![]() |
| Brendan Walsh in the Edible Community Garden in Thornton Heath Recreation Ground |
--------------------------------------------------
Tags croydon, greenparty
An unofficial Croydon, Sutton and Surrey Green Party blog by Shasha Khan. Having lived in Croydon most of my life, I now live in Reigate and Banstead.
![]() |
| Brendan Walsh in the Edible Community Garden in Thornton Heath Recreation Ground |
Thank you for allowing me to speak:
I wonder if councillors were advised, when shown around Viridor’s Colnbrook incinerator, that during commissioning trials gas cylinders not only got into the waste bunker but were picked up by the grab and fed through into the furnace and exploded, causing damage that meant the plant was delivered 2 years later than scheduled. Viridor have freely admitted that commercial and industrial waste will be increasingly brought onto the site, increasing the likelihood of similar accidents occurring.
Re Carbon Intensity Floor: This incinerator comes in at just a few grams under the carbon emission targets set by the Mayor of London and this is only because the calculations include the heat produced. If the heat is not used from day one, it will exceed the Mayor’s carbon emission targets. This should not be overlooked.
This application before you is appalling value for money. [a.35 compares waste to energy from landfill only] At the previous meeting Councillor Coleman rightly asked the Viridor spokesman, if other cleaner technologies were considered. He answered: We apply technologies to specific solutions that are relevant to particular local authority requirements or commercial contracts. Councillor Allen rightly exposed, at the previous meeting, the potential income for Viridor from electricity generation, so what the Viridor spokesman really meant was other solutions do not represent as much profit for Pennon Group, Viridor’s FTSE250 parent company. To clarify the point: Councillors need to be aware of the costs of the different solutions. – So in order of expense, in terms of gate fees, to a council: landfill costs on average £85 per tonne, mechanical and biological treatment on average £79 per tonne, energy from waste on average £76 per tonne, In-Vessel Composting £44 per tonne, anaerobic digestion £41 per tonne and Materials Recovery Facilities, known as MRFs, only £9 per tonne. However, and this is key, since 2011 the MRF market has been buoyant, so much so, that councils on average are being paid – I repeat being paid - £26 per tonne for sending recyclable waste to Material Recovery Facilities, and remember 90% of all waste can be recycled. So Viridor have cheaper alternatives available to them that can save councils money, that are safer and also better for the environment. What is more, they are choosing these other solutions elsewhere. Earlier this year Viridor were awarded planning permission to build a waste treatment site in Glasgow. The numbers are similar: Both this site and the one in Glasgow will manage 200,000 tonnes of waste Both contracts are for 25 years. However, there is a key difference: The site in Glasgow will operate a three step process: A Materials Recovery Facility will be built to capture all the recyclables, and an Anaerobic Digestion plant will be built to capture the food and organic material, only the residual waste that is left will be put into an incinerator. This result of using this three step process means that Glasgow will be saving according to Viridor £254 million, whereas the saving here in South London is just £200 million. 54 million will go a long way to save many many vital local services earmarked for closure. The other big difference is the jobs created. 254 jobs will be created in Glasgow, compared with only 44 here in South London.
The In Vessel Composting facility on the Beddington site, which presently takes 40% of the kitchen and garden waste of the four boroughs will be demolished by 2023. This means councils will pay double the price if this organic waste goes into the incinerator.
Earlier this year the European Commission warned the UK to pursue reuse and recycling rather than overcapacity of incineration. Again, this should not be overlooked.
Councillors, Viridor shareholders didn’t elect you, council officers that are pushing the solution on the table did not elect you. We the people elected you, to represent us to take decisions based on what is safe and best value for us…not Viridor We urge you to take the honourable choice and vote down this proposal.
--------------------------------------------------Tags croydon, greenparty
![]() |
| With Bieneosa in the Croydon Radio studio |
![]() |
| Development committee meeting in Sutton |
Today I am speaking on behalf of the Croydon Green Party, but I am also speaking on behalf of the 130,000 people who live in the Croydon North area, where I live, who reside downwind from this proposed incinerator. This council may not have received their submission BUT it doesn’t mean they don’t care. Many don’t speak English as a first language, they are more concerned about, job security, paying the rent and getting food on the table. Councillor David Dean, from Merton, pointed out that if Wimbledon Village was downwind from the planned incinerator, you can be assured the council would face a £1m lawsuit for even contemplating such a solution. Is this fair? Is it fair that a deprived area that doesn’t have a wealthy residents association, able to afford a bank of lawyers with the technical expertise to scupper the plan – ends up with an incinerator?I strongly believe that if the Liberal Democrats on this Council were in opposition, they would be sitting in this chair, their friends and family would be in the public gallery struggling to comprehend how the council can take such an immoral decision. You only need to go across the border to Merton to see the Liberal Democrats voted for a motion to Stop The Incinerator.Now you might feel that I am speaking from an idealistic position, but I have to tell you what is on the table before you is not even a pragmatic solution. This is Viridor’s profit maximising solution, designed to tie in councils on long term, fixed tonnage contracts...de-risked for Viridor. This is not from me, this is actually on the Penon Group’s web site, Penon being the FTSE 250 parent company for Viridor. You don’t need reminding that Social and Environmental costs don’t appear on Penon’s balance sheet.Viridor have built local sized Anaerobic digesters around the country, why not here? Other authorities are approving Mechanical and Biological Treatment plants. Why not here? Other councils are piloting newer more advanced technologies. Why not here?It is important to note that the proposed incinerator does not pre sort the waste. Viridor claims that the waste is pre-sorted but their own propaganda video concedes that Viridor will treat the non-hazardous waste that is left after local residents and businesses have removed recyclable and compostable materials.I would also query whether councillors have been impartial on this Committee. Councillors have visited Viridor’s Slough incinerator at the invitation of Viridor. Yet, Councillors have not attended screenings of the film Trashed, which by the way if they had, they would know that several European doctors associations representing 33,000 doctors wrote to the European Parliament citing widespread concerns on incinerator particle emissions, specifically fine and ultrafine particles.What also needs to be considered are the CO2 emissions, which are levelled the same as a gas fired power station, per a unit of energy generated. How can this fit in with the Mayor of London’s target of 60 per cent reduction of CO2 emissions by 2025. Moreover, If the government adopts CO2 emissions targets for electricity generation – something Scotland already has done - who will bear the cost for this?Residents in Beddington were promised a country park when the landfill license ended. How can this be a country park with two 95 metre pollution emitting chimneys inside it? Visitors to this country park and Beddington Park will no doubt feel a similar emotion to those who take a trip to the beach in South East Kent and look to their left and see Dungeness Nuclear Power station in the distance.I sense what councillors are thinking... you see the projected savings made by diverting waste away from landfill.[Councillors may also reconcile themselves by saying that pesticides in the food chain are more of a concern than pollutants entering the food supply through incineration. They may also say that airport activity is going to affect Nitrogen Dioxide levels much more than this energy recovery facility. BUT that presupposes that something will be done about those things. This is not guaranteed. ]You are in a unique situation in that you can actually make a difference tonight. You can even look at your projected savings from diverting waste away from landfill and focus on investing that money in reuse and recycling jobs to achieve those savings. This way, waste going to landfill will be cut and hundreds more jobs are created. Two towns in Powys, in Wales, managed to rocket their recycling rate to 74 per cent. It can be done if there is the political will. If recycling rates were at 74 per cent in Sutton then we wouldn’t need this incinerator.There are plenty of planning reasons to reject this application. [The location being a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation.; also an Air Quality Management Area and Metropolitan Open Land. The mitigation offered by Viridor is little more than confectionery.]At the very least hold back approval until the Health Protection Agency reports back on the health effects of incinerators in 2014.We urge you to take the honourable choice and vote down this proposal.