Welcome to MMAG (formerly MMETAG)

Another 125 Houses on new development site planned

nicolarr — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:07:31 +0000

MMAG has submitted its objections to Central Bedfordshire Council,following the application to develop a new housing and employment site behind the Little Chef. If approved the village would find itself stuck between two large scale development sites whose completion would take several years and increase the village substantially and placing pressure on school, health and transport structures. Click Here to view Letter

Letter To Prime Minister

nicolarr — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:59:52 +0000

David Toland, a MMAG supporter & Parish Councillor has written to the
Prime Minister in the following terms. Feel free to copy his example.

Click here to view letter.

Marston Vale Millennium Country Park Turbine – Breaking News

nicolarr — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:09:49 +0000

The Development Management Committee of Central Beds Council will be deciding the Country Park Wind Turbine application on Wednesday, 1 February 2012.

The agenda will be displayed in the week before the meeting and the proposed venue wil be the Council Chamber, Priory House, Monks Walk, Shefford.

Watch this space for further details

Covanta plant is source of problems in California

nicolarr — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:07:07 +0000

Ash pile raises concerns

Visit http://www.newsreview.com/chico/ash-pile-raises-concerns/content?oid=4660345 for full article

The dioxin-laced smoke from the fire drifted over the neighborhoods south of the park. Subsequent tests showed alarmingly high levels of dioxins in the eggs and livestock sampled from the neighboring family farms. BEC’s Mary Muchowski says initially DA’s Office links it to Oroville cogeneration plant

A huge pile of fly ash recently discovered off Hicks Lane in north Chico has raised environmental concerns with the Butte County District Attorney’s Office. The pile, which is larger in length and width than a football field and about 20 feet tall, sits on property owned by MGM Trucking and has been traced to the Pacific Oroville Power Inc. cogeneration plant in Oroville.

For nearly 30 years the cogeneration plant, located in the Highway 70 Industrial Park, has burned bio-fuel in a controlled environment to make
electricity that is then sold to Pacific Gas & Electric—enough to supply power to 20,000 homes. The plant, known as POPI, is owned by New Jersey-based Covanta. When it was first fired up, in 1983, POPI burned wood chips generated from local timber harvests. But as the lumber industry declined, the plant began burning agricultural waste as its fuel supply.

In more recent years it began receiving and burning the waste of demolished buildings trucked here from the Bay Area. Two years ago the Butte County District Attorney’s Office learned of POPI’s new operations when a DA investigator driving past the plant noticed clouds of dust blowing off the piles of fuel and drifting down from the conveyor belt that runs overhead to feed the furnaces.

In a somewhat related matter, the Butte Environmental Council (BEC) is in the process of testing chicken eggs from properties near the Highway 70 Industrial Park. In 2007 the state began looking into a reported high incidence of pancreatic cancer in the Oroville area. In January 2008 the
California Department of Public Health issued a report noting 23 cases of diagnosed pancreatic cancer of Oroville residents between 2004 and 2005.

Though the state has never put its finger on the exact cause, some point to the 1987 fire at the now-closed Koppers wood treatment plant, which sits close to Covanta in the industrial park. The fire burned an estimated 5,000 pounds of granular pentachlorophenol (PCP), a chemical used in the wood-treatment process. The dioxin-laced smoke from the fire drifted over the neighborhoods south of the park.

Subsequent tests showed alarmingly high levels of dioxins in the eggs and livestock sampled from the neighboring family farms. BEC’s Mary Muchowski says initially seven tests were conducted recently on eggs on property within a mile and a half of the park. Results, she said, ranged from .004 parts per trillion of dioxins to 14,7 parts per trillion. Muchowski said that there is no standard threshold in the United States for what’s
considered safe, but generally eggs tested off the store shelf will be removed if they show 1 part per trillion or greater.

BEC, she said, is looking into finding out what the source of the present-day dioxins is, and noted the toxin doesn’t break down.

Covanta lose yet another contract bid

nicolarr — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:58:54 +0000

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/four-bidders-shortlisted-for-west-london-waste-deal

Localism Act 2011 and Seasons Greetings to All!

nicolarr — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:10:24 +0000

Following the enactment of the Localism Act 2011, MMAG are now looking into whether its feasible to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan for either solely the Parish of Marston Moreteyne or in conjunction with contiguous (share a boundary) Parishes.

If so, such a Plan would give local people more of an input into what development they want.

As it happens the Marston Moreteyne Parish Council will also be looking into this in January.

For now MMAG wishes all Seasons Greetings and a Happy New Year to all our supporters !

Hugh Roberts
Chair

MMAG

Special Parliamentary Procedure – MMAG analysis and response

nicolarr — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:08:49 +0000

MMAG has taken extensive advice about whether this is a feasible next step -whether legally or politically. This is a very specialist, complex and rarely used process where the chances of success need to carefully weighed especially since it has never been used to examine the compulsory purchase provisions of local authority land as a result of the Development Consent Order (DCO) made by the IPC.

To recap these compulsory purchase provisions within the IPC DCO are translated into parliamentary parlance via a special procedure order SPO. This means that the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) decision for an energy from waste plant at Rookery South in Bedfordshire, must now go through a Parliamentary stage where further objections can be made to the application and must be considered by a committee of MPs and peers, known as Special Parliamentary Procedure (SPP).

MMAG supporters will recall that the IPC held a compulsory acquisition hearing to examine issues in relation to the proposed acquisition of affected persons’ interests in land. Interest in land is defined as ownership, tenancy, occupation of land, power to sell,convey or release affected land or hold any interest in land – as defined by Sections 52 & 57 of the Planning Act 2008.

Despite our vociferous opposition, technically MMAG was not an affected person in terms of the Act (for the purposes of compulsory purchase) and the IPC accordingly gave no weight to any observation by ourselves or any other party not affected in respect of matters to do with compulsory purchase.

The right of petition against a Development Consent /Special Procedure Order DCO/SPO is open to any individual, group of individuals or organisation directly or specially affected by the provisions of a SPO to petition against that order. Clearly the local authorities would come within this definition. MMAG may well not.

Equally if the promoters of an order feel that a petitioner is not so affected they can challenge the petitioners right to petition. Indeed a counter petition may draw attention to the fact objections to the compulsory acquisition of statutory utility and local authority land will already have been considered during the examination of the application by the IPC and that this is simply another process for objectors to reheat arguments on the same issue, with the attendant delay to a project that the government will have already approved of. (Remember the DCO is being sponsored by the Department for Energy and Climate Change who thus far have hidden behind the IPC). This would be at odds with the intention of the Planning Act 2008 , the national policy statements on energy infrastructure that nationally significant infrastructure projects be approved or rejected on a fast track basis. A counter petition may further argue that the petitioner does not have “locus standi”, that is the right to be heard against the order on the grounds the petitioner is not specially, directly or injuriously affected by the compulsory purchase provisions.

The promoters can also further argue there is a procedure laid down for making representations under the Planning Act 2008 before the start of the IPC examination that everyone had the opportunity to engage with and it would be perverse, unfair and uncertain to allow late objections to be made in particular cases on behalf of a particular set of affected parties. For example the SSP only applies to a minority of the total number of plots, subject to compulsory purchase. SSP is not available to the compulsory purchase of private land.

There is also the matter of costs. A landowner such as Central Bedfordshire Council who at their risk and cost who oppose the compulsory acquisition of their property is not liable for the costs of their opposition or the costs of any third party. However as regards other petitioners it is open to the Special Parliamentary Committee to also consider whether the petition was unreasonable and that the promoter has been vexatiously exposed to costs as a result of opposition. Central Bedfordshire Council has estimated that the costs of an objection/petition alone would be in the region of £120,000 which could be shared with Bedford Borough Council and there is the possibility that these costs may be exceeded. We can assume comparable costs on the part of the promoters. So a petitioner judged to be vexatious could end up with costs exceeding £240,000.

Although an affected party the main reason for the Councils maintaining an objection through a petition are that since the Council objects in principle to the development there is no need for the DCO/SPO. Central Beds principle reasons for objection were that the size and bulk of the facility will adversely affect the amenity of local residents and the highway network and the facility will source waste from a catchment area much greater than Bedfordshire contrary to national/local planning policy that waste disposal should be local. Additionally Bedford Borough objected to the principle of incineration as a suitable technology. The local authorities may argue also that the emphasis placed by the IPC on the urgent need for energy infrastructure essentially rendered local objections irrelevant.

Theoretically if the Special Parliamentary Committee was persuaded that the IPC should have arrived at a different decision they could either not approve or amend the DCO. The length of Committee proceedings vary – they may be over in a day or last months. Realistically is this likely to happen ? We hope it does but it would mean the Committee effectively tearing up the Planning Act, changing its mind over the National Statements on Energy (passed in July 2011), defying the advice of the Department for Energy and Climate Change and starting all over again. For this reason its perhaps wise not to raise unrealistic expectations and create the impression that the special parliamentary procedure will be in effect an appeal process from the IPC. The SPC is more likely to take a much more restrictive view and concentrate solely on compulsory purchase issues.

In summary we have received no advice that this is a course of action with any reasonable chance of success for a community action group such as ourselves and the odds are disproportionate to the time and effort such a petition would entail if presented by MMAG. The local authorities as affected parties are entirely a different matter whose job as such is to defend our interests. We wish them well in this brave journey and hope that they eventually arrive at a successful conclusion rather than one beset with recrimination over the use of public money in a time of austerity over a high risk legal endeavour.

We will be monitoring proceedings in Parliament closely and haven’t forgotten that the Prime Minister in three answers to parliamentary questions emphasis that local people should decide these matters – now its time to deliver !

Hugh Roberts
MMAG
Chair MMAG

Councils join forces to petition Parliament regarding IPC decision

nicolarr — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 02:19:04 +0000

Earlier this week Bedford Borough and Central Bedfordshire Councils announced that they would be petitioning Parliament regarding the IPC decision to grant planning permission for one the largest Incincerators in Europe to be built at Rookery Pit South to the US company Covanta.

Both Councils have stated that they have put aside a substantial amount of money in order to see the petition through effectively.

Charles Royden Deputy Bedford Mayor – 3 Counties Radio Interview 12/12/11
Central Bedfordshire Councillor Ken Matthews – 3 Counties Radio Interview 13/12/11

For MMAG’s analysis and response – please click here

For more information regarding the petition process including downloads from the Private Bill Office- please click here

UKWIN’s End of Year Review

nicolarr — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:33:34 +0000

UKWIN Coodinator’s End of year review: Reflect, Celebrate, Donate!

In 2011 MMAG signed up to UKWIN a network of groups fighting incineration as a solution to our waste. Their position is that UKWIN opposes the incineration of household waste, both directly in waste incinerators and indirectly through refuse derived fuels or co-incineration in cement kilns.

This is UKWIN’s end of year review:

Dear UKWIN Member / Supporter

As we approach the end of the calendar year, UKWIN has been reflecting on 2011, including outlining some of the many causes for celebration and spelling out some of the many good reasons why UKWIN is worthy of your ongoing support.

Please [Click Here to] read the 5-page document, and circulate this to your own group’s members and to fellow campaigners.

Please also move forward with renewing your membership (at http://ukwin.org.uk/apply/)

and making your generous financial contribution (see http://ukwin.org.uk/donate/).

And don’t forget to make a note of the date for UKWIN’s gathering in London on Saturday 21st April 2012.

Please note that the UKWIN “office” will be closed from 19th December 2011 – 2nd January 2012, and from 2nd – 9th January the Coordinator will be extra busy catching up with e-mail messages and closing business from 2011. Thank you in advance for your understanding.

All the best for the Holidays,

shlomo

Shlomo Dowen

National Coordinator,

United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN)

Minerals and Waste Core Strategy – Consultation on ‘Soundness’ – Closes 29th January

nicolarr — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:27:11 +0000

A public consultation on the “soundness” of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy has opened and will close on 29th January 2012

The document, which will cover the period from 2013 to 2028, is a planning strategy which sets out core policies on which future waste management development and mineral extraction will be assessed. The Plan also identifies strategic sites for mineral extraction, as well as non-hazardous waste landfill and waste management facilities which are required to recover and recycle materials from waste over the Plan period.

The Core Strategy has been developed by the Minerals and Waste Shared Planning Service which acts on behalf of Bedford Borough, Central Bedfordshire, and Luton Borough Councils.

We are asking the public to comment on whether the document legally complies with plan making regulations, and is “sound” according to the following definition:

Justified – this means founded on robust and credible evidence base, and being the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. There should be evidence of participation of the local community and others which have a stake in the area. Choices should be backed up by facts.
Effective – this means deliverable (with no barriers, and with partners who are signed up to proposals); coherent with strategies of neighbouring authorities; flexible to change. The document should be able to be monitored, showing who is responsible for delivering the policies and proposals and when they will happen.

Consistent with national policy – or if there is a departure from it, it must be justified.

The consultation begins at 9 am on the 5th December 2011, and runs until midnight on 29th January 2012. Copies of the consultation documents can be downloaded from the Bedford Borough, Central Bedfordshire, and Luton Borough Councils websites at:

Bedford Borough:
http://www.bedford.gov.uk/environment_and_planning/planning_town_and_country/planning_policy/minerals__waste.aspx
Central Bedfordshire:
http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/planning/minerals-and-waste/development-framework.aspx
Luton Borough
http://www.luton.gov.uk/internet/environment/planning/regional%20and%20local%20planning/minerals%20and%20waste

Comments can be emailed to mwplans@centralbedfordshire.gov.uk,

or sent by post to:

Minerals and Waste Shared Planning Service,
Central Bedfordshire Council,
Priory House, Monks Walk,
Chicksands, Shefford,
SG17 5TQ

Alternatively you can read the document and make your comments directly by visiting the consultation portal:

http://centralbedfordshire-consult.objective.co.uk/portal

(Please note that the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy will not be available to access through the portal until the consultation begins at 9am on Monday morning (5th of December 2011).

Finally, a copy of the consultation documents is also available to view at Council offices, main libraries, and “points of presence”. The details of these locations are set out in full on the Council’s website. If you would like to discuss the document further please do not hesitate to contact Lester Hannington on 0300 300 76219 or Susan Marsh on 0300 300 6032.