|
Newsletter
|
Increasing recycling to levels achieved in some other countries would save valuable resources and lead to huge reductions in emissions of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide. FoE is calling on the Government to set statutory recycling targets for local authorities and to provide them with new money to set up comprehensive recycling schemes.
Currently, there are 12 incinerator sites across Britain - none are in the South West. (Source: Energy from Waste Association). 34 sites have been offered support for new incinerators through the Government's Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO). 5 of these sites are in the South West:- Hayle, Exeter, Avonmouth, Castle Cary and Poole. NFFO is intended to support renewable forms of energy. FoE does not accept that energy from incineration is renewable energy.
B&NES
has not yet been offered its 30 pieces of NFFO silver for the Keynsham
site. B&NES Council still awaits the result of their invest to save
bid for £480,000, submitted to the DETR in November last year for
the development of a feasibility study and environmental impact assessment
for the proposed waste park with a 50,000 tonnes per annum capacity incinerator
Opposition to the Keynsham incinerator is building up steadily.
Don Foster has recently voiced his "increasing doubts about the wisdom of an incinerator".
The regional branch of the National Farmers Union has asked the Council not to proceed with an incinerator at Keynsham. The NFU says its main concern is with the effect of emissions on the surrounding land. Minimum standards have to be guaranteed under "Assured Production" for cereal crops and livestock. They cite three instances in the North East of Britain where three years ago milk production had to be stopped because of contamination by dioxins. This was before "Assured" standards were introduced. Production would be very much curtailed in the event of any similar future contamination. Any suspected contamination can have a catastrophic effect on the marketing of produce. They refer also to the recent problem in Belgium with dioxin contaminated livestock and the European wide restrictions imposed.
Also,
the potential for dramatically raising B&NES's already good recycling
rate of 22% by significantly increasing organic waste composting (over
one third of our domestic waste is compostable) has recently been put forward.
Local firm Hinton Organics is trialling German built Bio Quick Reactors,
8 of which they believe could compost 80 to 100 tonnes of domestic waste
a day at a cost of £1.5m - a somewhat better deal than a 350,000
tonne per annum incinerator for £50m to £70m, bearing in mind
that B&NES total domestic waste is only 80,000 tonnes per annum.
Imagine. If B&NES had already signed up to a 30 year incinerator contract, the option of shifting contracted incinerator input to composting would not even be a consideration as the financial penalties would have been too great.
The general public have yet to be informed by B&NES council of the details of the Keynsham Waste Park proposal. Richard Robertson, acting head of transportation, access and waste at B&NES Council has, it is believed, made a number of presentations on the Keynsham waste park proposal to selected groups. The one to FoE groups on 11.11.99 (reported on in our last newsletter) was one such. There will be another to Saltford Parish Council on 15 February. These meetings are closed to the general public.
We still do not know the precise details of the Invest to Save bid. At the 11 November 99 presentation Richard Robertson promised to let Bath FoE have a copy off the bid. We are still waiting.
Meanwhile, signatures on the petition are needed. Petitions are at envolve, the new name for the Bath Environment Centre, at Green Park Station or are available from me. Objections to the incinerator should keep on going to:-
John Everitt
Chief Executive
B&NES Council
Guildhall
Bath
Terry
I am
in personal correspondence with B&NES Council regarding their Garden
Waste Kerbside Collection Service six-month trial.
The refuse collection vehicles have all been modified with cages to hold a small number of paper sacks. I bought some £1.25 sacks from the Guildhall, filled two with garden prunings and watched in amazement on collection day as they were put in the back of the refuse lorry with the compacted standard household waste being sent to landfill.
On this occasion the cage on the lorry was empty but because the sacks were open at the top, precisely as shown in the illustration on the leaflet, the cage was not able to contain them without the possibility of some spillage on the road and the line of least resistance was to sling them in the back of the lorry.
I wrote to the council on 16th December explaining the problem and also asked why the garden waste was being collected with the standard household waste collection when it would seem to be more appropriate for it to be collected with the weekly recyclable collection thus avoiding the problem of garden waste intended for composting being sent to landfill. The Council's Commercial Services Operations Director has so far responded with two letters, neither of which express any concern or apology for the incident but instead blame me for overfilling the sacks. He says that the crew will now telephone to arrange for any "overfilled" sacks to be picked up by another vehicle.
He has informed me that it was the Waste Management Sub-Committee which decided to award the collection of garden waste for recycling to B&NES Direct Services (who have the standard waste contract).
He admits that there have been eight complaints from members of the public of sacks being put in with the compacted waste. As most people will not be around to witness collection, there could be more.
I am concerned that an inadequate trial of the kerbside collection of garden waste will be used to help promote the municipal waste incineration proposals. I await the trial result due in March with interest.
Terry
If successful, this Bill will lead to reduced pressure on wildlife-rich forests, increased use of recycled newsprint and increased funds for local authority and community group recycling.
Terry
Bath FoE's concerns have been detailed in documents which have been sent both to the developer and the B&NES planning department. In mid January, we had a four and a half hour meeting with the developer, to discuss our concerns. In some areas they were able to assure us that the redevelopment proposals weren't as bad as they seemed: they had simply omitted to mention certain things. (For example, no cycle stands are shown on the latest plans, although they do, in fact intend to provide parking for 240 cycles.) In other areas, we were able to persuade them to make changes to their plans: they have now agreed to the principle of a cycle route from the end of the riverside path through to Dorchester Street, and they have also agreed to install additional gas mains, to allow gas to be used in virtually all parts of the redevelopment. They were also receptive to our ideas on how the amount of housing could be increased.
Inevitably, though, there are many areas where we still don't see eye to eye with the developers. Public transport is one of the sticking points. Although the proposed new bus station would have a number of improved features, the overall capacity to accommodate buses is reduced - there are fewer on-street bus stops and fewer layover spaces. This is not a good way to provide for, let alone encourage, increased use of public transport in the future.
In December, the developers were reported in the press as saying: "This is as good as it gets", "wholesale changes are not possible", "It is now up to the people of Bath to demonstrate their support for our proposals."
But Bath FoE is not the only group which has been criticising the redevelopment plans. Many Councillors are lukewarm. English Heritage have said that they don't want to see the loss of any part of the railway vaults, or of Churchill House (where the lighting shop is at the moment). Because of this backlash, the developers have decided that some last minute adjustments to the plans are required. The scheme was due to be considered by the Council at the end of January - but the developers asked the Council to put this off until March, in order to "do a bit more work on the scheme".
Clearly, the people of Bath are not supportive of the proposals, and the developers are having a rapid rethink. But we shouldn't expect any major changes. The developers have neither the will, nor the time for any radical changes. They'll be trying to come up with adjustments, compromises that go some way to addressing as many of their critics as they can manage. (Not forgetting, of course, that their primary aim is to maximise the amount of lettable shop space, and minimise the less profitable aspects such as housing and public transport.)
Another spoke in their wheel is the recent planning application to build a multi-screen cinema on the site of Kingsmead Motors (which is relocating to Lower Bristol Road). If this planning application gets the go-ahead, it will seriously undermine the viability of a cinema within the Southgate redevelopment, possibly undermining the viability of the redevelopment as a whole.
Of course, we'd like to see improvements to the Southgate area and the public transport facilities. But if the faults in this scheme can't be ironed out, then perhaps we'd be better off waiting a few more months, or even years, and doing it properly. The last thing we want to do is repeat the mistake made by the last Southgate developers, and put something up which people will be desperate to tear down within a couple of decades.
In the meantime, we are still talking to the developers We have yet to fully digest everything they said at our meeting. When we do, I'm sure we'll still have lots of criticisms about the plans. And we haven't even started talking about climate change yet...
David Beasley.
1.
VictoryA 4 page briefing explaining why the talks collapsed and outlining the positive opportunities now offered is available from FoE Underwood Street Tel 0171 490 1555
Please write to urge the mayor of Seattle to support Amnesty International's call for an independent inquiry into the police violence against the demonstrators.
Mayor Paul Schell
600 4th Avenue
12th Floor
Seattle
Washington 98104
USA
fax 001 206 684 5360
email <mayors.office@ci.seattle.wa.us>
Terry
The council could be forgiven for running scared and believing they'd got it completely wrong. But there are thousands of people out there who support the council's plans for traffic calming which are being proposed by the "ci:te" (city initiative for transport and the environment). We need to make our voices heard. Traffic isn't as bad in Bath as in larger cities such as Bristol. But compare us to York, Cambridge, or our near Northern European neighbours and we come out very badly. What becomes all to clear from comparisons with other cities who have tackled the problem of through traffic is that closing off through routes accross city centres does not result in businesses closing down or moving out. In fact, these towns visibly prosper as more attractive shopping environments are created. It is no coincidence that Bath's highest shop rentals are charged in the centre of it's pedestrianised area in Union Street.
Traders argue that traffuic is their lifeblood, bringing shoppers to their door. Stop the traffic, they argue and the shoppers will go elsewhere. There is precious little evidence for this argument, especially as 70% of the traffic using Walcot and Milsom Streets is through traffic with no interest in shopping at all. 36% of adults in Bath couldn't drive in to town even if they wished to as they have no access to a car. Those that do drive in to town to shop have to park either on the periphery or in one of the central carparks and they then become pedestrians whilst they are actually doing their shopping. With the very limited number of on street car parking places retailers are living a myth if they believe that a significant proportion of their customers could ever park directly outside their shop.
And so we have a predictable scenario every Saturday as a few thousand motorists converge on the city centre at much the same time , clogging up the streets as they queue for parking, causing danger and pollution to other road users and themselves. They curse as they sit in their traffic jams, mentally writing their next moaning letter to the Chronicle demanding that the council "do something about it" so that they at least can drive unhindered around the city. On weekdays, a minority of the population pollute the city for everyone else, as only 48% of Bath's workforce travel to work by car. The rest walk, cycle or use public transport. 32% of Bath's car commuters travel less than 1 km to their place of work.
The council is well aware of the issues, and with traffic projected to increase by 33-55% over the next 20 years they are only too aware that something needs to be done. The proposal for one or two bus gates in Manvers Street and Orange Grove together with a package of other traffic calming measures will do much to reduce traffic and improve the environment for all citizens of Bath. The gates will only allow access through the city centre for buses, taxis bikes and emergency vehicles. Private cars will still be able to access the city centre freely by other routes to pick up shopping, but they will no longer be able to drive through the centre from North to South or vice versa.
At night time the gates will be left open to all as it is felt that this will make the city centre safer. When the restrictions on Pulteney Bridge were proposed some years ago, 10,000 people signed a petition opposing the measures. Now practically everyone admits that it has been a success and the debate has now moved on to whether to exclude all traffic from the bridge. It is likely that if the council does implement the bus gates, we will be wondering what all the fuss was about in a years time. In the unlikely event of problems arising, the gates can always be easily be removed.
The council is awaiting the outcome of an assessment into the likely effect of the gates before making a final decision on their implementation for a trial period in about a years time. If you support the proposals to improve Bath's environment by restricting through traffic using bus gates, it's vital that you write to the council and the Chronicle and let them know.
Tony Ambrose
Terry
The Ilisu dam will flood 15 towns and 52 villages and displace up to 20,000 Kurdish people. The project is part of the South East Anatolia Project (GAP) which has already displaced tens of thousands of people, many without compensation. Among the towns which will be lost is Hasenkeyf, the only Anatolian town to have survived since the Middle Ages and to which In 1978 the Turkish Government's Department of Culture gave "complete archaeological protection". Of particular concern is the fact that the World Bank refused to have anything to do with the dam, on the ground that it apparently violates the UN convention which seeks to prevent border disputes between states which share water resources.
Please write to Tony Blair, 10 Downing Street, London SW1 urging him not to grant export credit support for this project. Copy your letter to Trade Secretary Stephen Byers (he's the one who was speechless when Mark Thomas recently pursued him with questions on the dam) and Foreign Secretary Robin Cook at the House of Commons, London, SW1.
Terry
David
Amess MP, has adopted the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill. It will
be voted on in the House of Commons on 10th March
Currently, 8 million households - housing around 15 million people - are draughty, damp and badly insulated, with old and inefficient heating systems. These house literally "leak" heat making it impossible to keep them warm at reasonable cost and resulting in a huge waste of energy. Each winter in Britain, 30,000-60,000 more people die than during the summer, and hundreds of thousands more need medical treatment for cold-related illness, costing the NHS an estimated £1 billion a year.
The Warm Homes Bill would solve this problem by requiring a strategy to end fuel poverty in 500,000 homes a year for 15 years by fitting insulation and energy efficiency measures.
434 MPs (including Bath's MP Don Foster) have declared their support for the Bill. Victory for the long campaign to end fuel poverty is now in sight.
Please write to Michael Meacher and John Prescott at the House of Commons asking them to support the Bill on 10th March.
Terry
The new biosafety protocol says that companies wishing to export GM seeds and crops would have to notify governments in advance. These would then have the right to refuse entry if they believed, after risk assessments, that imports would threaten the environment or the health of their people.
Not so good is the news that the government is pressing ahead with legal procedures to approve commercial planting of GM crops long before completion of farm trials in 2003 . Technical committees reporting to the Ministry of Agriculture are now starting to consider commercial applications for 24 GM crops before the threat they pose to the environment is known
The government has a voluntary agreement with the biotech industry that it will not plant crops commercially here until the trials are over. But companies are still seeking and apparently getting EU marketing consents and approvals for novel foods. The Government are now considering an application for GM maize to be added to the National Seed Listing - the first time a GM crop variety has been put forward for listing. The National Seed Listing is the final regulatory hurdle that a GM crop has to clear before it can be commercially grown and placed on the market in the UK.
The National Seed List rules state that Ministers must refuse an application if "the variety is likely to affect adversely the health of persons, animals or plants" - something the Minister is not yet in a position to know.
Please write to Michael Meacher, Hose of Commons, London, WI asking him to prevent GM crops being added to the National Seed List.
An
opportunity has arisen to strengthen European law governing GM crops. Deliberate
Release Directive 90/220 is being redrafted.
Please write to Dr Caroline Jackson MEP, Euro Office, 14 Bath Road, Swindon SN1 4BA asking her to press for the following changes :-
The Bill sets two targets for organic farming. It requires that by 2010, "not less than 30% by area of organic land in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is certified organic or is in... Conversion; and not less than 20% by volume of food consumed... is certified as organic".
Farmer and consumer interest in organic food and farming has never been higher. 1 in 10 farmers have expressed interest in converting and consumer demand for organic food is growing at 40% per year. Yet only around 1.5% of UK farmland is organically managed and we are importing around 70% of organic food sold. Organic production is one of the best ways of tackling the adverse effects of conventional intensive farming such as land and water pollution, soil erosion, loss of wildlife, declining rural communities (as organic food production employs more people) and overproduction of unhealthy food. Unlike other forms of sustainable farming, organic farming has common standards which are legally enforced and which ensure environmental, animal welfare, and health benefits.
Please write to Nick Brown, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Tony Blair PM at the House of Commons, asking them to support the Bill.
The money for the level of organic conversion and a stronger market infrastructure, training etc, required is in the Bill represents only a small percentage (5%) of the total spending on agriculture (£3 billion). By failing to support organic farming, the Government is in danger of missing the prime opportunity to make substantial inroads into the organic market as well as tackling essential environmental, rural development and health objectives
On Saturday 19th February at 12.45 pm at the Bath Farmers Market at Green Park Station, Don Foster will be signing a public pledge to support the Bill.
Terry
