gibbon, lodged objections over concerns about the environment, increased traffic and demand.

The hearing was adjourned on Tuesday, with its second day due to be held tomorrow at Coach House, Green Park, Aston Clinton, near Aylesbury.

Related links

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:31pm Thu 19 Apr 12

Arkright says...

Bicester Town Council are concerned about ..increased traffic.. !! Yes of course they are, they're just not concerned about all the traffic now or when the 5,000 'Eco-Town' houses are built with the traffic that will bring.
Bicester Town Council are concerned about ..increased traffic.. !! Yes of course they are, they're just not concerned about all the traffic now or when the 5,000 'Eco-Town' houses are built with the traffic that will bring. Arkright
  • Score: 0

9:40pm Thu 19 Apr 12

Nick Mawer says...

Arkright - we are concerned about the traffic that will come from any development, whether it is from Bicester Village, Kingsmere, Gavray Drive, or Arncott.
Our specific traffic issue with the incinerator at Calvert is that there is a perfectly good rail network for dealing with waste that goes there from London, so why be lazy and use the roads, and why, build a new road, just to take waste to be burnt.
Arkright - we are concerned about the traffic that will come from any development, whether it is from Bicester Village, Kingsmere, Gavray Drive, or Arncott. Our specific traffic issue with the incinerator at Calvert is that there is a perfectly good rail network for dealing with waste that goes there from London, so why be lazy and use the roads, and why, build a new road, just to take waste to be burnt. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Fri 20 Apr 12

Severian says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
Arkright - we are concerned about the traffic that will come from any development, whether it is from Bicester Village, Kingsmere, Gavray Drive, or Arncott. Our specific traffic issue with the incinerator at Calvert is that there is a perfectly good rail network for dealing with waste that goes there from London, so why be lazy and use the roads, and why, build a new road, just to take waste to be burnt.
Nick - I notice from your latest election leaflet that you are pretending the "Eco" town doesn't exist. It's as if you were embarrassed to be associated with it! Anyone reading your leaflets would think it was nothing to do with you.

I repeat Arkright's point - If "our" local councillors care so much about local traffic, why are you and your party piling flat out into using OUR money to dig up 850 acres of farmland to build 5,000 houses and car parking for 8,000+ cars?

If you REALLY cared about traffic in Bicester you would kill the mad eco-town off while you still have the chance.

Perhaps though there is some reason that our councillors aren't telling us about WHY they feel so strongly that Bicester should have all this extra traffic? Perhaps in your next leaflet you could let us know YOUR views on the Eco-town (if you have any)?
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Arkright - we are concerned about the traffic that will come from any development, whether it is from Bicester Village, Kingsmere, Gavray Drive, or Arncott. Our specific traffic issue with the incinerator at Calvert is that there is a perfectly good rail network for dealing with waste that goes there from London, so why be lazy and use the roads, and why, build a new road, just to take waste to be burnt.[/p][/quote]Nick - I notice from your latest election leaflet that you are pretending the "Eco" town doesn't exist. It's as if you were embarrassed to be associated with it! Anyone reading your leaflets would think it was nothing to do with you. I repeat Arkright's point - If "our" local councillors care so much about local traffic, why are you and your party piling flat out into using OUR money to dig up 850 acres of farmland to build 5,000 houses and car parking for 8,000+ cars? If you REALLY cared about traffic in Bicester you would kill the mad eco-town off while you still have the chance. Perhaps though there is some reason that our councillors aren't telling us about WHY they feel so strongly that Bicester should have all this extra traffic? Perhaps in your next leaflet you could let us know YOUR views on the Eco-town (if you have any)? Severian
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Fri 20 Apr 12

Arkright says...

Thanks Nick, can you just remind me how concerned you were about the traffic to the Incinerator that's currently being built near Ardley/Middleton Stoney. Doesn't a railway line run right by that also ?
Thanks Nick, can you just remind me how concerned you were about the traffic to the Incinerator that's currently being built near Ardley/Middleton Stoney. Doesn't a railway line run right by that also ? Arkright
  • Score: 0

10:23pm Fri 20 Apr 12

Nick Mawer says...

Hi Arkright, the town council and District Council both opposed the incinerator at Ardley, and indeed traffic was one of a number of issues that we raised. If you care to look back through the submissions to the planning you will find that documented.
Hi Arkright, the town council and District Council both opposed the incinerator at Ardley, and indeed traffic was one of a number of issues that we raised. If you care to look back through the submissions to the planning you will find that documented. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

10:28pm Fri 20 Apr 12

Nick Mawer says...

Severian, I can only guess that you haven't read my latest election leaflet which covers many of the reasons why I and indeed Labour and Liberal opposition members support the Eco Town.
Severian, I can only guess that you haven't read my latest election leaflet which covers many of the reasons why I and indeed Labour and Liberal opposition members support the Eco Town. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

8:32am Sat 21 Apr 12

Arkright says...

Well done Nick, now we have 2 incinerators in the area.
Well done Nick, now we have 2 incinerators in the area. Arkright
  • Score: 0

9:00pm Sun 22 Apr 12

Severian says...

Severian wrote:
Nick Mawer wrote:
Arkright - we are concerned about the traffic that will come from any development, whether it is from Bicester Village, Kingsmere, Gavray Drive, or Arncott. Our specific traffic issue with the incinerator at Calvert is that there is a perfectly good rail network for dealing with waste that goes there from London, so why be lazy and use the roads, and why, build a new road, just to take waste to be burnt.
Nick - I notice from your latest election leaflet that you are pretending the "Eco" town doesn't exist. It's as if you were embarrassed to be associated with it! Anyone reading your leaflets would think it was nothing to do with you.

I repeat Arkright's point - If "our" local councillors care so much about local traffic, why are you and your party piling flat out into using OUR money to dig up 850 acres of farmland to build 5,000 houses and car parking for 8,000+ cars?

If you REALLY cared about traffic in Bicester you would kill the mad eco-town off while you still have the chance.

Perhaps though there is some reason that our councillors aren't telling us about WHY they feel so strongly that Bicester should have all this extra traffic? Perhaps in your next leaflet you could let us know YOUR views on the Eco-town (if you have any)?
I have to apologise to Nick Mawer. I just got his latest leaflet through the door which is an explanation of why he is SO in favour of the new "Eco" town.

So now he has made it totally clear - he is totally opposed to anything which will bring more traffic to Bicester, and he is also totally in favour of a development which will bring 8,000+ more cars to Bicester.

I think he needs professional help, because both of him are totally confused.
[quote][p][bold]Severian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Arkright - we are concerned about the traffic that will come from any development, whether it is from Bicester Village, Kingsmere, Gavray Drive, or Arncott. Our specific traffic issue with the incinerator at Calvert is that there is a perfectly good rail network for dealing with waste that goes there from London, so why be lazy and use the roads, and why, build a new road, just to take waste to be burnt.[/p][/quote]Nick - I notice from your latest election leaflet that you are pretending the "Eco" town doesn't exist. It's as if you were embarrassed to be associated with it! Anyone reading your leaflets would think it was nothing to do with you. I repeat Arkright's point - If "our" local councillors care so much about local traffic, why are you and your party piling flat out into using OUR money to dig up 850 acres of farmland to build 5,000 houses and car parking for 8,000+ cars? If you REALLY cared about traffic in Bicester you would kill the mad eco-town off while you still have the chance. Perhaps though there is some reason that our councillors aren't telling us about WHY they feel so strongly that Bicester should have all this extra traffic? Perhaps in your next leaflet you could let us know YOUR views on the Eco-town (if you have any)?[/p][/quote]I have to apologise to Nick Mawer. I just got his latest leaflet through the door which is an explanation of why he is SO in favour of the new "Eco" town. So now he has made it totally clear - he is totally opposed to anything which will bring more traffic to Bicester, and he is also totally in favour of a development which will bring 8,000+ more cars to Bicester. I think he needs professional help, because both of him are totally confused. Severian
  • Score: 0

7:39pm Tue 24 Apr 12

Arkright says...

Severian wrote:
Severian wrote:
Nick Mawer wrote:
Arkright - we are concerned about the traffic that will come from any development, whether it is from Bicester Village, Kingsmere, Gavray Drive, or Arncott. Our specific traffic issue with the incinerator at Calvert is that there is a perfectly good rail network for dealing with waste that goes there from London, so why be lazy and use the roads, and why, build a new road, just to take waste to be burnt.
Nick - I notice from your latest election leaflet that you are pretending the "Eco" town doesn't exist. It's as if you were embarrassed to be associated with it! Anyone reading your leaflets would think it was nothing to do with you.

I repeat Arkright's point - If "our" local councillors care so much about local traffic, why are you and your party piling flat out into using OUR money to dig up 850 acres of farmland to build 5,000 houses and car parking for 8,000+ cars?

If you REALLY cared about traffic in Bicester you would kill the mad eco-town off while you still have the chance.

Perhaps though there is some reason that our councillors aren't telling us about WHY they feel so strongly that Bicester should have all this extra traffic? Perhaps in your next leaflet you could let us know YOUR views on the Eco-town (if you have any)?
I have to apologise to Nick Mawer. I just got his latest leaflet through the door which is an explanation of why he is SO in favour of the new "Eco" town.

So now he has made it totally clear - he is totally opposed to anything which will bring more traffic to Bicester, and he is also totally in favour of a development which will bring 8,000+ more cars to Bicester.

I think he needs professional help, because both of him are totally confused.
I wouldn't apologise Severian, he isn't the first 'confused' councillor and he won't be the last.
[quote][p][bold]Severian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Severian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Arkright - we are concerned about the traffic that will come from any development, whether it is from Bicester Village, Kingsmere, Gavray Drive, or Arncott. Our specific traffic issue with the incinerator at Calvert is that there is a perfectly good rail network for dealing with waste that goes there from London, so why be lazy and use the roads, and why, build a new road, just to take waste to be burnt.[/p][/quote]Nick - I notice from your latest election leaflet that you are pretending the "Eco" town doesn't exist. It's as if you were embarrassed to be associated with it! Anyone reading your leaflets would think it was nothing to do with you. I repeat Arkright's point - If "our" local councillors care so much about local traffic, why are you and your party piling flat out into using OUR money to dig up 850 acres of farmland to build 5,000 houses and car parking for 8,000+ cars? If you REALLY cared about traffic in Bicester you would kill the mad eco-town off while you still have the chance. Perhaps though there is some reason that our councillors aren't telling us about WHY they feel so strongly that Bicester should have all this extra traffic? Perhaps in your next leaflet you could let us know YOUR views on the Eco-town (if you have any)?[/p][/quote]I have to apologise to Nick Mawer. I just got his latest leaflet through the door which is an explanation of why he is SO in favour of the new "Eco" town. So now he has made it totally clear - he is totally opposed to anything which will bring more traffic to Bicester, and he is also totally in favour of a development which will bring 8,000+ more cars to Bicester. I think he needs professional help, because both of him are totally confused.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't apologise Severian, he isn't the first 'confused' councillor and he won't be the last. Arkright
  • 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