The Cornwall Waste Forum, which is leading the opposition to the construction of the incinerator at St Dennis (above), was yesterday refused leave to take their case to the Supreme Court.
The ruling represents really bad news for
and was summed up extremely well by Ken Rickard, the Chairman of the Forum.
He said: “In our opinion, this decision proves that political and multi-national lobbying is more effective than common law and democracy. This decision also smacks in the face of the Government’s Localism Bill.”
The reality is that there are better ways to deal with
domestic waste than stuffing it into an over-sized and unsustainable waste
The Cornwall Waste Forum has itself produced an alternative to incineration, which was presented to the Council’s Waste Panel.
In summary, the Forum has proposed a more decentralised approach to waste management with three sorting plants (to remove recyclable materials from black bag waste) and three AD (anaerobic digestion) plants to deal with organic waste, sitting alongside a large waste awareness programme.
The estimates presented to the meeting by the Forum stated that the likely capital costs of the new facilities would be £60 million (compared to around £150 million for the incinerator plant) while the running costs would be £10 million less than the Council’s present preferred option.
At the meeting, I, once again, made the point that it was a disgrace that the leadership of Cornwall Council has refused to allow an alternative to incineration to be worked up. I added that the Council would be foolhardy and negligent not to properly consider the scheme presented by the Forum, and moved the following proposal:
The Waste Advisory Panel recommends to the Cabinet that:
(i) the high recycling option, presented by the Cornwall Waste Forum, and the Council’s incinerator option, be independently assessed as a matter of urgency,
(ii) and that this work be carried out in advance of any recommencement of physical works on the incinerator proposal.
The two parts of the proposal were voted on separately. The request for an independent assessment was carried unanimously (eight votes to nil) while the second part of the proposal was carried by six votes to two.