UKIP: we won't back incinerator plan

An artists' impression of the Hartlebury incinerator

An artists' impression of the Hartlebury incinerator

First published in News Evesham Journal: Tom Edwards Exclusive by , Political Reporter

THE UK Independence Party is planning to argue against plans for a massive rubbish-burning incinerator in Hartlebury - claiming the project is a waste of money.

Worcestershire County Council’s UKIP group has upped the ante ahead of a crunch vote by insisting it will call for the plant to be scrapped.

The stance will not result in the project falling apart, as the controlling Conservative group have 31 of the 57 seats at County Hall.

The incinerator, which will convert waste to energy, also has strong support from within the opposition Labour Party.

UKIP spokesman Michael Wrench, who is also the party’s candidate for the Wyre Forest, said: “Times are hard - necessary but painful cuts to public services have seen £5 million snatched from the fire service alone.

“Social services and bus services have been whittled down too.

“We are all suffering, so why is the county council hell bent on spending this vast sum without examining other more viable alternatives?

“We have this eccentric, old-fashioned attitude towards representative governance.

“We listen to the views of the public, we then look closely at the facts and figures and in this case the figures just do not add up.

“This is public money which is being splashed around on a vanity project with no environmental or financial benefits whatsoever.”

The incinerator has been in the preparation stages since 1998, when a 25-year contract was signed with West Mercia Waste to run it.

But it only secured planning permission and Government approval last year and in December, the cabinet finally agreed a £165 million loan to get it off the ground.

A vote will take place at full council tomorrow , and if accepted by a majority of politicians, construction will start in the spring with a view to opening in 2017.

It will have a capacity of 200,000 tones of waste and collect rubbish from Worcestershire and Herefordshire, burning it to generate electricity, which is then sent to the national grid.

West Mercia Waste will run it until 2023, and from that point it will be handed to councils in both counties to carry on operating.

The Conservative leadership has consistently backed the project, saying it is the best value-for-money option as landfill is forecast to be full by around 2024.

It also says other emerging ideas are far riskier as they are yet to be proven.

Councillor Anthony Blagg, the cabinet member for the environment, said: “It provides the best value for money option, will rely on proven technology, and offers long term stability.”

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:47pm Wed 15 Jan 14

denon says...

So UKIP don't reflect the views of Wyre Piddle residents who want tosee the back of landfill at Throckmorton.

Dare Ukip to put up a candidate for Wyre Piddle at next years District election.
So UKIP don't reflect the views of Wyre Piddle residents who want tosee the back of landfill at Throckmorton. Dare Ukip to put up a candidate for Wyre Piddle at next years District election. denon
  • Score: -3

3:35pm Wed 15 Jan 14

hagleywhinger says...

As usual the politically inept UKIP amateurs jump on the Nimby bandwagon in Hartlebury. The decision has been taken and will be going through - just ask the hundreds of protesters in Hagley who did not want over 300 houses. Once the Council has made up its mind, and the Government are demanding particular Planning decisions, then opposition is futile. That is the sad truth so save your efforts and don't fall into the UKIP trap - the one man party for those who just want to protest. They will have remarkable support in the Euro elections from those who want to say " Stuff you" to the existing parties. Despite this, UKIP remains the party for the lost souls who will grab at any straw and Nige is such a nice, beer swilling, I'm anyone's mate type of bloke isn't he?
As usual the politically inept UKIP amateurs jump on the Nimby bandwagon in Hartlebury. The decision has been taken and will be going through - just ask the hundreds of protesters in Hagley who did not want over 300 houses. Once the Council has made up its mind, and the Government are demanding particular Planning decisions, then opposition is futile. That is the sad truth so save your efforts and don't fall into the UKIP trap - the one man party for those who just want to protest. They will have remarkable support in the Euro elections from those who want to say " Stuff you" to the existing parties. Despite this, UKIP remains the party for the lost souls who will grab at any straw and Nige is such a nice, beer swilling, I'm anyone's mate type of bloke isn't he? hagleywhinger
  • Score: -10

4:39pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Landy44 says...

More pointless "inter-political party" squabbling over an issue that is already decided. When will poiticians realise, we don't care about their dramas, we just want them to **** off so we can save the money we spend on them, and spend it on quality local services that we (locally) care about.
More pointless "inter-political party" squabbling over an issue that is already decided. When will poiticians realise, we don't care about their dramas, we just want them to **** off so we can save the money we spend on them, and spend it on quality local services that we (locally) care about. Landy44
  • Score: -4

5:43pm Wed 15 Jan 14

adamants says...

Whatever party you belong to - burning waste is not the answer - there are cheaper, cleaner methods than this in today's world.
The councillors agreeing to this with such sketchy information - not even a complete Business Case, will regret this if it goes ahead! The people of Worcestershire will have to suffer even more cutbacks as the Council struggle to balance its books after forking out £165million from the kitty and that is just the build costs. Maybe you won't be so happy when council tax goes up to pay for their mistakes..
Whatever party you belong to - burning waste is not the answer - there are cheaper, cleaner methods than this in today's world. The councillors agreeing to this with such sketchy information - not even a complete Business Case, will regret this if it goes ahead! The people of Worcestershire will have to suffer even more cutbacks as the Council struggle to balance its books after forking out £165million from the kitty and that is just the build costs. Maybe you won't be so happy when council tax goes up to pay for their mistakes.. adamants
  • Score: 3

7:26pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Jabbadad says...

Perhaps UKIP should also listen to / consult it's membership Coun Wrench, and it's old inefective politics to just abstain when voting takes place.
Perhaps UKIP should also listen to / consult it's membership Coun Wrench, and it's old inefective politics to just abstain when voting takes place. Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

4:34am Thu 16 Jan 14

PrivateSi says...

This is why I hate representative democracy... We need to burn rubbish as we have 4000 Landfills, 2000 active and filling up fast...

We also need to severely curtail (OR JUST LEAVE) The EU.... I'm ONLY for a FREE MARKET of GOOD, NOT PEOPLE and Standards Bodies (that don't go too mad on the micro-management / bureaucratic level)...

Real Direct Democracy with votes (and compensation) weighted by proximity to the site on issues such to speed up decisions and so reduce costs...

Personally I'd like to see the 10 largest 'super' landfills in Britain kitted out with new, 'GREEN' incinerators in the next 3 years instead of going mad on the FRACKING front...

The Hartlebury proposal is expensive and I don't believe it provides hot water either so not as useful as it could be (correct me if I'm wrong)... It's still a STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION - just a pity it's taken so long...

UKIP, you do know the site is leaching toxins into the ground & gases into lower atmosphere. If your solution is a renegotiated contract that saves £20+ million or something then OK, else, you're limiting local business and energy production...

I was epecting 100s of INCINERATORS by now, not a ridiculous, green-gone-mad) ENERGY & WASTE CRISIS...
This is why I hate representative democracy... We need to burn rubbish as we have 4000 Landfills, 2000 active and filling up fast... We also need to severely curtail (OR JUST LEAVE) The EU.... I'm ONLY for a FREE MARKET of GOOD, NOT PEOPLE and Standards Bodies (that don't go too mad on the micro-management / bureaucratic level)... Real Direct Democracy with votes (and compensation) weighted by proximity to the site on issues such to speed up decisions and so reduce costs... Personally I'd like to see the 10 largest 'super' landfills in Britain kitted out with new, 'GREEN' incinerators in the next 3 years instead of going mad on the FRACKING front... The Hartlebury proposal is expensive and I don't believe it provides hot water either so not as useful as it could be (correct me if I'm wrong)... It's still a STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION - just a pity it's taken so long... UKIP, you do know the site is leaching toxins into the ground & gases into lower atmosphere. If your solution is a renegotiated contract that saves £20+ million or something then OK, else, you're limiting local business and energy production... I was epecting 100s of INCINERATORS by now, not a ridiculous, green-gone-mad) ENERGY & WASTE CRISIS... PrivateSi
  • Score: -3

7:25am Thu 16 Jan 14

green49 says...

I believe we need desperatley to burn no recyleable stuff as if we dont we will have more places like Throckmorton Hills, its a disgrace to keep filling holes, burn it make electric so we can all benefit, maybe this project is too big but why not build smaller ones onto hospitals and other places so waste can help heat the buildings.
I believe we need desperatley to burn no recyleable stuff as if we dont we will have more places like Throckmorton Hills, its a disgrace to keep filling holes, burn it make electric so we can all benefit, maybe this project is too big but why not build smaller ones onto hospitals and other places so waste can help heat the buildings. green49
  • Score: 1

11:42am Thu 16 Jan 14

knick-knack says...

Twice daily gigantic lorries will cross the bridge at Holt, then drive through Ombersley on their way to the incinerator.

Why ruin Ombersley for all time? How will they negotiate nthe island at Ombersley as these will be the largest vehicles legally allowed on the road?

Why haven't the people at Ombersley had the gumption to do something about this? Don't they care their village will be turned into a nightmare as these gigantic lorries trundle through?

I personally doubt whether that vulnerable bridge at Holt will be able to handle this weight of traffic. But what do I know?
Twice daily gigantic lorries will cross the bridge at Holt, then drive through Ombersley on their way to the incinerator. Why ruin Ombersley for all time? How will they negotiate nthe island at Ombersley as these will be the largest vehicles legally allowed on the road? Why haven't the people at Ombersley had the gumption to do something about this? Don't they care their village will be turned into a nightmare as these gigantic lorries trundle through? I personally doubt whether that vulnerable bridge at Holt will be able to handle this weight of traffic. But what do I know? knick-knack
  • Score: 1

11:56am Thu 16 Jan 14

Jabbadad says...

As to the posting of hagleywhinger In GB we all live on an island and there will no longer be swathes of land protected against building houses, on the wishes of those who want their views to remain, or just don't want their present lives and facilities interuptedI
I also agree with the postings about landfill, we have known for some years that we cannot continue to simply fill holes, valleys up with waste.And of course there are also problems with the leaching of fluids and gasses from landfill.
My main concern is that we read that there are other systems which are successfully dealing with waste and at considerably less money. However I am not suprised by the comments from Coun Blagg who is continuing in his support for spending this public money, and which does not demonstrate an understanding of Best Value.
It's unfortunate that Couns Mr & Mrs Blagg also supports the cuts in the services for older people to supposingly save money. How sad they don't apply the same values to the incinerator issue.
And of course London our capital City is daily dumping huge ammounts of waste into the Thames and out at sea. So is this another case where the rest of the population is to pay for the privalage of those who wish to live in London, Including our Poor PolIticians.
.
As to the posting of hagleywhinger In GB we all live on an island and there will no longer be swathes of land protected against building houses, on the wishes of those who want their views to remain, or just don't want their present lives and facilities interuptedI I also agree with the postings about landfill, we have known for some years that we cannot continue to simply fill holes, valleys up with waste.And of course there are also problems with the leaching of fluids and gasses from landfill. My main concern is that we read that there are other systems which are successfully dealing with waste and at considerably less money. However I am not suprised by the comments from Coun Blagg who is continuing in his support for spending this public money, and which does not demonstrate an understanding of Best Value. It's unfortunate that Couns Mr & Mrs Blagg also supports the cuts in the services for older people to supposingly save money. How sad they don't apply the same values to the incinerator issue. And of course London our capital City is daily dumping huge ammounts of waste into the Thames and out at sea. So is this another case where the rest of the population is to pay for the privalage of those who wish to live in London, Including our Poor PolIticians. . Jabbadad
  • Score: 2

4:59pm Thu 16 Jan 14

PrivateSi says...

At least people seem reasonably into incineration as an improving, but already well proven, fairly simple technology without much direct R & D needed as other companies are researching NANO-FILTERS - for instance a MEMBRANE that removes OXYGEN FROM WATER:

"New Invention: Triton Oxygen Respirator Extracts Air Underwater!"

It is the LOCATION & INFRASTRUCTURE / LORRIES and (perceived, not proven, esp. long term) PROPERTY PRICE CUT that the problem --- Compensation adds costs..

It can be hidden with trees over time, no doubt... I've never driven to the Hartlebury site so don't know the infrastructure but HILL & MOOR seems like a GOOD OPTION, to me... Closer to Worcester too... Would have been my primary choice...
At least people seem reasonably into incineration as an improving, but already well proven, fairly simple technology without much direct R & D needed as other companies are researching NANO-FILTERS - for instance a MEMBRANE that removes OXYGEN FROM WATER: "New Invention: Triton Oxygen Respirator Extracts Air Underwater!" It is the LOCATION & INFRASTRUCTURE / LORRIES and (perceived, not proven, esp. long term) PROPERTY PRICE CUT that the problem --- Compensation adds costs.. It can be hidden with trees over time, no doubt... I've never driven to the Hartlebury site so don't know the infrastructure but HILL & MOOR seems like a GOOD OPTION, to me... Closer to Worcester too... Would have been my primary choice... PrivateSi
  • Score: 0

7:34am Fri 17 Jan 14

Mrfade says...

Oh Private Si, burning isn't he answer as I keep telling you, but you just don't et it.. All those nano particles, recent studies on ' modern well run incinerators' show they get into the atmosphere and the plastic sticks to things ie crops and don't break down. So they get into the food chain and they build up in our systems and we get to enjoy dioxins, and produce toxic ash. I've seen the list from the company mate and it ain't great. You should watch Trashed with Jeremy Irons and see all the plastic milk coming from local cows in Iceland. Neither the land nor animals are any use, what about the sustainability of food production? Oh and burners need millions of gallons of water per annum. that is great in a rural farming community, especially when there is a water shortage! .

We could be paid for our waste, and many councils are, the Wealth from Waste Local Government Association report says so. It says recycling is more financial beneficial than landfill and burning. It generates revenue.
I think UKIP Greens and Independents get that. I believe they all spoke well at the council meeting.
they understand that increasing costs by several £million per annum when cutting £120 million from budgets is frankly stupid. Why are we in economic turmoil. Because the main 3 parties don't have a clue, they all voted for this, I'm told hence supporting rising council tax and cuts to services . Good on you UKIP and Greens and independents . Clearly a cut above, the usual suspects when it comes to understanding economics and caring about the people of this county we need more them. Thank you Ukip and Michal Wrench for your comments. Every one will pay
Oh Private Si, burning isn't he answer as I keep telling you, but you just don't et it.. All those nano particles, recent studies on ' modern well run incinerators' show they get into the atmosphere and the plastic sticks to things ie crops and don't break down. So they get into the food chain and they build up in our systems and we get to enjoy dioxins, and produce toxic ash. I've seen the list from the company mate and it ain't great. You should watch Trashed with Jeremy Irons and see all the plastic milk coming from local cows in Iceland. Neither the land nor animals are any use, what about the sustainability of food production? Oh and burners need millions of gallons of water per annum. that is great in a rural farming community, especially when there is a water shortage! . We could be paid for our waste, and many councils are, the Wealth from Waste Local Government Association report says so. It says recycling is more financial beneficial than landfill and burning. It generates revenue. I think UKIP Greens and Independents get that. I believe they all spoke well at the council meeting. they understand that increasing costs by several £million per annum when cutting £120 million from budgets is frankly stupid. Why are we in economic turmoil. Because the main 3 parties don't have a clue, they all voted for this, I'm told hence supporting rising council tax and cuts to services . Good on you UKIP and Greens and independents . Clearly a cut above, the usual suspects when it comes to understanding economics and caring about the people of this county we need more them. Thank you Ukip and Michal Wrench for your comments. Every one will pay Mrfade
  • Score: 1

11:55am Fri 17 Jan 14

PrivateSi says...

... Since 1998 EU (Not ICELANDIC) Regulations require the removal of heavy metals and particulate matter via electrostatic scrubbers...

Iceland is non-EU and constantly breaking all EU Particulate Emissions Targets NATURALLY... Are you saying we should turn Iceland into Europe's one and only power station & NATURAL INCINERATOR - one HUGE GEOTHERMAL POWER STATION with rubbish shipped in and dumped in volcanoes?!? I believe in more national self sufficiency than that and don't believe in rubbish landfills..

NO2 and SO2 (++ other Dioxins) are scrubbed with lime + other chemical filters in the chimney stack... NEW NANO-FILTER TECHNOLOGY is INVENTED WEEKLY (and has been for years now)... Should be combined with Hot Water Generation...KEEPS LAND CLEANER, RECYCLES METALS... WASH YOUR FOOD...

But if not then WHAT?

REMOVE ALL SUBSIDIES then ADD UP Costs, including clean-up

Nuclear - NEVER AGAIN - until Thorium or Fusion Reactors. Expensive.
Wind - Offshore's fine by me, preferably with wave power on the same field / combined with the windmill base, renewable... Expensive
Solar - Great for the summer, renewable... Expensive

Problem is, none of these add up in terms of running costs over the lifetime of the plant / panel / windmill (including setup & cleanup costs)...

Coal: Can be clean burned but costs rise with coal quality / scrubbing tech.
Gas: Clean, but non renewable
Bio-diesel: Utter GREEN SCAM if crops are grown specifically...
Ethanol: Perfect for waste bio-matter...
Syn-Gas: Expensive plasma technology...
... Since 1998 EU (Not ICELANDIC) Regulations require the removal of heavy metals and particulate matter via electrostatic scrubbers... Iceland is non-EU and constantly breaking all EU Particulate Emissions Targets NATURALLY... Are you saying we should turn Iceland into Europe's one and only power station & NATURAL INCINERATOR - one HUGE GEOTHERMAL POWER STATION with rubbish shipped in and dumped in volcanoes?!? I believe in more national self sufficiency than that and don't believe in rubbish landfills.. NO2 and SO2 (++ other Dioxins) are scrubbed with lime + other chemical filters in the chimney stack... NEW NANO-FILTER TECHNOLOGY is INVENTED WEEKLY (and has been for years now)... Should be combined with Hot Water Generation...KEEPS LAND CLEANER, RECYCLES METALS... WASH YOUR FOOD... But if not then WHAT? REMOVE ALL SUBSIDIES then ADD UP Costs, including clean-up Nuclear - NEVER AGAIN - until Thorium or Fusion Reactors. Expensive. Wind - Offshore's fine by me, preferably with wave power on the same field / combined with the windmill base, renewable... Expensive Solar - Great for the summer, renewable... Expensive Problem is, none of these add up in terms of running costs over the lifetime of the plant / panel / windmill (including setup & cleanup costs)... Coal: Can be clean burned but costs rise with coal quality / scrubbing tech. Gas: Clean, but non renewable Bio-diesel: Utter GREEN SCAM if crops are grown specifically... Ethanol: Perfect for waste bio-matter... Syn-Gas: Expensive plasma technology... PrivateSi
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Fri 17 Jan 14

PrivateSi says...

... I agree RECYCLING is important - but it's very limited - and we DO RECYCLE PLENTY... I'm up for biomass from food-factories, farms, forests, anywhere being used for ETHANOL production... What we don't recycle we should INCINERATE and THEN RECYCLE some more...

We should be at least separating say ALUMINUM, LITHIUM (batteries) & MERCURY (florescent/eco light bulbs) into stable compounds to be later reused via chemical and nano-membrane filters... I'm into home recycling but MILLIONS will NEVER BE - or poor at it at best.. You can't keep fining the poor like a horrid nanny-cop...

If you want to employ people to further separate the trash on-site then great... Put the plastic to one side and save up for a PLASTIC RECYCLING PLASTIC PELLET FACILITY jobby as part of the DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT...
... I agree RECYCLING is important - but it's very limited - and we DO RECYCLE PLENTY... I'm up for biomass from food-factories, farms, forests, anywhere being used for ETHANOL production... What we don't recycle we should INCINERATE and THEN RECYCLE some more... We should be at least separating say ALUMINUM, LITHIUM (batteries) & MERCURY (florescent/eco light bulbs) into stable compounds to be later reused via chemical and nano-membrane filters... I'm into home recycling but MILLIONS will NEVER BE - or poor at it at best.. You can't keep fining the poor like a horrid nanny-cop... If you want to employ people to further separate the trash on-site then great... Put the plastic to one side and save up for a PLASTIC RECYCLING PLASTIC PELLET FACILITY jobby as part of the DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT... PrivateSi
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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