J7 Waste Site Proposal at Norton in Worcester

Say NO 2 J7 !! Oppose the location of a WASTE PLANT at NORTON, Worcester

SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION
HERE

DON'T FORGET - The SPECIAL Planning Meeting date has now officially been set for JUNE 12.
We are all busy people but you must be prepared to be there. This will be a crucial day in your life - please make the effort!

Latest updates!!!! 1/06/07 - J7 Action Group have forwarded a new submission document to WCC. 30/05/07 - Mr Cairns of St Peters is being replaced by Mr Farmer of Tenbury on Planning Committee. 22/05/07 - Mr Nigel Knowles will chair the Special Planning meeting. 22/05/07 - Mr Bullock surprisingly at this late stage declares a personal interest and steps down from chair of Planning Committee. 16/05/07 - official word came through to confirm press news that the date has finally arrived - JUNE 12. 15/05/07 - At planning meeting today it was announced that the special meeting for Norton will be advised soon for June. 15/05/07 - Worcester News editor retired Friday - looking forward to future news coverage. 10/05/07 - Changes at County Hall - Simon Geraghty (Worcester City) now Cabinet member for Planning instead of Mr Alwyn Davies. 10/05/07 - Extraordinary cabinet meeting held at WCC to discuss waste contract - no press or public allowed. 26/02/07 - Reason given for latest deferment by County Council spokes person - the response to the issues raised by the Health Authority will not be ready in time to report to the meeting on 20 March. 23/02/07 - Morgan Crucible announces proposals to end most of the manufacturing carried out at its Norton site in Worcester. 22/02/07 - County Council inform us that planning hearing of 20/03/07 deferred again! MAY 15 at the earliest now instead. 20/02/07 - IMPORTANT - If you want answers to your questions you must direct your questions to the departments/agencies responsible. 20/02/07 - Correspondence confirms that letters of objection can be submitted to the County Council up to date of hearing. 30/01/07 - Planning Meeting as scheduled. Norton proposal discussed at end of meeting. Councillors want more answers from Police and traffic. Want them to accompany councillors on site visit. 23/01/07 - Furore reported in Worcester News between Peter Luff and Mike Foster over comments made on BBC show. 21/01/07 - Peter Luff MP and Peter Morgan of J7 Wate Action Group to feature on the Politics Show, BBC 12 midday. 20/01/07 - Another worthwhile informative meeting at Drakes Broughton with an enthusiastic local audience. 19/01/07 - WCC issue press release to advise that the Planning Meeting is being deferred again. The Primary Health Care response has been received but there is insufficient time to include it for the meeting and the applicants response. 19/01/07 - Meeting at Drakes Broughton Village Hall at 7.30pm for a J7 Waste Action Group presentation. 11/12/06 - The Cardiff visit met with a maintenance shutdown so the machinery was not switched on. 8/12/06 - The councillors are paying a visit to a smaller working facility in Cardiff today - pity its not summer. 8/12/06 - Public Meeting CANCELLED for 12/12/06 at 8.00pm Norton Village Hall due to deferment. 8/12/06 - Coach trip CANCELLED to County Hall 12/12/06 at 9.00am Norton Village Hall due to deferment. 7/12/06 - County Council defer planning meeting - need more time for IPPC submission which was missing from the application - due to J7 Action Group intervention! 2/12/06 - Excellent meeting last night - thanks to all who attended! Spread the word! 2/12/06 - Its rumoured that Madley are going to appeal again. 2/12/06 - Please assemble at Village Hall on TUESADAY 12 December for buses to County Hall - leaving at 9am for 9.30am questions opportunity. 2/12/06 - Demonstration MONDAY 11 December now at 2.00pm - Retreat Inn car park or Village Hall assembly points. 1/12/06 - Further documentation relating to the decision made by Wychavon to object to the proposal have been published at the Wychavon website - see link below. 30/11/06 - Attended Norton Parish meeting - Wychavon looking for uses for proposed science park at former Throckmorton airfield - next to Hill and Moor landfill site - a CMRF?! Report below. 29/11/06 - Attended Worcester City Council deferred planning meeting at Guildhall - councillors voted in favour of above proposal but showed scant understanding of the implications-report below. 26/11/06 - Sky TV screen recyclables in CHINA from UK - our waste is exported to poison poor abroad! Sickening. 24/11/06 - Madley lose out following the Judicial Review of the imposition of an autoclave from Estech. 18/11/06 - West Mercia Police reply to application proposal! See link below. ( Save or open PDF document ). 18/11/06 - Sample reply to letter sent to the County Council - see link below. ( Save or open WORD document ). 17/11/06 - Supporters meeting confirmed at 7.30pm FRIDAY 1 December at Norton Village Hall, LITTLEWORTH 15/11/06 - first deadline passed - this is the start of the next stage in our campaign. We NEED YOU! 14/11/06 - Action Group Management Committee discuss submission of objection report and demonstration to be organised. 13/11/06 - Worcester Evening News raises profile - see link below. 12/11/06 - You may not wish to protest about the location - but you might like to have some answers - write today without fail. 11/11/06 - New flyers from J7 Waste Action Group distributed this weekend - act now! 11/11/06 - Railtrack are going to reinforce a bridge in the area to carry 40 tonnes lorries! 10/11/06 - WAG - Waste Action Group updated site now on line. 10/11/06 - Please read and re-read this site - updates made as they are put forward for consideration. 09/11/06 - Item in local paper today reference planning application - no mention of cost - £35 million contract - inside page only !!!!!! 09/11/06 - Attended the Parish meeting they formulated an excellent response on behalf of the Parish. A Traffic Report was submitted which has cost 1200 pounds + VAT. I hope that at the end of this they are re-imbursed by someone. 08/11/06 - Parish Council Meeting at Littleworth Village Hall 7.30pm. This Planning Application to be discussed. 08/11/06 - Did you read the editorial in the evening news Saturday - what a ******* liberty! Click on the link below 05/11/06 - Please support your local action group re the waste site at junction 7 norton, littleworth, worcester visit the website at http://www.j7-waste.com your support is needed!!!!!!!!!

What can you do! Write urgently to the individuals below - these are the people that make the decisions that affect
YOUR LIVES!

You can write to the P.M. at the following address: 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA

The Prime Minister

Secretary for Communities and Local Government

Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ( DEFRA )

Minister of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ( DEFRA ) Portfolio - Waste

Members of the Planning and Regulatory Committee
Planning Application 407669

Conservative (7)

Cabinet

Links for Reference

Conditions set in December before Deferrals

WCC Abbreviated and Amended Notes re: Application

WCC Agenda for 12/12/06

Wychavon Planning Documentation link

Reconvened Worcester City Planning Meeting Wednesday 29 November 2.00pm Guildhall, Worcester re: Norton

Worcester City say NO to waste - at least in their back yard!

Once again a mere reclamation facility was under review which warranted superficial scrutiny save for the intervention of a letter from the Chief Constable.
Unfortunately, there were no slides for the proposed development although I did see a preview of an extension to a single property which was supported with several alternative views. The councillors seemed quite happy to accept the proposed size of the development despite the allocation for light industrial use.
The main issues had been identified as access/traffic and environmental but traffic/road infrastructure dominated the discussions.
There was no recourse to alternative sites as 'nearer to Worcester the better' Mr. Denham declared.
There was almost a hint of excitement when the prospect of rail use was envisaged.
Mr. Tarbuck made an impassioned statement regarding the exporting of waste to China and pointed out the stress that the Carrington bridge and the southern ring road was already under without the prospect of additional traffic coming from all over Worcestershire and Herefordshire via the same route, as a result of this proposal.
Mr. McKenzie-Williams had the foresight to drive around the area and was impressed with the standard of the new roads that had been built around the landfill site at Hill and Moor. He almost questioned why new infrastructure was necessary.
Mr. Ditta queried the traffic statistics and was assured that a typographical error had been made so the figures had been overstated. A discussion ensued about using tracker equipment to ensure that lorries used the correct routes. A consideration was given to the restriction of hours of operation.
Mr. Ditta wanted to know if the capacity of 104,000 tonnes could be reviewed after a year but was advised that no such review could be undertaken once permission was granted. Operational control was the responsibilty of the management of the plant.
Mr. Layland said that the issue was a matter for Wychavon to deal with and Worcester City Council could do nothing but support it!
He conceded that the B4084 was a 'hot spot' for accidents and supported highway improvement. A discussion ensued about the parkway which was mooted to potentially cost £700 million but the concensus of opinion was that any funding had now gone to Gloucestershire, scuppering any hope of a park and ride at Norton.
Councillor Roger Knight was mentioned and his traffic estimates were dismissed as being incorrect. Following a general discussion about the roads in the vicinity of the bridge on the B4084 and the dangerous turning into Woodbury Lane, a show of hands led to a majority vote in favour with conditions.
An initial list of 5 conditions were identified, relating to route of traffic flow, capacity control, satellite tracking devices, restriction of hours of operation and road safety, which were then discussed.
Mr. McKenzie Williams said that he thought the new A44 would be under used as a result if this proposal goes through. Mr. Denham admitted he had no idea why the Hill and Moor site was unsuitable for the development.
Mr. Rowden said that most drivers wanted the shortest and most direct route!
Dr. Tibberton suggested that there should be no hours of operation restriction to enable round the clock operation which would lead to less nuisance for the people likely to be affected?!
Mr. Tarbuck questioned whether the policy of empowering communities through consultation was actually being served in the light of the objections that were being lodged.
It was suggested that any objection in reference to the road infrastructure ought to be directed to the committee responsible.
The capacity limit was to remain as 104,000 tonnes, at the suggestion of the clerk, for operational reasons?!
A suggestion of the likelihood of 3 vehicles in, for every single vehicle out, was scoffed at before the conditions were agreed as follows:

• Restrict lorry movements along St. Peters Drive.

• Limit capacity to 104,000 tonnes.

• Fit vehicle trackers.

• In consideration of the West Mercia concerns, to improve the road infrastructure. Roads to be improved for safety and capacity before any building construction work takes place at the site.

COMMENT

Questions cannot be answered because they are still being considered - if the applicant has already set their store why can answers not be provided to the specific points raised in the application? Surely the substantiating data is avilable with the application? This smacks of allowing the applicant time to address further issues that may have been missed, offering the opportunity for retrospective action. Given that the planners are working in partnership with the applicant there appears to be an unfair balance in favour of the applicant. What use are answers after the decision has been made?
Despite stating the obvious regarding the publication of notices, we are all aware that these are not read by the general public who are firmly routed inside their vehicles. The Worcester News readership, by those immediately affected, is arguable negligible, particularly in this media savvy world where tv, radio, free papers or the local pub are more popular means of spreading news.
People are also too busy with everyday life to plough through copious amounts of technical gobbledigook at council offices.
The date for responses was extended TWICE which is hardly a number of occasions. Platitudes about 'this is how the system works' do not wash. In the vast majority of cases I am sure the process is wholly acceptable BUT on the rare occasion when there is public fear and opposition, there needs to be closer scrutiny in the interest of natural justice.
Even more worrying is the perception in some quarters that the outcome is a foregone conclusion irrespective of any valid reason for objection or concern.
Address your questions to the agencies responsible - Primary Care Trust, WCC Environmental Services, WCC Education Department, WCC and Wychavon Highways Department, Police, Fire Brigade, Severn Trent, National Farmers Union.

Copy of my E-Mail correspondence with Ian Barber, Severn Waste.

Norton Parish Council Meeting Thursday 30/11/06 at Village Hall 7.45pm

The agenda included an item which referred to the forwarding of a letter referring to items outside the scope of the planning application. Unfortunately, Rob Adams and Chairman Mike Reeves were once again absent.
Richard Philips raised an interesting fact about the affect of flies on livestock and sheep. Blindness can occur in cattle and sheep can die from having maggots in their coats.
There will be a public meeting at the village hall at 8pm on the evening of the decision day whenever that occurs.

Contact the organisations below for guidance and support

Waste Action Group

The Waste Action Group is working hard behind the scenes on your behalf. Any information you know or can glean to oppose this proposal is urgently sought and welcome, no matter how small - please forward it asap.
Any offers of help, in the form of donations, fund raising, I.T, secretarial or expert knowledge are welcome.

Please use our poster image to advertise your support - print it and display it in your car, in your window / door, on your notice board etc.

Text your friends - get them to stay informed by checking out NO2J7 or J7-Waste on the web.
Thanks to Ken and his Team for all their efforts so far. Any offers of help or comments contact Ken on E-Mail
km@bccs-survey.co.uk
Or Telephone 01905 769394

Latest Action Group News!!!! 7/12/06 - County Hall have deferred Planning Meeting of 12/12/06 until January because of missing IPPC report. 2/12/06 - New time for MONDAY 11/12/06 demonstration - 2.00pm at Retreat Inn or Village Hall. 2/12/06 - Transport available for 12/12/06 to County Hall from Village Hall at 9am. 30/11/06 - J7 Action Group garden signs and petition folders/sheets available - ring 01905 821953 17/11/06 - Action Group meeting at 7.30pm FRIDAY 1 December at Norton Village Hall - all supporters welcome! 15/11/06 - Further meeting being arranged - To Be Advised! 14/11/06 - Action Group objections ready for submission. Now its up to you to make yourself heard. Support us in anyway you can. 12/11/06 - A leaflet drop was made over the weekend. Thanks to all who took part. More help needed - please volunteer. 08/11/06 - The Action Group needs your help. They are looking for help in IT - design of the website, Money - They need fund raising ideas, collections, donations, any kind of support. They need paper for printing/photocopying and work they are carrying out on computers! They need YOU for the march to the Council Offices date to be arranged. Can you help!! Contact Ken URGENTLY on his E mail or Telephone 01905 769394

There is a hotline number available for general inquiries to the J7 Action Group:
07812 339 802

If you would like to email me personally then please use the following link:
Author

Welcome to NO 2 J7 !!

We all support the reduction and disposal of waste. MRF's seem a good idea.
We would all like to be consulted about the locations chosen for these type of facilities, especially when it affects us personally!
- close to residential properties and a nursing home IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!

You only had minimal warning (initially until November 15 2006) to voice your concerns and ask questions locally! Now its time to spread the debate - contact the MP's, County Councillors and the agencies who will be making the decisions for you!

The above proposal is part of a tender for the TREATMENT, HANDLING and DISPOSAL of waste in Worcestershire and focuses on the provision of a brand new, enormous centralised waste re-sorting plant in a lovely rural and residential location which will be decided by the County Council planning authority when eventually scheduled.

This proposal has involved negligible local consultation with the community immediately affected by its location let alone the wider community who will be affected by the knock on affects of such a proposal with regard to traffic congestion, pollution concerns and the loss of value of property in the area.
THERE IS NO NEED FOR SUCH A VAST FACILITY, TODAY, OR TOMORROW, IF WASTE IS REDUCED!
The capacity projection is for 2028 and is an estimation. Until then, spare capacity will be sold. This is purely a commercial venture which we may not benefit from.
Our fears and concerns are not warranted if the proposal does not go ahead.

Unless your opposition to this proposal is voiced through e-mails, letters and attendance at the planning meetings, your silence will be deemed acceptance of the proposition in its current state. You will be accepting the imposition of a plant for which there is no current need, and given its strategic position close to the motorway and rail links, you are inviting the potential for the disposal of waste from just about anywhere, on your doorstep!

I am not trying to scare monger, but I can envisage the potential that exist for the future. At the moment it sounds like a sophisticated sorting, baling and distribution operation but how long before it is a processing operation!!
If you do nothing now you could be inviting worse in the future. Please make yourself aware of the implications.
Waste and people do not mix. These facilities must be sited away from the homes of families and the infirm, as in this case.

The Planning decision will now be made at a SPECIAL meeting for which the date has now been set.

Be there! Arrive earlier to view background papers and speak to the planning officers who are recommending it on your behalf!

The current cost of waste management in the local area is £ 25 million a year! The rumoured cost of this proposal is £ 35 million! How much more do we need to throw at it? Wouldn't it be as important to put efforts into reducing waste instead of trying to make money out of it. We should not be meeting targets but lowering them! Tax supermarkets and/or introduce more biodegradable packaging instead.
Fines are in prospect if the Government targets to divert biodegradable waste from landfill are not met - panic measures are not the answer. Fines are NOT an issue for the recyclate which has been removed!

Waste is to be imported and exported on a regional basis and some facilities envisaged for the future will not only handle automated dry recyclable processing but will be co-located with autoclave thermal treatment processing - steam treatment of all household waste.
In addition, a by-product called fly ash is to be disposed of by mass burn incineration. Where?
My worry is that a prospective neighbour of the plant, Morganite Crucible, has a licence currently to burn carbon waste i.e. toxic waste. Therefore the precedence already exists to incinerate.
Morganites have stated that production at the plant may cease next year and the factory will become a distribution centre??!!

How many more chimneys might there be in the vicinity spewing out smell and invisible dioxins. What bacteria will be airborne in the locality? I occasionally smell the Morganite factory but I dare say that is probably preferable and at least you are aware of it!

However, Dr George LORD Cabinet member, states that incineration is a
dead duck in the water.
But what could happen if policy changes? Would a policy change be needed if precendence exists?


The site stands in 2.35 hectares - and looks to have capacity for expansion in the vicinity. Morganites own considerably more land than it appears to occupy - even on the other side of the road!
However, an industry insider believes that the current size of the proposed site is wholly unsatisfactory for the scope of the project. That could soon change if the neighbours are driven away.
Locally the Hill and Moor MRF which was meant to handle 8000 tonnes has just recently handled 12500 tonnes. Compare the size of that with a facility to handle almost 10 TIMES that amount! If the operator achieves 24 x 7 permission with multiple shifts and at the rate of 30 tonnes per hour the capacity is MUCH GREATER!

If you want a parkway - DON'T BACK THE WASTE WAY!

The infrastructure in the area needs enormous investment to support either scenario - which would you prefer?
Who is going to pay for it? Funding for a parkway looked highly unlikely as any funds that might have been earmarked were rumoured to be diverted towards a southern link improvement and/or a Gloucestershire solution. Now a planning application is rumoured for later this year - watch this space!

Background

The first I knew about this proposal was when I attended a meeting on 20 October, having seen posters opposing the waste site. A further meeting on Friday 3 November at the Village Hall in Littleworth was attended by representatives of the Severn Waste Services Company who, with their sister company Mercia Waste Management Ltd, have a contract with Hereford and Worcester County Waste Disposal Authority for 25 years, which was awarded in December 1998. The meeting was well attended by interested parties and those like me, who do not want such a facility at Norton. We were advised not to take notes as minutes were being taken and would be made available. Therefore, the points made below are the highlights of the meeting as I understood them and are not a complete record of the whole proceedings. I have had 4 days to prepare this site - not 4 years as rumoured for a 3 inch wad of documents in the proposal.
I was unaware that in attendance was the owner of FCC. FCC own Severn Waste, so they are obviously very keen for this proposal to go ahead.

Consultation

Ian Barber, of Severn Waste Services made a presentation to address 3 areas of concern - traffic, environmental effects and impact on the local community. He admitted that he had consulted with 3 key individuals - a key member of the local community and 2 neighbours of the plant. The key individual was taken for a coffee and told to tell his neighbours, apparently! Derek Prodger from the County Council was in attendance but made no contribution so must have been there merely as an observer.
Unfortunately, there was insufficient time to address the concerns of all the attendees who wanted to ask questions and neither did he allay my worries about any of his chosen areas of concern.

Traffic / Congestion

Mr. Barber went to great lengths regarding planning permission which was granted for 22 units at the proposed site. He stated that there had been no opposition to that particular plan which would have generated more traffic than the estimates he put forward for the waste plant. It was established from the floor that no traffic assessment had been considered when the planning permission was granted. It is also apparent that the figures presented were meaningless and misleading.

If planning permission had been granted, why did it not go ahead? Why has a prime development site not sold in 4 years? Why did a local estate agent state 4 years ago "You will not like what is planned for this site!".
Who has earmarked this site for several years and sneaked through planning permission,and change of use with an ulterior motive?

Mr. Barber gave assurances that new traffic signs would be erected and directions given to drivers regarding the avoidance of the local villages. However, the 7.5 tonne weight limit restriction you see on signs does not apply to vehicles loading or unloading. These assurances are meaningless and un-enforceable.

Co-incidentily, the bridge has been upgraded to 44 tonne weight capability. The route is a major diversionary route and as such will always be used in emergencies.

Environmental Concerns - Noise, Lights, Visual Impact, Smell, Dust and Flies.

Mr. Barber assured the meeting that noise would be contained within the new build with insulation as required.
Who decides? When is it decided? What if it is insufficient?
He stated that despite an application for 24 hour operation, there would be no activity outside normal operation except in extraneous circumstances? What circumstances? How often? What duration? What contingencies exist?

The build would be sympathetically constructed in keeping with the new build next door, Arrow.
This monstrosity is to set the norm for the area apparently - but 2 wrongs don't make a right!
Have you seen the current eyesore beside the B4084 at the Norton turning? What would the proposed site look like from the countryside alongside the other!?
The new build would be more or less the same size! What mealy-mouthed nonsensical statement is that - 1 metre lower or 3 higher?
We were told there should be no smell, dust or flies since the operation is contained indoors and there is also a duty of care as to the health and safety of the employees. However, an associated site in Cardiff is about to look into the use of fly spray infused with perfume. What environmental impact will that have? What extraction facilities are there and what filters will be applied to the air expended to the surrounding atmosphere?
The operation will be contained indoors we were told. How can it all be contained indoors with traffic movements continually in and out? What are the ancilliary buildings for outside?

Value of Property

Mr. Barber was unimpressed with the claim by the local estate agent, Andrew Grant, that property prices are likely to drop in areas where there is waste handling. Despite several sites being cited as examples the assertion was dismissed out of hand, yet the evidence remains. Is your property going to be devalued by up to £ 100,000?
Are you going to be compensated where you are?

Other Points Raised During Questions

A request was made for the release of a copy of the Waste company Business Plan - this was tentatively referred back to the council for permission to be given. Where is a copy? What is the business plan for this project?

There was concern on the grounds of safety that the visibility from the hump back bridge on the B4084 was insufficient to the turning at Woodbury Lane according to Government stipulation. No comment was made to this. Perhaps you know the answer?

Concern was expressed about the storage of derv on site for the lorries collecting and delivering as well as the environmental impact of the green house gases expended by the lorries in transit from all over the 2 counties. The Governments own Proximity Principle determines that waste should be handled close to where it is generated. So why is it being transported from as far afield as Redditch and the Welsh borders then transported back up North for further treatment, as in some cases! THIS IS JUST THE HEREFORDSHIRE AND WORCESTERSHIRE TRAFFIC!
Where's the sense in that?

Conclusion

The meeting raised more questions than answers and was obviously biased since the choice of presentation was made by the proposer with no input from anyone but the perspective applicant. I felt that I was being told what I might want to hear together with what I was allowed to know. I had expected to be told how the site would actually operate!!!
The whole exercise was geared towards appeasing any opposition to the proposed site - there was no scope allowed for exploring any alternatives, existing or new build.
We have been led to believe this is simply a huge inocuous sorting factory - maybe, to start with, but without doubt IN THE WRONG LOCATION!
Shouldn't MRF's be where the waste is already being accumulated/processed?
Anyhow, I wonder how did Ian know what some of the objections were? Hardly anybody was aware of it until the Action Group meeting and we were advised to contact the planning officer at the County Council!!

Points for Consideration

Pollution - impact should be thoroughly investigated.

There will be noise, dust, light pollution, litter, flies, smell, more traffic - FACT - no matter what damage limitation measures are put in place.

Green Belt - development should not disturb local community

The school employs a Walking Bus to usher the children safely from the village hall to the school and back.

Will anyone consider the possible affect of air contamination if any of the children have asthma/hayfever.

Village life is peaceful and just far enough away from the hustle and bustle of commercial traffic - thats why we chose to live here!

Quality of Life - should not be encroached upon.

Horse riders enjoy the locale. There is even a newly founded equestrian centre nearby.

The historical existence of a light industrial complex is fortuitous for any developer but its very existence should not be exploited simply because it is there.
This industrial park once housed ...... A JAM FACTORY!
Then Morganite, then Arrow - that's now a park of 2!
Since planning permission was for light industrial use - WHY IS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE EVEN BEING CONSIDERED! Mr Barber would like to to consider the plant as a factory but how many factories attract flies, vermin, cause odour and dust, cause detritus to be left on the road, cause litter, have vehicle alarms sounding continually?

Green Areas - loss of such areas to be protected.

Cyclists are encouraged to use many of the routes in the proposed vicinity as alternative routes to towns and villages. They would be under threat by an invasion of lorries and trucks.

Although this is deemed a brownfield site the previous site owner, Morganites, tried very hard to merge in with the surroundings and residents hardly notice movements at the new Arrow distribution outlet. It is too late for us to do anything about the size of the Arrow building - something else that was passed under our noses. I fear these prospective neighbours have no clue what is in store for them if this goes ahead, and they may well be driven away! Since waste management sites need infrastructure, green belt areas close to potential transport hubs, rail and motorway are considered the most appropriate - but CONVENIENCE for operators should not override the health, amenity, lifestyle, property values or concerns of the local people.

Negative impact on traffic, pollution and amenity of rural area.

The junction between Woodbury Lane and the B4084 is already viewed as a dangerous junction by residents.

There is an allotment in the vicinity and growers enjoy the organic crops that they produce and do not want any further threat from pollution.

A large pool of water exists on the site but it is much smaller than it used to be and is rumoured to contain dumped contaminated waste. However, it makes the area look scenic and we may lose this possible amenity.

A sewage works exists adjacent to the site and now that I have seen the plans I can reveal that the applicants are going to SHARE THE FACILITY WITH MORGANITES! What kind of business risk is that to enter into?

The Strategy

Major development proposals which would otherwise not be considered may be in the event of overriding national interest and where no alternative site is available - the necessity does not exist and there are already alternative sites in existence.

A bypass was constructed at Wyre Piddle ( at a cost of £5.9 million affecting 500 residents ) for access to the Hill and Moor site at Lower Moor, outside Pershore. However, no further expansion there is deemed practicable, despite the capacity at the site, further road construction in progress and impact on fewer people. Why is it not being considered?
We have been told that the A44 was downgraded to the B4084 to finance the bypass. What a farce!

Possible Local Alternatives

Why not consider the dis-used Government owned airfield at Throckmorton which backs onto the land fill site? This site is being advertised as suitable as a science park - I think a swop of location is more sensible!
Although this area is being touted as a science/business park.

The former Cosworth site at Junction 6 is a prime site that ticks alot of the boxes. It also has the visibility that some people want to highlight waste management in action. There is a local amenity yard already in the vicinity.
MARCH 2007 - This former industrial site is now being advertised for offices only - the goalposts have moved again! Land use allocations do change!

There is also a prime site off the same junction which was used for car boots and is rumoured to become a Car Park for the Rugby Club. Surely people are more important than cars?
( Mr. Cecil Duckworth of the rugby club is a waste stalwart and a well known local philanthropist. March 2007 - A park and ride appears to be more important ).

I have visited Rotherwas in Hereford and noticed that there is scope in the area for further development.

I have visited Hartlebury to see the proposed location for an autoclave and have identified other sites available there.

I have visited Stonebridge Cross/Hampton Lovett in Droitwich, the site of an ideal spot identified earlier in the search for the plant, where there is still vacant land available.
Rumour has it that the fear of TAINTING the milk at Wiseman dairies was enough to drive the proposal away! Milk more important than people again!

Tolladine Goods Yard in Worcester was apparently once considered - surely that would have been too close to a residential area?

There is still scope in Kidderminster - would they dare face another fight there!
A new facility is being built in the neighbouring county of Gloucestershire at Bishops Cleeve - the operator has made the offer to take the recyclable waste from the whole of south Worcestershire - Worcester City, Malvern and Wychavon. Why is this option not being considered?
Any site north of junction 7 would be more preferable under existing proposals - just to reduce traffic movements and save millions of pounds!

Council Tax

Compensation

Commingled Waste

The Partnership

The Figures

My Concerns

I wrote to Ian Barber and the County Council Planner P. Durrans but neither has furnished any answers in writing.
I have looked at the Severn Waste site where the presentation was posted but the minutes are still missing.
Until the answers are forthcoming, the following points remain outstanding:

• The decision has been made by the County Council that an Environmental Impact Assessment does not need to apply in this case. Why?



• The County Council and the Waste Company are working in partnership and yet the planning committee is set to make a decision on its own proposal - is this democratic?



• Kidderminster refused to have an incinerator in July 2002 which was viewed as a setback to plans. What other
• Will the scope of materials be increased to include Commercial and Industrial waste? Will the catchment areas be extended? There has been no indication as to whether business would be conducted between other agencies from further afield or whether the potential additional traffic movements would be taken into account.



• This is supposed to be a commercial venture and yet is it the case that most of the funding is made through local or central government grants?



• Consideration is to be given that balances cost against environmental impact but what costs are involved if funded by grants and the environmental impact is unknown?



• What contingencies are in place should the plant breakdown? Where will the waste be stock-piled? One large facility means that all your eggs are in one basket!



• Woodbury Lane has been subject to flooding in recent years. Will any development increase the prospect of further flooding?



• No waste policy has been ratified for the past 11 years. A policy decision was due in December. The Waste Core Strategy has just been completed and yet to be ratified. Why can't we wait until the Policy decision takes place?



• Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing? Do Planning talk to Transport? The infrastructure at Norton surely cannot support both a Parkway and a Waste Plant. Is one mutually exclusive of the other?

< BR>
• I am concerned about the contingency for the potential fire hazard of storing large amounts of flammable materials next to a gas powered foundry.



• Severn Waste have paid £000's in fines for fires that have occurred at their sites.



• The Morganite factory at Norton is currently subject to a takeover bid. The outcome is as yet unknown. 23/02/07 - announcement that production may cease at Norton.



• The site has been raised considerably above ground level with hardcore and I am concerned about the buildings elevation in respect of the visual impact in the surrounding area. It does need to accomodate artic sized lorries and house conveyor belts. Perhaps an aircraft hanger would be the most ideal place after all!

< br>
• Why has the ground been raised, to settle? Was burying preferable to extracting a problem? Is there contamination at the site? Nothing appears to grow.



• The health and safety record of Severn Waste is not perfect.



• The hump back bridge on Woodbury Lane is to have its supporting walls strengthened for 44 tonnes weight. Is this a coincidence or just a routine measure for a rurally sited bridge at this time?



• If Qinetiq have no use for the former airfield why can it not be used for the siting of this CMRF??????
< br>

• Now that Estech have planning permission for 2 autoclaves, one in each of the counties, does it impact the contract with Mercia in any way?



• If the north of the county have a more pressing need for the proximity of a C/MRF why has the scope of the search been limited to the vicinity of the city?

Demand the answers that are not readily available and do not assume that anyone is looking after your best interests when it comes to waste in your back yard!

The experts can mull over the technicalities but we as layman must support this fight
since it affects our lives, our environment and our future.

Your Comments!!! - the notices/posters are affecting the house prices! ANS: - Wait till its here then see the house prices! 7/12/06 - Won't this type of plant attract seagulls to the area? 1/12/06 - What are our councillors doing about this - we cannot afford to wait until the decision is made. 1/12/06 - So there will be a section 106 to improve the roads in the area - we will have to pay for that too! 1/12/06 - Will flooding be worsened - there was a flood in the week on the B4084. 1/12/06 - What about the affect on the water courses in the area - there are streams and brooks that will be affected! 1/12/06 - the environmental impact on the countryside MUST be investigated - the Country Landowners Association have been unhelpful. 1/12/06 - Sorry, I cannot help - my council bosses have told me not to get involved. 1/12/06 - A press interview was cancelled because Ian Barber was unavailable for comment - please SOMEBODY out there - listen! 30/11/06 - Nevermind nimbyism - parochialism rules in Worcester City! 29/11/06 - God help us if the county councillors are as niaive as the city councillors! We don't stand a chance! 27/11/06 - Horses will be spooked by the sound of bottles being handled. 20/11/06 - ANS: Yes, if you've got £20k to start! 20/11/06 - Madley in Hereford has gone to a Judicial Review - can we take that route to fight this? 19/11/06 - why is it all so hush hush! - What have they got to hide? 19/11/06 - Kidderminster fell through and now they are panicking to get something through quickly. 19/11/06 - its all about money - profits for the waste company and the County Council avoiding paying fines to Government for dumping waste into landfill. 19/11/06 - people don't know what's going on - who's telling them the facts? 19/11/06 - they're trying to sneak this through - people will be too busy with Christmas. 19/11/06 - Councillor Derek Prodger (and followers) seems to be the people who are most in favour of this. None of them live near Norton. What a surprise! Perhaps we should send them our waste if we are going to have theirs. 19/11/06 - The bridge over the railway line on Woodbury Lane is capable of supporting 40 ton lorries. However the crash barriers will need to be reinforced to prevent one toppling over. Mr. Barber did say that lorries would not be going that way, but should the traffic back up on the B4084 as it undoubtedly will, then police will divert the lorries through the village. 18/11/06 - People don't care when it doesn't affect them - but they should put themselves in our shoes! 18/11/06 - ANS: The Council do not allow our posters to be displayed in prominent public locations. We need private consent. 18/11/06 - How come there are so few signs up about this? 15/11/06 - Hand delivered my letter today - looking forward to the next stage in our campaign. 14/11/06 - The junction of Woodbury Lane and the B4084 was subject to road works today caused by a water leak due to damage from heavy traffic yet again. 14/11/06 - Why are key opposers closing ranks - are they being pressurised for some reason? 14/11/06 - ANS: The Spanish gentleman was the owner of FCC - Fernando. 12/11/06 - Whilst we're having a moan - why did Barber keep laffing. 12/11/06 - if we're being stitched up I'd like to know who's doing the sowing. 12/11/06 - the moon? - is that where ceemurfs come from? 12/11/06 - sounds like we're being stitched up! 12/11/06 - never mind the astronauts and Arrow - when the plants built they'll see us from the moon! 12/11/06 - shame about those old sods opposite! 12/11/06 - received a flyer today - its the first I heard about it!!! How come I didn't get a flyer from Wychavon or the Waste company about this tip? 12/11/06 - I was really disappointed with the presentation - I went along to hear about CMRF's and was hoping to hear why the proposed site is so good. 12/11/06 - Who was the Spanish guy in attendance and who did he represent? 12/11/06 - You are just a NIMBY! - ANS: Well I'm certainly not a -I'm alright Jack!- 12/11/06 - Hereford and Worcester radio broke the CCTV news - ANS: I read it in the Evening News. 11/11/06 - the Planning search link at WCC above is currently not working. Keep trying-better still write instead. http://www.worcestershire.whub.org.uk/home/wcc-dev-control-applications-decisions 11/11/06 - (Industry Insider) The site is wholly unsuitable for the scale of the operation. 11/11/06 - The airfield at Throckmorton is no longer owned by the Government (MOD). Another public asset has been sold off! 11/11/06 - Who in Environment locally is going to look into this matter and make a public statement? 10/11/06 - Would anybody write in protest to the Evening News after that endorsement! 10/11/06 - Are you doing this to inflate your ego or do you have a vested interest? ANS: I live and work in the village and I CARE. 10/11/06 - The pond on site is not contaminated - you can fish in it. 10/11/06 - This disclosure was a bit of a 'Jo Moore' - in August when everybody was on holiday! 10/11/06 - Why are you fighting this proposal - it is going ahead regardless! 10/11/06 - The Evening News asked for feedback comments yet none have been published as yet - did anybody write in? 09/11/06 - Why isn't as much effort being put into reducing waste instead of trying to make as much money as possible out of the situation? 08/11/06 - The Evening News editor is not content with the CCTV fiasco. We are now required to bury our heads in the sand regarding waste. That attitude led to the Nazi invasions and Genocide in Rwanda and Darfur. Put your energy into voicing your opinion and let the planners look after how it will look. Do I have better things to do with my time? Yes, but I'm not paid to make people aware of planning applications or to protect their interests. Where does the editor of the Evening News draw the line. Would a Nuclear facility be acceptable?