Waste Campaign
Oct. 3rd, 2017 04:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
susanreads posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
colchesterfoeOur throw-away culture is risking people's health and squandering the world's natural resources.
Prioritising recycling and investing in waste reduction would go a long way to solving the waste crisis. Instead the Government is opting for wide-scale incineration.
Hildegard Hill submitted a letter to the Gazette and Essex County Standard and versions of it were printed in both, including the Standard on Friday 13th February 2015 with a picture of a wheelie bin.
The Editor
The Gazette Letters
Sir,
It seems that someone at Colchester Borough is keen to making another attempt at shoving expensive wheelie bins down our throats. Why, especially now when, financially, the going is tough? When every council up and down the land struggles to make ends meet? When we all know that it’s not wheelie bins that make the reluctant recyclers become recycling fans, but education of the hearts and minds which will result in the behavioural changes that are needed, as well as an excellent separated multi-material kerbside collection by a well-trained and friendly in-house recycling team such as the one Colchester is providing.
As a result of this superb service which is now including a food waste collection, Colchester’s recycling rate has shot up to over 49%. There is, however, scope for improvement. There is no reason why Colchester couldn’t reach 60% by the end of the year.
Colchester has more flats by percentage than any comparable town in Essex. The food waste collection will need to be rolled out to all flats, adequate bins for all the materials and space for bin lorries should be as normal in the design of blocks of flats as, for instance, windows, doors and staircases. Provision of these amenities should be subject of a planning condition.
Also, recycling should be made easier and disposal more difficult: The very un-green practice of dumping rubbish down a chute could be stopped, by removing the chutes (something practiced on the continent, and it seems to work). After all, the residents take their shopping up into their flats via a lift or staircase, so why shouldn’t they be capable of taking the empties (which should be far lighter), and their refuse, down the stairs or the lift whenever they leave their flat and put them in the right bins. If occupiers of flats (young families, single mums, people with mobility problems etc.) can do it on the continent, they should be able to do it over here.
Let’s not forget that the present Colchester kerbside collection is excellent value. Why mend what isn’t broken? Wheelie bins are unwieldy, heavy when full, blowing about in the wind when empty, they are far too expensive because they need a new fleet of vehicles with lifting gear, but they are very convenient if one wants to get rid of something unsuitable for disposal at the kerbside, such as paints, hazardous waste and even pets!
Co-mingled recycling bins often hold unwashed containers which contaminate the rest of the load, resulting in rejection by the re-processors and a loss of income for the council. And, unless there is a fortnightly or even less frequent collection, wheelies will increase the amount of residual waste going to landfill, and recycling will decrease.
So please, let’s forget the wheelies once and for all.
Hildegard Hill
Two Hoots, Hall Road
Mount Bures, Bures
CO8 5AS
Our letter to the press on waste was printed in the Colchester Gazette on 20th March 2012, as lead letter under the heading 'We must cancel the waste plant contract or regret it', and in the Essex County Standard on 6th April.
•Dump the MBT contract not the recycling Kevin
Meanwhile, back in October 2011 the Gazette used this picture of our demo outside County Hall for a whole page article on recycling. From the left - Paul Gadd, Co-ordinator Saffron Walden FoE; Maike Windhorst, SE Essex FoE; Peter Foreman, Chelmsford member, Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator, and Hildegard Hill, Recycling campaigner, for Colchester & NE Essex FoE.
The Waste Development Document (WDD) was a very long and flawed 'planning' document being 'consulted' on, with a deadline of 5.30pm on Thursday 19th January. It would not be completed until years after the waste plants had all been agreed. See it on: http://consult.essexcc.gov.uk.
We asked people to email a response to: mineralsandwastepolicy@essex.gov.uk. You don't have to answer all the questions. Remember to include your name and address. We suggest: 'No' you don't agree with Questions 1, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 and 'Yes' you agree with Question 21, for the following reasons:
ECC are imminently going to rubberstamp a 28 year £800million contract at Basildon for an MBT plant for 417,000 tonnes p.a. of "black bag" residual waste trucked from the whole of Essex. This would cost Essex council tax payers £4billion and must be stopped.
This contracted tonnage is far more than the 377,000 tonnes of residual waste Essex and Southend landfilled last year, with Essex only recycling 50% - up from 43% two years ago. It would tie Essex into providing the contracted tonnage each year and would put a cap on higher recycling.
Recycling centres are recycling 65% now and one district is recycling 65%. Foodwaste collections are being started up all over the county and recycling and composting is rising fast each year. Total 'waste' has been dropping for some years in Essex in spite of increased population.
Essex County Council have already permitted a 250,000 tonnes p.a. MBT (Mechanical Biological Treatment) plant at Stanway, with other waste plants, another MBT plant and an incinerator for 360,000 tonnes p.a. at Rivenhall. There is landfill capacity at Stanway for at least 50 years.
The Stanway MBT would be the size of seven football pitches. MBT plants dry the black bag waste by shredding and 'composting' it in massive warehouses to turn into polluting fuel pellets for an incinerator which is permitted on any of the Essex waste sites.
Here are our suggested responses:
Here are some recent (2011) letters to the press on the subject of recycling. The one to the East Anglian Daily Times, about kerbside recycling in Tendring, is a response to an article on their front page, "Shame of home waste figures", which compares the 27% of dry recycling collected in Tendring with the total recycling collections from other areas. Our letter points out the difference is made up mainly of garden waste, which is collected at the kerbside elsewhere, but at Household Waste Recycling Centres (which are included in the county council's figures) in Tendring.
From 7th October to 2nd December 2010, ECC ran a "consultation" on their Waste Development Document, which followed much the same pattern as previous waste plans and previous consultations.
•Press release: Dump dirty waste plant contracts -- 12/10/10
On 19th Nov. 2009, the County put out tenders for the massive long-term contracts in their waste strategy.
There was then a "consultation" with four rubbish options as to how waste collections should be run, which are likely to lead to the imposition of wheelie bins. The deadline for responses was extended to 29 Jan. 2010.
Early in 2009, most Essex residents were sent a magazine called "Essex Works" which included a questionnaire "The Future for Waste", also available as a separate booklet or on ECC's website. This survey, which closed on May 5th, was designed to lead people into giving certain answers, so as to support the County Council's preferred strategy of large centralised "MBT" plants, like the Stanway one referred to below.
When filling in the questionnaire, we suggested that people tick the box "Strongly disagree" to MBT in question 3, and the box "No (send to landfill)" in question 4. In the space for comments under question 5, we asked people to object to the misleading leaflet and the limited choices available.
If you had time (and room) you could object in more detail; for instance, you could ask for much higher recycling and composting, aiming at Zero Waste by 2020. You could support council-run kerbside collections, with materials separated at the kerb and baled locally, rather than ECC's proposal for a privatised area collecting service which would take compacted mixed recyclables (this contaminates the materials, especially paper, and makes them less valuable).
Photo: Outside Colchester Town Hall, 26 Feb. 08: opposing Conservative waste plans and the latest consultation.
An application was lodged in 2008 at Stanway, Colchester, for one of three proposed massive MBT (Mechanical Biological Treatment) plants in Essex. Below is a link explaining the grounds on which we objected to it. It covers some of the saga of our ten-year battle against the county council's waste disposal plans.
In 2007 we held a demo on Colchester Town Hall steps with the MBT dragon fought off by a five-year-old St George. The Essex County Council and Colchester Cabinet member Baddie was giving the large brown envelope for £billions to the Waste Disposal Baddie for the 25 year contract to destroy our valuable recyclable and compostable resources.
We also opposed the Rivenhall Airfield application, which came up at Essex County Council's planning committee on 30th March, 2007. It proposed over 500,000 tonnes p.a. for the MBT plant, and would produce over 100,000 tonnes p.a. of polluting RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel) from mashed dried rubbish, which they say would be burnt 'offsite'.
An application was also lodged for Basildon, with the deadline for objections on 12th April, 2007. The MBT dragon and the council Baddie visited Basildon on the day and a petition with 3,500 signatures was presented to Basildon council.
Here are some letters to the press:
•CBC withdraws support from PFI bid Oct. 2008
•Will ECC opposition groups pull out of PFI bid?, May 2009
Prioritising recycling and investing in waste reduction would go a long way to solving the waste crisis. Instead the Government is opting for wide-scale incineration.
Wheelie bin letter
Hildegard Hill submitted a letter to the Gazette and Essex County Standard and versions of it were printed in both, including the Standard on Friday 13th February 2015 with a picture of a wheelie bin.
The Editor
The Gazette Letters
Sir,
It seems that someone at Colchester Borough is keen to making another attempt at shoving expensive wheelie bins down our throats. Why, especially now when, financially, the going is tough? When every council up and down the land struggles to make ends meet? When we all know that it’s not wheelie bins that make the reluctant recyclers become recycling fans, but education of the hearts and minds which will result in the behavioural changes that are needed, as well as an excellent separated multi-material kerbside collection by a well-trained and friendly in-house recycling team such as the one Colchester is providing.
As a result of this superb service which is now including a food waste collection, Colchester’s recycling rate has shot up to over 49%. There is, however, scope for improvement. There is no reason why Colchester couldn’t reach 60% by the end of the year.
Colchester has more flats by percentage than any comparable town in Essex. The food waste collection will need to be rolled out to all flats, adequate bins for all the materials and space for bin lorries should be as normal in the design of blocks of flats as, for instance, windows, doors and staircases. Provision of these amenities should be subject of a planning condition.
Also, recycling should be made easier and disposal more difficult: The very un-green practice of dumping rubbish down a chute could be stopped, by removing the chutes (something practiced on the continent, and it seems to work). After all, the residents take their shopping up into their flats via a lift or staircase, so why shouldn’t they be capable of taking the empties (which should be far lighter), and their refuse, down the stairs or the lift whenever they leave their flat and put them in the right bins. If occupiers of flats (young families, single mums, people with mobility problems etc.) can do it on the continent, they should be able to do it over here.
Let’s not forget that the present Colchester kerbside collection is excellent value. Why mend what isn’t broken? Wheelie bins are unwieldy, heavy when full, blowing about in the wind when empty, they are far too expensive because they need a new fleet of vehicles with lifting gear, but they are very convenient if one wants to get rid of something unsuitable for disposal at the kerbside, such as paints, hazardous waste and even pets!
Co-mingled recycling bins often hold unwashed containers which contaminate the rest of the load, resulting in rejection by the re-processors and a loss of income for the council. And, unless there is a fortnightly or even less frequent collection, wheelies will increase the amount of residual waste going to landfill, and recycling will decrease.
So please, let’s forget the wheelies once and for all.
Hildegard Hill
Two Hoots, Hall Road
Mount Bures, Bures
CO8 5AS
Press Coverage
Our letter to the press on waste was printed in the Colchester Gazette on 20th March 2012, as lead letter under the heading 'We must cancel the waste plant contract or regret it', and in the Essex County Standard on 6th April.
•Dump the MBT contract not the recycling Kevin
Meanwhile, back in October 2011 the Gazette used this picture of our demo outside County Hall for a whole page article on recycling. From the left - Paul Gadd, Co-ordinator Saffron Walden FoE; Maike Windhorst, SE Essex FoE; Peter Foreman, Chelmsford member, Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator, and Hildegard Hill, Recycling campaigner, for Colchester & NE Essex FoE.
January 2012 Waste Consultation
The Waste Development Document (WDD) was a very long and flawed 'planning' document being 'consulted' on, with a deadline of 5.30pm on Thursday 19th January. It would not be completed until years after the waste plants had all been agreed. See it on: http://consult.essexcc.gov.uk.
We asked people to email a response to: mineralsandwastepolicy@essex.gov.uk. You don't have to answer all the questions. Remember to include your name and address. We suggest: 'No' you don't agree with Questions 1, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 and 'Yes' you agree with Question 21, for the following reasons:
ECC are imminently going to rubberstamp a 28 year £800million contract at Basildon for an MBT plant for 417,000 tonnes p.a. of "black bag" residual waste trucked from the whole of Essex. This would cost Essex council tax payers £4billion and must be stopped.
This contracted tonnage is far more than the 377,000 tonnes of residual waste Essex and Southend landfilled last year, with Essex only recycling 50% - up from 43% two years ago. It would tie Essex into providing the contracted tonnage each year and would put a cap on higher recycling.
Recycling centres are recycling 65% now and one district is recycling 65%. Foodwaste collections are being started up all over the county and recycling and composting is rising fast each year. Total 'waste' has been dropping for some years in Essex in spite of increased population.
Essex County Council have already permitted a 250,000 tonnes p.a. MBT (Mechanical Biological Treatment) plant at Stanway, with other waste plants, another MBT plant and an incinerator for 360,000 tonnes p.a. at Rivenhall. There is landfill capacity at Stanway for at least 50 years.
The Stanway MBT would be the size of seven football pitches. MBT plants dry the black bag waste by shredding and 'composting' it in massive warehouses to turn into polluting fuel pellets for an incinerator which is permitted on any of the Essex waste sites.
Here are our suggested responses:
- Q1: No. ECC has consistently overestimated levels of residual waste.
I object to all the 3 proposed major sites at Basildon, Stanway and Rivenhall. We need separated kerbside recycling collections of all materials including foodwaste, with local baling centres to minimise transport and reduce climate change gas emissions.
We oppose incinerators for burning MBT fuel pellets at any proposed site which destroys global resources, is polluting and increases climate change gases. - Q7: No. A local flexible approach, which invests in waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting is needed with local waste management sites on existing industrial areas near all towns.
- Q8: No. 3 major sites are not "essential" to the Plan.
- Q9: No. The 3 major sites should have been properly assessed using the same criteria as the other sites have been judged against.
- Q13: No. Centralised large MBT sites on longterm contracts will lock Essex into destroying valuable global resources for ever with incineration of RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel) or SRF (Solid Recovered Fuel) pellets produced by MBT plants increasing pollution and climate change gases.
It would lead to lower recycling rates. Recycling rates are rising each year with half of Essex already recycling 58%. In previous waste consultations the public have opposed incineration and support recycling. - Q14: No. Essex should not support waste incineration due to emissions and destruction of resources. ECC has stated that all energy derived from burning waste can be classed as renewable. This is not true. Only some of the energy from biomass can be classed as renewable.
The impact on climate change from burning waste includes destroying valuable resources, increasing pollution and transport from importing virgin materials. It will be negative in 'energy from waste' incinerators. As recycling and composting rates continue to improve, the residual waste left will be increasingly made up of non-biomass elements. - Q21: Yes. These are reasonable transport criteria, but the proposed plans for MBT plants will add to the serious impacts of noise, vibration and pollution, particularly by increasing HGV traffic.
Recycling Letters
Here are some recent (2011) letters to the press on the subject of recycling. The one to the East Anglian Daily Times, about kerbside recycling in Tendring, is a response to an article on their front page, "Shame of home waste figures", which compares the 27% of dry recycling collected in Tendring with the total recycling collections from other areas. Our letter points out the difference is made up mainly of garden waste, which is collected at the kerbside elsewhere, but at Household Waste Recycling Centres (which are included in the county council's figures) in Tendring.
- Tendring kerbside recycling not so dreadful, to EADT 21 March 2011
- Let's sort ourselves out at the kerbside!, to Essex County Standard 23 March 2011
- CBC survey on wheelie bins a year ago actually showed only 29 people preferred them, Gazette letters page, published 28th March 2011
- Last chance for Essex County Council to drop the costly waste disposal contracts, to Essex Chronicle 3 April 2011
- Last chance for Essex County Council to drop the costly waste disposal contracts, election-themed letter to Colchester Daily Gazette, 2nd May 2011
Another waste plan consultation
From 7th October to 2nd December 2010, ECC ran a "consultation" on their Waste Development Document, which followed much the same pattern as previous waste plans and previous consultations.
•Press release: Dump dirty waste plant contracts -- 12/10/10
Waste strategy tenders
On 19th Nov. 2009, the County put out tenders for the massive long-term contracts in their waste strategy.
There was then a "consultation" with four rubbish options as to how waste collections should be run, which are likely to lead to the imposition of wheelie bins. The deadline for responses was extended to 29 Jan. 2010.
- Press release: We must dump the County's waste plans
- Don't accept waste bribe, letter to the papers, printed 30/4/10 in the Gazette
- Colchester FoE Response to consultation
- Waste Options consultation, sent to Standard 5 Jan. 2010
- Four Rubbish Options, sent to Gazette 8 Dec. 2009 - printed on 10th under headline 'Vote for our alternative option on rubbish issue'.
"Essex Works" Survey
Early in 2009, most Essex residents were sent a magazine called "Essex Works" which included a questionnaire "The Future for Waste", also available as a separate booklet or on ECC's website. This survey, which closed on May 5th, was designed to lead people into giving certain answers, so as to support the County Council's preferred strategy of large centralised "MBT" plants, like the Stanway one referred to below.
When filling in the questionnaire, we suggested that people tick the box "Strongly disagree" to MBT in question 3, and the box "No (send to landfill)" in question 4. In the space for comments under question 5, we asked people to object to the misleading leaflet and the limited choices available.
If you had time (and room) you could object in more detail; for instance, you could ask for much higher recycling and composting, aiming at Zero Waste by 2020. You could support council-run kerbside collections, with materials separated at the kerb and baled locally, rather than ECC's proposal for a privatised area collecting service which would take compacted mixed recyclables (this contaminates the materials, especially paper, and makes them less valuable).
Photo: Outside Colchester Town Hall, 26 Feb. 08: opposing Conservative waste plans and the latest consultation.
- Press Release: ECC springs new PFI bid on Councillors and Essex people -- 27/7/09
- Letter to Essex County Standard on separated kerbside collections, sent on 7/4/09
- Costly waste plans, Essex County Standard 28 Nov. 2008
Stanway MBT Proposal
An application was lodged in 2008 at Stanway, Colchester, for one of three proposed massive MBT (Mechanical Biological Treatment) plants in Essex. Below is a link explaining the grounds on which we objected to it. It covers some of the saga of our ten-year battle against the county council's waste disposal plans.
In 2007 we held a demo on Colchester Town Hall steps with the MBT dragon fought off by a five-year-old St George. The Essex County Council and Colchester Cabinet member Baddie was giving the large brown envelope for £billions to the Waste Disposal Baddie for the 25 year contract to destroy our valuable recyclable and compostable resources.
We also opposed the Rivenhall Airfield application, which came up at Essex County Council's planning committee on 30th March, 2007. It proposed over 500,000 tonnes p.a. for the MBT plant, and would produce over 100,000 tonnes p.a. of polluting RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel) from mashed dried rubbish, which they say would be burnt 'offsite'.
An application was also lodged for Basildon, with the deadline for objections on 12th April, 2007. The MBT dragon and the council Baddie visited Basildon on the day and a petition with 3,500 signatures was presented to Basildon council.
Here are some letters to the press:
•CBC withdraws support from PFI bid Oct. 2008
•Will ECC opposition groups pull out of PFI bid?, May 2009
