|
| |
|
WidgetBucks - Trend Watch - WidgetBucks.com |
Key
Issues against WP2’s Proposals
This scheme does
not contribute to RENEWABLE ENERGY
 |
WP2’s
scheme is expected to produce 21,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum;
increasing the Wells population CO2 footprint by 21 & 63%
(phases 1 & 2) and will contribute to climate change. |
|
Unlikely
to contribute to National, Regional Structure Plan policies in
‘broad terms’, owing to remote shredding, contaminated feedstock
& remote, rather than local waste arisings. |
|
In
this application the theoretical amount of ’renewable energy’
produced will be 8% of 2MW in the first phase and 8% of a possible 6MW if the phase two development is completed. This Energy from Waste
scheme will make a negligible contribution to renewable energy.
|
AN
UNSUITABLE SITE for Waste Processing
|
The
WP2 site is not founded in a site location assessment of Regional or
County waste policies. |
|
Waste
arisings are not local. |
|
Waste
processing centres (transfer stations) for shredding are remote. |
|
The
necessary road infrastructure for the sustainable movement of waste
is absent. |
|
Haybridge
is a windfall site that has not been selected in partnership and
support from County and District Planning Authorities.
|
BUSINESS
CASE not adequately made
|
WP2
have not included a Business Plan.
|
|
WP2’s
have failed to identify prospective partners in supplying processed
waste. |
|
Waste
transfer stations are not ‘on board’; WP2 have not entered into
contracts. |
|
The
technology proposed is experimental and not yet proven. |
|
The
waste arisings are not local and the proximity principle is absent.
|
PLANT
PERFORMANCE is questionable
The site is so
restricted at this stage and in the future that serious doubts remain as
to whether there is any actual business commitment to invest the
necessary capital to operate the plant in its intended Phase 2, fully
operational mode.
|
The
proposed GEM model pyrolysis plant is still not operational. |
|
The
operating company, WP2, have no experience in running such plant.
There is considerable doubt as to Phase 2, with EfW, ever being
realised. |
|
Phase
1 emissions are very likely to exceed the air quality emissions
which are applicable to Phase 2. There are no controls over such
Phase 1 excesses or duration; witness the Avonmouth combined
pyrolysis-gasification plant still running in excess after five
years. |
|
It
is agreed that air modelling of emissions is still flawed.
|
FORWARD
PLANNING compromised
The adjacent
Greenfield site to the east has been identified for housing expansion of
the city of Wells in the LDF, for 250 houses. SCC still own other land
in the near vicinity identified as a land bank for housing (up to 150
houses) and for a new primary school in 1996.
|
These sites will
be polluted by emissions, such that during unregulated emissions in
Phase 1 blight will be created, jeopardizing sales to house
builders.
|
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT inadequate
The company’s 2006
EIA is out of date and is not comprehensive, as required by the EU and
government.
|
As a result the
human rights of householders will be breached. |
|
All local
agencies and planning authorities opposed the plant on policy
grounds. |
|
|
