smartphone orten software here handy ortung russland mspy auf iphone 6s Plus installieren spy cam app iphone 6s Plus handy kindersicherung internet vergleich sms spy yahoo
Skip navigation.
Home
... for greater sustainability and local resilience

Comment and Discussion

Here you can put forward your thought and ideas, ask questions and comment on any subject connected you like, but hopefully with some connection to Transition, Peak Oil or Climate Change.

To add a topic click on 'add new comment'
To reply to an item, click on 'reply' at the bottom of the item

27-29 Apr: Incinerator Enquiry

Hi All,

Todays proceeding started as previously arranged at 9am with Mr King X continuing his examination of Mr Aumonier SITA witness, with the technicalities of separation of waste, recycling and its effect on what is burnt in the incin., and treatment technologies, all resulting in the exchange of opinions on details of technicalities and statements. Many mildly heated exchanges took place. Many 'please answer the question' from Mr King. Many unrequested long explanations
from Mr Aumonier.
No doubt Mr Aumonier is a very experienced person as far as
incineration and waste is concerned. he tended to over elaborate his answers which Mr King made good use of this to control him. No doubt the inspector made note of Mr Aumonier's actions. I would say that Mr King shaded it, but only just. This X examination was concluded at 10am

10 min break until 10.10am.

Ms Lark then X examined Mr Aumonier after seeking his back ground including his working with Mr Patel. Further grilling followed on ref. to WRATE, recession effect on waste figures, recycling, waste collections, uncertainly over figures. food waste. Ref AD at Fraddon a good example of local progress, agreed by both.A lot time spent discussing recycling of commercial waste. recently updated WRATE.
Climate change and carbon balance.got a bit heated. the life of
plastic in landfill. Mr Aumonier continues to overstate answers. He firmly believes that attack is the best form of defence. Ms Lark continues to be her aggressive self. very interesting dual.
One interesting comment from Mr Aumonier was that if Cornwall Council was to offer him a job, there is no way he would take it. I wonder why.
No doubt Mr Aumonier is SITA's best witness, very
knowledgeable,unfortunately spoils his performance by over explanation and aggression and taking 30 or 40 words to say yes or no. Was a hard fought draw against a difficult and probably SITA's best witness.
Lunch was taken at 1pm to 2pm.

Ms Lark was scheduled to start and in view of time gave up her
allocated 15 mins. Mr Toms then proceeded to X examine Mr Aumonier with scientific terminology and modelling accuracy. It was agreed that modelling is not ideal and is inconsistent. EU regs. were referred to regarding alternative technologies and reduction of emissions. Waste Framework Directive was quoted. AD has a lower emission level than incinerators, eventually agreed after the usual lengthy reply. Public
involvement was discussed, but not necessarily agreed. Technology selection was discussed. usual format. Cornwall Options Appraisal RPS peer review. process selection issues were raised by not agreed.
A verbal fight ensued over procedures and pointed results. Mr Toms stated that the public had a preference for AD, Mr Aumonier did not agree.
Some of Mr Aumonier answers went to on show that he is not aware of the true facts. The public would not agree with his so called knowledge of public perception. Finally got Mr Aumonier to admit that gases from AD would be beneficial and could be used as mains gas.

Mr Toms as one would expect gave a very good example of X examination, very technical, scientific, and concise.This was a good battle and in my opinion Mr Toms shaded it on points against a very tough witness.
This X examination finished at 3.45pm Break until 3.55pm. No questions from PC/STIG
The inspector resumed by asking Mr Aumonier questions about landfill and where are available sites. Also asked about capacity of incinerator, was it needed to be so big.

This was followed by Mr Phillips leading Mr Aumonier with questions which were answered in a manner beneficial to SITA. Usual performance from Mr Phillips as one would expect. However during this spell we then had what I called " SITA shoots self in the foot" It was admitted by Mr Amonier that the incinerator capacity was needed to be 240,000 tons pa. because as Cornwall improves and reaches its recycling targets more capacity would be gained and this would be utilised by burning industrial waste which in turn will result in more
profit for SITA. The irony of this is the more we recycle the more profit we make for SITA, WHAT AN INCENTIVE TO RECYCLE.
Today we closed at 5.10pm.
Attendance today 35 at the most
Ken.

Hi All,
The inspector opened todays proceedings by announcing that by lunch time he will be in a position to inform the dates of two extra days he will be available for in July and at what venue.

Proceedings stated with Mr Picksley being X examined by Ms Lark.
Before it got going Mr Phillips intervened by again objecting to paperwork which Ms Lark had submitted. the inspector then adjourned the session for 15 mins to give Mr Picksley time to read these docs.
These docs were one from Mr Harris chairman of the Cornwall Butterfly Consevation and one from Mr Hodgetts of the British Bryological Society both advising that the precautionary principle should be adopted to protect the Marsupella Profunda

11.10am resumed with Ms Lark X examining Mr Picksley. mainly
concentrating on the welfare of Marsupella Profunda and letters from Mr Harris and Mr Hodgetts.
Very good questions not many definite answers(very protective). also some "beg to differ"
The inspector asked some questions about the Goss and Tregoss Moors resulting from views experienced on his train and air journeys. also asked Mr Phillips to provide a written answer to his questions. Mr Picksley stated that the Moors would not be effected by air pollution.
Grazing was discussed. why hav'nt you considered the Indian Queens power station in combination. I think it should be. Any pollution effects from the A 30 traffic.
Mr Phillips then led Mr Picksley by appropriate questions (as
expected). Grazing and management of the Moors was highlighted. then continued with issues arising from Mr Boyles X examination. Competent authority issues.
Mr Picksley no doubt is a very well informed and articulate person, knows his stuff, but is very robust and aggressive with his answers.
Ms Lingard arrived at 11.55, later talked to SITA's David Buckle and others.
Short 10 minute break for changeover.
Mr Aumonier (Technology Choice ) SITA witness was introduced by Mr Phillips SITA QC and then proceeded to read his evidence. following this Mr Aumonier was led by Mr Phillips with the usual weighted questions. Recycling, recovery, landfill avoidance, Government policy,
Lunch was taken between 1 and 2pm.
Ms Lingard back at 2.07pm.
The inspector announced that an additional two days for the Inquiry have been booked at Kingsley on 13 July from 2pm and 14 July full day.
Continued with Mr Phillips leading Mr Aumonier on issues above and PFIs and other country wide planning applications incl. Autoclave. availability of landfill. I suppose that SITA will be very pleased to hear this evidence, however we were not. I must admit it was somewhat boring. Mr Amonier did state that he was aware of the WDA and its desperation over financial issues. He was also aware that the WDA was not in a position to present evidence to this Inquiry. We have to admit that some of SITA's witnesses know their stuff, as to the promotion of SITA and incineration. In the same manner as our own
witnesses know how to exploit the negatives of the Rostowrack site and incineration.

Mr Aumonier was then X examined by Mr King, CC QC,
When did he start with this PA and what was his terms of ref. ie to support a planning application. did not see the contract, only SITA's proposal for a single EFW on the St.Dennis site. He said the site was not important to him, (but it was to SITA). Still not have read all the contract, only recycling issues.
Mr King then referred to the Waste Local Plan which records a plant to treat 200,00 tons not 240,000.of residual material, agreed.
Recycling issues, targets and viability were discussed. landfill.
Contractrual waste. Other issues which took time were recycling
targets, recession effects, recycled material condition and value, and CERC capacity. Exchanges were a bit strained at times and ended at times with disagreement. Answers to questions were the longest experienced to date. Mr King highlighted some relevant points omitted..
This guy is a tough cookie SITA would more than likely say that today was a good draw, my opinion (probably biased) is that we just shaded it.
Today closed at 5.10pm
40 in attendance today.
Ken.

Hi All,

Hope you all had good weekend,
The inspector opened todays proceedings by announcing apologies to Mr Toms for cutting him off on Friday last and to Mr Boyle for putting his or Mr Kings driving licence in peril.
Mr Phillips explained that Prof. Bridges would not be available until
Tuesday 4 May. He also objected to recent (WE)submissions by Ms Lark and Mrs Hawken(third parties) and requested that they not be considered. The inspector would be discussing this with Ms Lark today.
No other comment was made.
The X examining of Mr Barrowcliffe (SITA Witness) by Mr Rod Toms, POC continued on from Fridays adjournment. Many scientific question from Mr Toms, not many constructive answers. some could not be answered. Mr Toms highlighted the fact that in calculations 71,000 tons of added substance have not been accounted for.The inspector requested that SITA provide a detailed single sheet in answer to Mr Toms final
question.
The inspector asked Mr Barrowcliffe about the St.Mawgan and Camborne data, it was admitted that this data was not perfect for this site..
Mr Barrowcliffe made much comment about the China Clay dust and how it would not adhere to the emissions from the incinerator. What a load of cra.. rubbish. Certainly not true.
Mr Barrowcliffe was then X examined by My Phillips, who made good use of the fact that the EA and EN had not objected to the proposal.
Mr Barrowcliffe gave a performance which one would expect from a SITA witness. Obviously weighted in favour of SITA's planning application.
Crib 10.55 to 11.10 am.
Resumed with Mr Picksley (Ecology) acting as witness for SITA. after intro. gave his qualifications and Proof of Evidence. Basically he said that an Appropriate Assessment is not required. Mr Phillips then led Mr Picksley by asking questions which attracted answers appropriate to SITA's case.(as expected)

Lunch break 12.45 to 1.40pm

Afternoon session started with Mr Picksley being X examined by Mr Boyle, CC.QC. First it was established that reg. 48 is now superseded by reg. 61.Some clarification of the new regs. were clarified after some conflicting exchanges, how ever Mr Boyle got there in the end and made his point. One or two interventions by Mr Phillips, all to no avail.
It appears that an e-mail from Ashly Bird, SITA, Mr Bird states that the height of the stack must be raised to 120 mtrs as we cannot RUN THE RISK OF AN APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT. whow! what an omission. It was agreed that no ERM assessment was before the inspector. Many exchanges on very technical detail much of which is beyond all unless one is technically minded. Although it is always interesting to hear Mr Boyle at work and score points. Tea break 2.50 to 3.10pm. Much clarification
of air quality monitoring and the lack of appropriate .evidence. Now moved on to the critical load. NE cannot conclude that the air quality will not have a adverse effect on the SAC. In combination assessments were discussed to some length and deficiencies highlighted. Air quality still dominates the exchanges. NE, DH gained some credabilty
by seeking assurance that the 1% would not be breached. According to a EU directive in combination assessments must be made.
This was a long period of X examination by Mr Boyle which persevered with success to destroy or at least undermine Mr Picksley's evidence.
At times they agreed to disagree.
Mr Boyles X examination finished at 4.25pm. this was a significant battle which in my opinion Mr Boyle won on points however these points were won by much hard work and dignity.(as would be expected from Mr Boyle)
Mr Picksley was then X examined by Mr Toms POC who as we have come to expect presented a scientific and detailed duel with Mr Picksley, highlighting significant issues regarding the preservation of Marsupella Perfunda. Mr Toms emphasised that surely the precautionary principle should be applied in every aspect and this be pu.rsued by way of an Appropriate Assessment.

Mr Picksley was then X examined by Mrs Blanchard, PC/STIG who posed questions on the Dormice and Badger welfare. He realised there was ref. to this subject at last weeks public speaking at St.Dennis. but was very vague about most questions. He did admit he was not involved in site selection. Good questions.
The inspector adjourned todays session at 5.15pm. another good day,

50 attended today,

Ken.

> Hi All,
>
> I would like to correct my yesterdays mistake of calling Mr Matthews
> (again) Mr Williams, apologies to Mr Matthews.
>
> I would now like to add one very relevant omission also from
> yesterdays report and that is during Ms Larks X examination of Mr
> Scanlon he admiitted that the finishing process for the bottom ash
> would be done by an outside contractor. This would require a site on
> which to carry out that process. They haven't found s site and they
> haven't got planning permission for it.
> Our opinion,There is the possibility of SITA attempting to build such
> a plant at Parkandillick.
>
> The inspector opened todays proceedings by highlighting a Frigate in
> Newquay Bay followed by stating that Mr Picksley would be called as a
> SITA witness on Tuesday. To day we will start with SITA witness Mr
> Roger Barrowcliffe (Air Quality) who was then introduced by Mr
> Phillips. Mr Barrowcliffe presented his witness statement (POE) and
> was then led by Mr Phillips with advantageous questions. Subjects
> included emissions, critical load, stack height(was increased to
> reduce ground level concentrations), the EA, basically all this
> attempted to prove that the SAC would not be effected by the
> incinerator emissions. The A30 traffic has no effect on the SAC,
> regarding critical load only emissions from the incinerator should be
> assessed not in combination with other.There was one intervention, a
> correction, from Mr Boyle CC QC,
> Crib(coffee) was taken from 10.40 to 10.50am.
>
> Mr Barrowcliffe was then X examined by Mr Boyle CC,QC, after early
> exchanges clarified subjects. now we had logical questions asked by Mr
> Boyle in his own particular style. Mr Phillips asked for Mr Boyle to
> speak up, what a cheek from the mumbling QC.
> Many searching questions resulting in some admitted discrepancies,
> some involving the EA methodology, some subjects presented as being
> from the EA were not in fact from the EA. EA have not answered CC
> questions. Inconsistency in EA calculations, missing words, it was
> apparent that the critical load calculations were sexed up to be under
> rather than over.The EA was exposed as not being the all together
> reliable authority as it should be. This was an example of how a top
> barrister works, this was a class act and a professional performance,
> No doubt Mr Boyle won hands down. excellent stuff.
> Mr Boyle completed his X examination of Mr Barrowcliffe at 12.45pm.
>
> Ms Hawken.CSWN, then proceeded to X examined Mr Barrowcliffe, and
> asked questions about wind direction, ground testing, dioxins,
> topography and stack height, modelling was done with a 75mtr stack not
> 120mtr. referred to diary produce and contamination prospects, No
> other incinerator stack is as high as 120mtrs. China Clay dust records
> read but not taken into consideration. The plume, shut down emissions,
> Another dogged performance from Ms Hawken with particular emphasis on
> the food industry.
>
> Mrs Pat Blanchard PC/STIG was next to X examine Mr Barrowcliffe with
> questions on the incinerator stack height.emissions and dioxins, some
> negative answers,some positve.
> Got the admission that the increase in height of the stack was for the
> SAC not humans. nearly got an admission that if he was involved in the
> site selection he would not have advised for it to be near a SAC.
>
> Mr Rod Toms POC was next to X examine Mr Barrowcliffe and got him to
> admit that he did not have any experience of modelling an incinerator
> next to a clay works, that he had not done any work on clay emissions
> in combination, that he had not seen any papers on it. He would not
> admit to details in the Parsons paper were correct or that his
> modelling receptors were placed in the wrong place. He did admit to a
> statement by Mr Toms on nano-particulates.
>
> The inspector called things to a halt at 1.55pm, proceedings to resume
> again on Tuesday with Mr Toms continuing hisX examination of Mr
> Barrowcliffe.
>
> This has been another good week with many excellent performances, with
> everyone giving their best shot. very good day at St.Dennis where some
> 35 people gave a cross section of experiences and reasons for refusal.
> No one spoke in favour.This week has continued to highlight that the
> incinerator is the wrong technology and St.Dennis is the wrong site.
>
> I would like to record a vote of thanks to all who attended the social
> evening today at the WMC which raised funds for our campaign. special
> thanks to Mrs Blanchard and her team of helpers,, the donators of
> raffle prizes and the entertainers Mr Tony Truscott, Mr Bert Biscoe
> and Pol Hodge who generously gave their services.
> .
> Regards, Ken.