CHAIN fear Knutsford will be affected by incinerator go-ahead

First published in News Knutsford Guardian: Photograph of the Author by , News Editor

CAMPAIGNERS believe the Government’s decision to approve plans for a waste incinerator in nearby Lostock Gralam will affect Knutsford and its residents.

Proposals by Tata Chemicals Europe and E.ON to build a sustainable energy plant off Griffiths Road in Lostock Gralam were given the go- ahead last week by Ed Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, following a five-week public inquiry last autumn.

Construction is expected to begin next year, and the plant, set to process 600,000 tonnes of pre-treated waste and biomass per year, will be operational towards the end of 2016.

Liam Byrne, spokesperson for CHAIN (Cheshire Anti Incinerator Network), told the Guardian he was convinced Knutsford would be affected by emissions from the chimney.

“There’s never been anything approved as close to a residential area as this,” he said.

“It’s not going to do the reputation of the area any good, and people will know Northwich is on Knutsford’s doorstep.

“There will be the emissions and the traffic as well as them shipping stuff in from everywhere.”

Tatton MP George Osborne – whose constituency covers the area where the incinerator will be built – said he was disappointed the decision had gone Tata’s way.

Mr Osborne said: “As the local MP for Lostock Gralam I campaigned hard against the incinerator, and am therefore naturally disappointed with the decision that it is to go ahead.”

Knutsford resident Mabel Taylor said in a letter to the Guardian: “As Knutsford is downwind of Lostock Gralam possibly the people of Knutsford will come to regret their lack of interest in the protests, as they cope with traffic chaos in the town if there are problems on the M6, and see Cheshire, already home to a disproportionate number of waste treatment plants and incinerators, becoming the UK’s major waste dumping ground.”

A spokesman for Tata Chemicals Europe said: “The sustainable energy plant will utilise state-of-the-art technologies and will be operated by E.ON Energy from Waste, who already successfully operate 19 similar facilities in Northern Europe, one of the most highly regulated regions of the world. The plant will require an environmental permit and will have to comply with the strict limits that are set by the Environment Agency.

“All the emissions will be tightly controlled and monitored 24 hours a day. They will also have been through a state-of-the-art cleaning process to make sure there is no impact on air quality.”

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:06am Fri 12 Oct 12

L Byrne says...

The residents of Knutsford seem to be indifferent to the potential health effects of having a waste incinerator burning 150,000 lbs of garbage every hour, much of it 'sanitary waste', just four miles away in Lostock which is on the east of Northwich.


Obviously, that is their prerogative. At least,given it is so close, they cannot be accused of being NIMBYs or obsessed with property values.

However, I thought some might be interested in the following abstract from a comment that I have placed on the Northwich Guardian website.



'On 24 January 2012 the UK Health Protection Agency announced a new major study into the health effects of incinerators. These are the exact words quoted from the official press release:-

'A new study to further extend the evidence base as to whether emissions from modern well run municipal waste incinerators affect human health has been approved by the Health Protection Agency'

The study will be undertaken jointly by Imperial College London and Kings
College London. Preliminary results are expected in 2014


This is another direct quote from the press release:-

'For a distance of up to 10 – 15 kilometres from MWIs operating in England and Wales, scientists will research whether there is a potential link between the emissions from MWIs and health outcomes, including: low birth weight, still births and infant deaths.

Researchers will also investigate any possible link between MWI emissions and babies born with congenital anomalies, such as cleft palate and spina bifida, in areas where good quality data is available.'

I wonder if the residents of places like Knutsford, Lymm and Holmes Chapel
have been told that they would be in the 'at risk ' zone around Lostock and that there are still two years to go before even the preliminary results of the research are published'
The residents of Knutsford seem to be indifferent to the potential health effects of having a waste incinerator burning 150,000 lbs of garbage every hour, much of it 'sanitary waste', just four miles away in Lostock which is on the east of Northwich. Obviously, that is their prerogative. At least,given it is so close, they cannot be accused of being NIMBYs or obsessed with property values. However, I thought some might be interested in the following abstract from a comment that I have placed on the Northwich Guardian website. 'On 24 January 2012 the UK Health Protection Agency announced a new major study into the health effects of incinerators. These are the exact words quoted from the official press release:- 'A new study to further extend the evidence base as to whether emissions from modern well run municipal waste incinerators affect human health has been approved by the Health Protection Agency' The study will be undertaken jointly by Imperial College London and Kings College London. Preliminary results are expected in 2014 This is another direct quote from the press release:- 'For a distance of up to 10 – 15 kilometres from MWIs operating in England and Wales, scientists will research whether there is a potential link between the emissions from MWIs and health outcomes, including: low birth weight, still births and infant deaths. Researchers will also investigate any possible link between MWI emissions and babies born with congenital anomalies, such as cleft palate and spina bifida, in areas where good quality data is available.' I wonder if the residents of places like Knutsford, Lymm and Holmes Chapel have been told that they would be in the 'at risk ' zone around Lostock and that there are still two years to go before even the preliminary results of the research are published' L Byrne
  • Score: 0

11:57am Fri 12 Oct 12

Hibernian says...

I'm really surprised that there isn't uproar in Knutsford about this. Tata is putting a very big chimney on this incinerator to make sure the emissions are spread over a large area - i.e. the pollution will fall on Knutsford, Plumley, and all areas for miles around. Write to Mr Osborne - he has the political clout to stop this if he campaigns hard!
I'm really surprised that there isn't uproar in Knutsford about this. Tata is putting a very big chimney on this incinerator to make sure the emissions are spread over a large area - i.e. the pollution will fall on Knutsford, Plumley, and all areas for miles around. Write to Mr Osborne - he has the political clout to stop this if he campaigns hard! Hibernian
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Fri 12 Oct 12

Sue Statham says...

I, too,have always been amazed by the apparent lack of concern by Knutsford residents that an application had been made by Tata/E-On to build a 600,000 tonne incinerator at Lostock.. The taller the incinerator stacks, the more widespread the emissions and the larger the toxic umbrella.
I am a member of a large group of parents and grandparents who have opposed this application from the start with the sole aim of keeping our chidren and grandchildren safe and out of harm's way. We have been labelled as scaremongers, when in reality, all the facts and figures that we are quoting were supplied by Tata/E-On's P.R. brochures and the Environment Agency.
Although the Health Protection Agency assure us that "modern, well run incinerators pose little, if no threat to health", I have next to me a long list of breaches of emissions by incinerators, supplied to me by the Environment Agency. It makes disturbing reading matter. Incinerators CAN and DO exceed permitted emission levels and local residents would do well to obtain this information so that they be allowed to make up their own minds as to whether "modern, well run incinerators pose little, if no threat to health".
George Osborne, M.P. for Tatton, did say that although he was not opposed to incineration, Lostock was not the right site for an incinerator.
Two email addresses that might be of importance, should you have any comments to make on this issue:

george.osborne.mp@pa
rliament.uk

who is MP for Tatton,

AND

edward@edwarddavey.c
o.uk

who, in his position as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change , sanctioned the Tata/E-On 600,000 tonne incinerator to be built in mid-Cheshire.
I, too,have always been amazed by the apparent lack of concern by Knutsford residents that an application had been made by Tata/E-On to build a 600,000 tonne incinerator at Lostock.. The taller the incinerator stacks, the more widespread the emissions and the larger the toxic umbrella. I am a member of a large group of parents and grandparents who have opposed this application from the start with the sole aim of keeping our chidren and grandchildren safe and out of harm's way. We have been labelled as scaremongers, when in reality, all the facts and figures that we are quoting were supplied by Tata/E-On's P.R. brochures and the Environment Agency. Although the Health Protection Agency assure us that "modern, well run incinerators pose little, if no threat to health", I have next to me a long list of breaches of emissions by incinerators, supplied to me by the Environment Agency. It makes disturbing reading matter. Incinerators CAN and DO exceed permitted emission levels and local residents would do well to obtain this information so that they be allowed to make up their own minds as to whether "modern, well run incinerators pose little, if no threat to health". George Osborne, M.P. for Tatton, did say that although he was not opposed to incineration, Lostock was not the right site for an incinerator. Two email addresses that might be of importance, should you have any comments to make on this issue: george.osborne.mp@pa rliament.uk who is MP for Tatton, AND edward@edwarddavey.c o.uk who, in his position as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change , sanctioned the Tata/E-On 600,000 tonne incinerator to be built in mid-Cheshire. Sue Statham
  • Score: 0

11:14am Sat 13 Oct 12

JL Brown says...

And it is not just that breaches of emissions take place but the regulators are toothless
. An incinerator/EfW plant in Dumfrieshire has had 200 breaches between 2009 and 2011. These included releasing cancer causing dioxins at twice the permitted levels. Its punishment - a temporary closure. Yet when it reopened the breaches continued.
The Environmental Protection Agency says the owners, Scotgen, have a 'very poor' pollution record. so you might thing that the Chief Executive or Directors are up before the courts or that big fines have been given. Not a bit of it. Just a ticking off. After all the emissions are only what the World Health Organisation defines as cancer producing, causing reproductive and development problems and damaging immune systems.
Something to look forward to for those downwind of Northwich.
And it is not just that breaches of emissions take place but the regulators are toothless . An incinerator/EfW plant in Dumfrieshire has had 200 breaches between 2009 and 2011. These included releasing cancer causing dioxins at twice the permitted levels. Its punishment - a temporary closure. Yet when it reopened the breaches continued. The Environmental Protection Agency says the owners, Scotgen, have a 'very poor' pollution record. so you might thing that the Chief Executive or Directors are up before the courts or that big fines have been given. Not a bit of it. Just a ticking off. After all the emissions are only what the World Health Organisation defines as cancer producing, causing reproductive and development problems and damaging immune systems. Something to look forward to for those downwind of Northwich. JL Brown
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Dot Gamble says...

I live in 'a little village' that George Osborne MP represents. So little that George Osborne did not even mention its name. But what is going on in our little village of Lostock Gralam will have far reaching effects on the surrounding areas - Knutsford included. I am referring to the Tata/E-on Incinerator that Ed Davey, the Secretary of State has just sanctioned to be built. Many things worry me about the granting of this incinerator not least of which, the one applied for by Covanta in Middlewich was turned down. It, therefore, looks like the people of Rudheath and Lostock do not matter as much to the politicians as the people in Middlewich. Which is a travesty.

I am also puzzled because, as I understand it, the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment, which they claim is the policy of the coalition government, is in favour of using waste to produce energy through anaerobic digestion, thereby removing the need to send the waste to landfill. Ed Davey is a Lib Dem MP. How then can he, in all conscience, sanction an incinerator which is not anaerobic digestion and does not negate the need for landfill. It is another travesty and Lostock and Northwich people have been 'sold down the river' in order to satisfy the greed of big business.
I live in 'a little village' that George Osborne MP represents. So little that George Osborne did not even mention its name. But what is going on in our little village of Lostock Gralam will have far reaching effects on the surrounding areas - Knutsford included. I am referring to the Tata/E-on Incinerator that Ed Davey, the Secretary of State has just sanctioned to be built. Many things worry me about the granting of this incinerator not least of which, the one applied for by Covanta in Middlewich was turned down. It, therefore, looks like the people of Rudheath and Lostock do not matter as much to the politicians as the people in Middlewich. Which is a travesty. I am also puzzled because, as I understand it, the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment, which they claim is the policy of the coalition government, is in favour of using waste to produce energy through anaerobic digestion, thereby removing the need to send the waste to landfill. Ed Davey is a Lib Dem MP. How then can he, in all conscience, sanction an incinerator which is not anaerobic digestion and does not negate the need for landfill. It is another travesty and Lostock and Northwich people have been 'sold down the river' in order to satisfy the greed of big business. Dot Gamble
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Tue 16 Oct 12

Lindowpete says...

Indifference seems to be endemic, maybe people just live for today.
Knutsford residents were like this when we were opposing plans for Runway 2.

Its curious now, the people who seemed
uninterested at the time are now shouting the loudest about pollution, noise and inability to have windows open in nice weather !
Indifference seems to be endemic, maybe people just live for today. Knutsford residents were like this when we were opposing plans for Runway 2. Its curious now, the people who seemed uninterested at the time are now shouting the loudest about pollution, noise and inability to have windows open in nice weather ! Lindowpete
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Tue 16 Oct 12

L Byrne says...

Lindowpete

I fully agree.

It was obviously TATA's strategy to rely on peoples' apathy in surrounding neighbourhoods such as Knutsford and play down the size of the incinerator plant and they may well have succeeded. For example, I would bet that not a single household in the town received any written communication from the developers or Cheshire East Council, for that matter,telling them about the monster that could be erected on their doorstep.

By 'monster' I mean a building about the size of Wembley Stadium (without the arch) and two chimneys almost twice the height of Nelson's Column visible for miles around constantly spewing out emissions, some of them toxic. It would consume 150,000 lbs of garbage, possibly hauled up from London, every hour non stop for at least 25 years and

CHAIN and CWAC Council are looking at a legal challenge to the decision. Residents who wish to help the CHAIN campaign ,even at this late stage, can email : CHAIN.post@hotmail.c
om
Lindowpete I fully agree. It was obviously TATA's strategy to rely on peoples' apathy in surrounding neighbourhoods such as Knutsford and play down the size of the incinerator plant and they may well have succeeded. For example, I would bet that not a single household in the town received any written communication from the developers or Cheshire East Council, for that matter,telling them about the monster that could be erected on their doorstep. By 'monster' I mean a building about the size of Wembley Stadium (without the arch) and two chimneys almost twice the height of Nelson's Column visible for miles around constantly spewing out emissions, some of them toxic. It would consume 150,000 lbs of garbage, possibly hauled up from London, every hour non stop for at least 25 years and CHAIN and CWAC Council are looking at a legal challenge to the decision. Residents who wish to help the CHAIN campaign ,even at this late stage, can email : CHAIN.post@hotmail.c om L Byrne
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

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