Agenda item

Motion A

Proposed by: Councillor Bickerton

Seconded by: Councillor Jeffries

This Council considers there are alternatives to mass incineration of domestic waste.  This is mature technology which has economic advantage both in the short-term and overall life cycle costs, more environmentally friendly, and compatible with the planned future improved recycling rates across the County.    

The Council requests of Gloucestershire County Council, as part of the Waste Management Strategy of reducing Landfill, that alternative UK waste technologies are considered in detail along with the existing incinerator schemes being put forward for Javelin Park/Haresfield.

 Councillor Bickerton, seconded by Councillor Jeffries, proposed the following motion;

“This Council considers there are alternatives to mass incineration of domestic waste.  This is mature technology which has economic advantage both in the short-term and overall life cycle costs, more environmentally friendly, and compatible with the planned future improved recycling rates across the County.    

The Council requests of Gloucestershire County Council, as part of the Waste Management Strategy of reducing Landfill, that alternative UK waste technologies are considered in detail along with the existing incinerator schemes being put forward for Javelin Park/Haresfield.”

Councillor Bickerton, as proposer of the motion, felt that there were three key elements for consideration in opting for any form of waste scheme namely economics, environment and health.

The Government’s Review of Waste Policy 2011 by DEFRA which was guided by what he described as a waste hierarchy, with prevention at the top, followed by, reuse, recycling and incineration.  He did not consider burning waste to avoid landfill a very green policy, reporting that the UK burned a relatively small amount in comparison to other EU countries, just 9% at present. 

The evidence of the medical hazards of incineration were getting harder to ignore.  During his research of the issue he had considered several reports, including the 1996 Elliot publication, an extensive piece of work which collected data on all cancer patients within a 3km radius of 20 of the 72 incinerator sites – 14 million people.  The research showed a 5-8% increase in risk of cancer near incinerator sites, which equated to over 11,000 cancer deaths a year. 

He also read an extract from a fairly recent comprehensive report on The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators, 4th report of the British Society for Ecological Medicine, 2nd edition, June 2008, Dr Jeremy Thompson and Dr Honor Anthony (71pp)

“Since the publication of this report, important new data has been published strengthening the evidence that fine particulate pollution plays an important role in both cardiovascular and cerebrovascular mortality and demonstrating that the danger is greater than previously realised. More data has also been released on the dangers to health of ultrafine particulates and about the risks of other pollutants released from incinerators. With each publication the hazards of incineration are becoming more obvious and more difficult to ignore.”

Councillor Bickerton said he understood the importance of getting the economics of any waste strategy correct, but there was a need to protect public health and the environment.

Councillor Jeffries, as seconder of the motion, was invited to speak in support but had nothing further to add. 

Councillor Whyborn, seconded by Councillor Wheeldon, proposed an amendment to add a third paragraph to the motion:

“Therefore Cheltenham Borough Council calls upon Gloucestershire County Council, to pause on the selection of incinerator schemes, until other processes have been fully evaluated in terms of their economic, health and environmental impact, and that these process comparisons must be objectively demonstrated, scrutinised and debated in public.”

Councillor Bickerton accepted the amendment and this became the substantive motion.

Councillor Godwin said that the wording of the motion gave the impression that the county council had not carried out an evaluation on the alternative options and asked for clarity on this matter.

It was noted that this question should be answered by the proposer of the motion at the end of the debate.

Speaking in support of the motion, the Cabinet Member Sustainability said that he had wrestled with the issue for some time and had not wanted to give his view until he had gathered evidence on a viable alternative. He had now visited the Mechanical Biologicial Treatment (MBT) plant at Avon which consisted of sorting technology followed by composting technology and a refused derived fuel which resulted in far less residual waste than incineration. He acknowledged the public concerns about incineration on the grounds of health especially but also the public had concerns about the cost and on environmental grounds.  He was concerned about the secrecy of the County Council in publishing their findings on appraisals of alternatives which had made a meaningful public debate impossible. He felt that there should be a proper, informed and public debate on all the viable process options before the County Council went ahead with the £500 M purchase of the incinerator. If recycling was to increase in the future and residual waste reduced then the incineration may become uneconomic. For the collection authority smaller local plants which minimise lengths of journeys may be more favourable.He felt there should be a challenge to the County’s Technology neutral approach as there was great public interest in the choice of technology.

Speaking against the motion, members made a number of points.

• The motion was not clear as it did not detail the alternative options for consideration.
• As a member of the county council, Councillor McLain said that a full evaluation had been done and there had been a technology neutral procurement process.
• The motion was three years out of date and any review at this stage would be costly and the county council may have to pay compensation to the contractor and continue to pay higher landfill charges. 
• Cheltenham Borough Council had been given extensive opportunities to comment on the scheme but the Cabinet Member Sustainability had chosen to write a letter to the county council rather than make a formal reply to the consultation. 
• Any alternative technologies such as mechanical biological treatment (MBT) still resulted in residual waste which had to be disposed of.
• The county council had had expert advice from Professor Harrison.
• It was disingenuous to raise health scares based on spurious research on Google.
• The contract allowed for flexibility should recycling rate increase in the future.
• If members opposing the proposals wanted smaller residual waste sites, it would be difficult to identify potential sites within the urban conurbation of Cheltenham.

Other members highlighted that it was a long process and it was never too late to stop and review something that was a matter of great public concern.  Indeed new technologies may have arisen during the course of this process which now needed to be looked at and there were good examples at Swindon and other councils in the South West which could be studied.  The county council appeared to be focusing too much on the financial aspects of the decision and playing down the health and environmental issues.

Councillor Hall, speaking as the Chair of the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee expressed her disappointment that at no point had any concerns been raised with the committee by the Cabinet Member Sustainability or any other members.  It would have enabled the issue to be reviewed in a non political environment. 

Regarding the consultation, the Leader advised that the council had tried to work closely with the county council but this was difficult as the county council had refused to share any details of the contract with district councils. Consequently the council had responded to the county on the location of waste sites but had made it clear that they did not have the details to respond on methods. He hoped there could now be a more public debate on this issue.

In his summing up as proposer of the motion, Councillor Bickerton disputed that any of the research he had referred to could be classed as "spurious" and was all from well respected sources. In response to the earlier question from Councillor Godwin, he said that the alternatives had not been investigated correctly and the county council should look closely at what was happening in the South West. In terms of the economics, he advised that a UK government WRAP report, August 2008 found that in the UK, median incinerator costs per ton were generally higher than those for MBT treatments by £18 per metric ton; and £27 per metric ton for most modern (post 2000) incinerators.

He urged members to consider the health impact on the residents near the proposed sites of incinerators and support the motion. 

Upon a vote on the motion as amended it was CARRIED. 

(Voting: For 24, Against 8 with 4 abstentions)