It’s almost month after the decision was announced to give Covanta permission to build an incinerator or energy from waste plant. While the news may have sunk in for those with a view on the facility, the dust certainly hasn’t settled.
KEELEY KNOWLES looks at both sides of the argument.
With more than 1,000 representations, many of which were objections, it’s easy to see how much of a stir the incinerator – planned for Rookery Pit South near Stewartby – caused.
Since Covanta announced almost three years ago to the day its plans to build the station to turn thousands of tonnes of waste a year into energy, the controversy has been non-stop.
But what’s really at the heart of the opposition? Well firstly there’s the nature of the project - incineration, aka burning waste to make power, although Covanta maintains it’s a ‘resource recovery facility’ which will generate enough electricity to meet the needs of around 82,500 homes in the area.
Mayor of Bedford Borough Dave Hodgson has objected to the plant for a number of reasons, one of which was that incineration is wrong. He’s insisted that while he’s Mayor his council would not be sending rubbish there to be burned.
But the borough council’s reason for objecting the proposal was the size of the plant and the extent of the catchment area identified which extends well beyond Bedfordshire and Luton.
And along with Central Bedfordshire Council, the former county council had previously earmarked the site for its own waste facility and in fact Covanta admits it identified the site after it was outlined in the Bedfordshire Energy and Recycling (BEaR) project – a joint plan by Central Beds and the county council.
The size of the plant and its capacity – for 585,000 tonnes – has led many to believe it will take waste from as far away as London. But the Infrastructure Planning Commission which gave it the go-ahead has made it clear it has no doubt that the proposal is intended to serve Beds and Luton ‘in the first instance’.
There’s also the obvious issue about pollution. Two years ago we revealed that the air in Stewartby – once home to one of the largest brickworks in the word – finally met national standards for chemical emissions. Since then the looming incinerator has cast a shadow over the news.
In its decision the IPC concluded that all emissions would be regulated by legislation and that it didn’t have any evidence to show that there would be an adverse consequence on the air quality or human health that couldn’t be controlled within the standards imposed. According to the IPC the areas of greatest concern locally centred on the affect the plant would have on local house prices and the area’s attractiveness for tourism and as a place to set up or expand a business. Covanta believes that the landscape is currently in a transitional position between being dominated by the clay extraction and brick-making and future major growth with almost 30,000 homes expected in Marston Vale. But in contrast, many people have emphasised the improvements in the area, particularly Marston Vale Forest and the Millenium Country Park and believe the ‘intrusion’ of the plant would mean a return to the past.
The Marston Vale Trust has made its position clear, it remained neutral on the development provided that Covanta has agreed to pay it compensation (£250,000 for the first year and £50k each year thereafter).
Tony Talbot, chief executive of the Marston Vale Trust, said: “Covanta has agreed to plant trees on the Rookery site in line with the Forest objective of 30 per cent tree cover across the Vale and will also create an extension to the country park as well as contributing financially to a fund that will help deliver the environmental objections of the Forest.” In conclusion the IPC saw the main disadvantages as being that the size and scale of the building would tend to appear ‘overwhelming’ to walkers near the edge of the site and that its presence on the landscape would also be ‘overwhelming’ but that the benefits outweighed the ‘adverse impacts’. Elstow Parish Councillor Tony Hare has faced a huge outcry from the public because of his support for the incinerator.
He maintains that ‘virtually no resident, no property in Stewartby can even see the access’ to the site and that ‘the advantages outweigh the disadvantages’, a view which is not shared by the majority.
Whether you’re publically against or for the facility or secretly not really sure what all the fuss is about, only time will tell us the real impact the plant will have.
With landfill prices rising all the time and fewer options for disposing of rubbish, it may even be that those who have objected to the Covanta proposal will be using it in years to come.
Tell us your views, email keeley.knowles@bedsonsunday.com
