the transport strategy in the Vision Statement. Finally, the AWRP proposal is not compatible with the waste hierarchy as it does not enable re-use and recycling to be maximised and would result in waste being treated further down the hierarchy than is necessary or appropriate. This begs a simple question - How can you have a vision statement that is so completely at odds with the current plan? Finally, if AWRP is built, it would exist in 2030 and have another 10-15 years of the contract still to run so most of the Vision Statement is invalid. If the current Waste Core Strategy development exercise is to mean anything then it is absolutely essential that no decision on the current planning application is taken until after the new Waste Core Strategy has been developed independently of current proposals and accepted by the Council and, if necessary, an appropriate inquiry before an inspector. The importance of this last cannot be over-emphasised. For that reason, I am copying this letter to Mr Shaun Robson. In doing so, I am asking him to register this as an objection to a decision on AWRP being taken before the new WCS is agreed. B2: Additional Material on Harm that AWRP will This section summarises and extends why the AWRP will cause harm, contrary to the applicant’s claims, and includes the following sections: Over-Capacity Issues Financial harm Traffic impacts Emissions and Abnormal Operations Implications of the NPPF B2.1 Over-Capacity Issues are already issues of over-capacity in parts of the European Community coupled with the imminent onset of over-capacity both regionally and nationally in the UK. These are explored below. B2.1.1: The European Dimension are already issues of over-capacity in some EU countries such as Germany and Holland. This is beginning to have commercial consequences. This was exemplified at a recent seminar organized by the European Federation of Waste Management and Environmental Services (FEAD). As an example, Frans Beckers of the Van Gansewinkel Group waste business in Holland has stated that the company closed down an incinerator due to overcapacity and advised others to do the same: closed one of our incineration plants in the Rotterdam area. There is overcapacity in “We Germany and we hope some of our colleagues will follow suit. We hope more [incineration] capacity will be taken out of the market. In the end we could harm recycling performance”.
the transport strategy in the Vision Statement. Finally, the AWRP proposal is not compatible with the waste hierarchy as it does not enable re-use and recycling to be maximised and would result in waste being treated further down the hierarchy than is necessary or appropriate. This begs a simple question - How can you have a vision statement that is so completely at odds with the current plan? Finally, if AWRP is built, it would exist in 2030 and have another 10-15 years of the contract still to run so most of the Vision Statement is invalid. If the current Waste Core Strategy development exercise is to mean anything then it is absolutely essential that no decision on the current planning application is taken until after the new Waste Core Strategy has been developed independently of current proposals and accepted by the Council and, if necessary, an appropriate inquiry before an inspector. The importance of this last cannot be over-emphasised. For that reason, I am copying this letter to Mr Shaun Robson. In doing so, I am asking him to register this as an objection to a decision on AWRP being taken before the new WCS is agreed. B2: Additional Material on Harm that AWRP will This section summarises and extends why the AWRP will cause harm, contrary to the applicant’s claims, and includes the following sections: Over-Capacity Issues Financial harm Traffic impacts Emissions and Abnormal Operations Implications of the NPPF B2.1 Over-Capacity Issues are already issues of over-capacity in parts of the European Community coupled with the imminent onset of over-capacity both regionally and nationally in the UK. These are explored below. B2.1.1: The European Dimension are already issues of over-capacity in some EU countries such as Germany and Holland. This is beginning to have commercial consequences. This was exemplified at a recent seminar organized by the European Federation of Waste Management and Environmental Services (FEAD). As an example, Frans Beckers of the Van Gansewinkel Group waste business in Holland has stated that the company closed down an incinerator due to overcapacity and advised others to do the same: “We closed one of our incineration plants in the Rotterdam area. There is overcapacity in Germany and we hope some of our colleagues will follow suit. We hope more [incineration] capacity will be taken out of the market. In the end we could harm recycling performance”.
NYWAG-Further-Objections-Fin.docx