The Sinfin Incinerator has more than a spanner in the works!

 The Derby and Derbyshire Waste Treatment Centre – or the Sinfin Incinerator to Derby residents was built in recent years on Sinfin Lane, Derby UK after a protracted battle by the community starting in 2008/9 to stop the project being built.

The plant was constructed to handle 190,000 tonnes of waste from Derby and Derbyshire as part of a waste contract with RRS (Resource Recovery Solutions Derbyshire Ltd) which was a vehicle for Renewi and Interserve as parent companies. 

The plan was to extract metals and hard plastics for recycling from incoming waste in the MRF (Materials Recovery Facility) although the target rate was less than 10%. The process was then to dry a percentage of the waste in an MBT (Mechanical Biological Treatment) and finally create RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel) which is then burnt (gasified to use the developers term) to produce steam to generate electricity for sale. 

A percentage of the waste when burnt attracts ROC’s (Renewable Obligation Certificates) due to that percentage being biodegradable and so considered renewable.

 The project it has been suggested has cost around £150 million which was funded via a series of banks including the Green Investment Bank. The project was based on Energos incineration technology using a gasification process which it was claimed had long standing operational history in Norway, Energos went into administration part way through the plants construction.

The Environment Agency permit the plant as an incinerator.

With such a large budget and many aspects of the plant being supplied by experienced technology developers and installers overseen by Interserve Construction you would expect a smooth construction and commissioning process. Noting the delay since first planned you would expect the project to develop over time using new designs and technology as it came forward.

The plant through the commissioning process has been a regular blight on the local community creating odour, noise and fly issues which only ended when the facility closed in August 2019.

The liaison group at the plant made up of councillors, resident members and staff from the councils and contractors along with guests such as the Environment Agency and Derbyshire Wildlife Trust sat through meeting after meeting while Interserve and Renewi kept talking about tests being completed etc. The talk was that the plant was weeks away from completing its tests – but it was always just weeks away from completing those tests.

Finally the councils pulled the plug on the contract – before awarding a replacement contract to Renewi – one of the parent companies of RRS who are now employed to clean and maintain the facility while trying to get the councils out of the mess they find themselves in.

The public now have access to the full waste contract and Inter Authority Agreement after the UK Information Commissioner ruled that the contracts should be made public (but that is another story).

 it became clear there was a Service Delivery Plan that was put together around the time that the contract for the plant was terminated. A copy of this has since been provided by the plants liaison group including a faults list put together in October 2019

 22/10/2019

The plants front end is the acceptance pit – where the waste is tipped and then the MRF – Materials Recovery Facility where waste is sorted to extract metals and rigid plastics and also the MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment. This section was the starting point for waste inputs and was the first section to have long term testing as commissioning was taking place.

The report indicates it has not been demonstrated that the front end MRF/MBT can provide enough RDF – Refuse Derived Fuel to maintain performance of the ACT (the three incineration lines). This led to the input pit overflowing delaying delivery of waste to the site – which was seen at times at the site and in the local community.

Cranes in the MBT suffered repeat breakdowns.

MRF multiple breakdowns and blockages including shredder breakdowns.

MRF – Not complying with the agreed facility recycling target with no evidence that acceptance tests can be passed.

MRF target recycling rate was only 7.4% but actual rate was just 4.8% with suggestions that 2019 tests not carried out under normal operational conditions.

MRF recycling purity poor – document suggests the lower the purity the higher performance – not rocket science – shove it through to get material through the process will always lead to poor results.

MRF air knife used for sorting plastics materials for recycling was failing as there were high levels of plastic film in the rigid plastic bales.

ACT (Incineration lines) in previous 12 months only processed 51% of the waste diversion target.

Each of the smoke tube boilers on each of the 3 line plant failed twice in commissioning.

ACT (Incineration lines) overheated when all 3 lines of the plant ran.

ACT (Incineration lines) overheating of CEMS – CEMS is the monitoring. equipment – facility cannot lawfully operate if CEMS is not operational.

ACT (Incineration hall) ambient temperature in the hall caused an unsafe working environment.

Shotball system for cleaning boiler tubes unreliable.

ACT (Incineration lines) numerous valve faults.

Kone Cranes – numerous faults causing unreliable service.

Issues with access for maintenance.

Instrumentation not recording data due to being set to simulation mode.

Alarms incorrectly set and inhibited.

Income from electrical generation significantly lower than base case.

Significant risk that ROCs (Renewable Obligation Certificates) will not be available.

Turbine appears to have a 2MW shortfall in power production compared to that expected from design data.

Turbine and generator cannot be safely lifted or removed.

Syngas analysers that are permanently installed to gather data for ROCs do not work.

Ofgem audit relating to ROCs queries the basis for accreditation.

Odours leading to non-compliance with Environmental Permit and preventing use of onsite offices on welfare grounds.

Bio Filter not preventing odour emissions.

Fugitive emissions from MBT hall detected on Sinfin Lane.

Fugitive emissions from MBT bunker detected in B&Q and Sainsburys.

Fugitive emissions into administration block make offices unusable. When ACT is shut down this includes into the control room.

Carbon Monoxide in ash bunker and basement requires vent system – no scientific or engineering data to back up the design objectives.

Firewalls not completed / certified to allow insurability and comply with fire protection plan.

Excess levels of noise.

Roller doors not safe to operate due to failed components and design defects.

Recycling baler not fastening bales correctly leading to safety issues.

Insufficient documentation to operate the plant safely.

No Final Health and Safety file.

No commissioning records since Sept/Oct 2018.

Licence expired on optical sorters.

Education Centre sprinkler system not installed.

Leachate (liquids from waste) not draining from waste pit.

Corrosion of structural steel in RDF pit.

Electrical Safety – junction boxes not earthed, inadequate labelling.

It is not clear how a project overseen by multiple councils and contractors supported by paid advisors has managed to construct a £150 million white elephant which has now been closed for 18 months.

Councils often say that lessons will be learnt.

 If ever there were lessons councils across the UK should learn from this saga it is do NOT take advice from Derby City and Derbyshire County Council's on waste management! 

©SIMON BACON 2021

The brown bin charge is dead! Long live free recycling!

The brown bin recycling charge has been binned in the city of Derby UK!

Turning the tide of charges for garden waste collection which is gradually crippling recycling in the UK

 (as recycling is based on weight and garden waste is a heavy component of any recycling scheme)
 

The Conservative council which was voted into power in the May local election put forward in their election manifesto a return to a free collection.

Prior to this the poor residents of the city had to pay £40 for the service which didn't even last all year!

Back in 2012/13 the council collected almost 20,000 tonnes of garden and food waste which was sent for in vessel composting outside of the city via a free service.

Fast forward to 2017/18 and that tonnage had shrunk to less that 4,400 tonnes of waste composted which was clearly linked to not just the £40 charge but also the fact food waste was no longer accepted and the service was restricted to specific 32 weeks of the year.
 

The charge had devastated the recycling rate at Derby City Council and it is now hoped this will help recycling turn a corner in the city.
 

The return of food waste collections in with the garden waste collection over the full 52 week year takes us back in a positive direction which was previously removed because food waste cannot be processed in a charged for service due to government regulation.
 

Recent residual waste surveys carried out in the city by the council identified that a massive 44% of waste gathered in the cities residual waste bins was garden and food waste.

In 2017/18 the city paid just £31.53 per tonne for its garden waste to be composted in an in vessel process at Ashbourne in Derbyshire.

This compares to the same waste entering the Resource Recovery Solutions residual waste contract where total contract waste costs for 2017/18 were roughly £91.57 per tonne -
a difference of around £60.
A return to a recycling rate of 20,000 tonnes could save the council over £900,000 per year! the council could save a great deal more if it diverted the 44% of compostable garden and food waste from the residual waste bin into the brown composting bin.
Well it could but there is a catch !

Currently the residual waste is sent to be burnt in a D10 disposal gasification incineration plant in Sinfin, Derby.
The council is paying a set fee of £25 million towards the plants construction - which is hopelessly behind schedule.
The less waste that the council sends to that plant the more per tonne fee that becomes when you add the cost to the per tonne charge the council will pay.
The council has contractually agreed to send waste of specific characteristics to be burnt in Sinfin and that includes an agreement to supply waste of a minimum biodegradable content - along with other specific requirements.
The following statement from the brown bin cabinet document shows how the incineration plant contract has its claws into the garden waste recycling project.

Any reduction in biodegradable content sent by the council to the Sinfin Lane plant in Derby will be looked on in a bad way by the operator of the residual waste contract - Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) or as we know them RRS because in a twist they have been awarded ROCs - Renewable Obligation Certificates for electricity generated from the burning of the biodegradable waste - ROCs have a value and RRS will be able to bank them!
Paying a government bung for burning such waste in an inefficient disposal plant basically rewards FAILURE!

 ©SIMON BACON 2018

 

 

 

 

 

Hidden contracts! the public strikes back!

On 22nd October 2015 I Simon Bacon the writer of this blog applied to Derby City Council in Derby UK via FOI / EIR requesting the following information relating to the controversial joint waste contract linked to the highly controversial Sinfin, Derby gasification incineration plant.

 1- ALL CONTRACTS BETWEEN DERBY CITY COUNCIL AND DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL RELATING TO THE JOINT WASTE CONTRACT.

 2- ALL CONTRACTS BETWEEN DERBY CITY COUNCIL AND ITS PARTNER DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL WITH RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (RRS) AND / OR ITS PARENT COMPANY SHANKS / INTERSERVE.

 3- ALL CONTRACTS RELATING TO THE USE OF THE SINFIN TANNERY SITE - OWNED BY DERBY CITY COUNCIL BY RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (RRS) OR OTHER PARTIES.

 Derby City Council responded on 17th December 2015 in which it disclosed some of the requested information but withheld some of the information in part 2 of the request claiming the adverse affect to the confidentiality of commercial information. What was provided was a series of documents with many redacted (blacked out pages) where the council and its supporters - Derbyshire County Council and Resource Recovery Solutions edited the documents to hide certain aspects of the documents which they did not want the public to see.
Here are a couple of examples from schedule 14 of the contract which covers the performance mechanism.

 

As you can see from the images when they redact information they really black it out!

 

I appealed this ruling and Derby City Council carried out an internal review and responded to me on December 24th 2015 that it maintained this position.

Having considered this battle of wills further I made a complaint against Derby City Council on 22nd February 2016 to the ICO - the Information Commissioner. The ICO then gave full consideration to my strongly put appeal while engaging with Derby City Council further.

The council and its fellow contract members attempted to paint a picture which included impacts on interests of Resource Recovery Solutions (RRS) siting that the withheld information included price mechanisms, volume allocations and proprietary contract tools and processes.

The council argued that RRS operated in a competitive waste market and disclosure would allow competitors to work out the deal and how it was structured resulting in a loss of its competitive edge.

The council went on to argue that the Sinfin waste sites novel nature has the capacity to become a "BEACON OF EXCELLENCE"

 

ENERGOS the developer of the incineration equipment being installed into this beacon of excellence had gone into administration in mid July 2016.
 

It was suggested that the competitors of RRS would benefit from the unique know how contained within the information and thus undermine the ability of RRS to utilise this for its own benefit damaging its commercial interests.

Other than the Derby, Glasgow and Milton Keynes projects that have moved ahead there is little evidence of other projects moving forward using such technology and in recent weeks a proposal to install similar tech on the Isle of Wight has been dropped - so not quite the beacon being suggested.

The ICO asked the council to provide a new schedule setting out in each instance the councils rationale for withholding information so that it matched the specific parts of the documents. Having been given further time to do so the council advised it had approached RRS and Derbyshire County Council but that they had declined to provide any further arguments or clarification.
The ICO in their ruling considered that the lack of clarity in the councils submissions suggests that the council either does not properly understand what the effects of disclosure would be or has struggled to meet the evidential and explanatory burden set by the exception.
 

 On 4th August 2016 the Information commissioner at the ICO RULED IN MY FAVOUR instructing Derby City Council to disclose the withheld information to myself as the complainant.

 

In early September 2016 Derby City Council was in no mood to lose their battle again a resident of Derby so instructed its legal team to appeal the ICO ruling and so work started on a legal appeal.

I as the original applicant was also in no mood to lose the battle and so registered as a party to the appeal which WAS set to be heard later in 2017 in London UK. After a delay of a number of months as two similar cases passed through the tribunal system the Derby case began to move forward.

In recent months a similar case relating to an incineration plant in Gloucestershire and its associated contract pretty much ruled in the original applicants favour - while the council in that case attempted to put a brave face on things while putting some spin on the ruling the applicants in Gloucestershire are very happy with the result of their battle. A similar ruling regarding an incineration plant contract in Worcestershire also placed pressure on Derby City Council who were then set a date by the General Regulatory Chamber who were running the appeal by Derby City Council where the council had to acknowledge if it proposed to continue with their appeal.

So two other appeals went against the local councils which forced Derby City Council into a corner over their appeal against the ICO ruling.

 Did they continue or did they rollover!

 

THEY ROLLED OVER AND BAILED OUT OF THEIR APPEAL ON MAY 11TH 2017

The councils legal team made the following statements when terminating the councils appeal.
"

"Our clients have been carrying out a fresh, detailed, careful and considered review of the disputed information with all interested parties taking into account the passage of time and developments since the initial request and the commencement of the Appeal.

Having concluded that reassessment and made recommendations accordingly, the interested parties have respectively reached agreed conclusions and advised the relevant public authority which has been able to make an updated decision on disclosure as a result.
Our clients have invested a great deal of time in reaching this decision and it is not one that has been taken lightly. Despite considering that much of the disputed information remains commercially sensitive and confidential, given the time that has now passed since the original request for information by the applicant and taking into consideration the current stage the facilities are now at, the likelihood of probable harm from disclosure of the disputed information into the public domain has reduced.
As a result our clients have asked us to confirm that the disputed information will be disclosed in its entirety. "
 

 Derby City Council admitted at a recent full council meeting that they and their supporters - Derbyshire County Council and RRS / SHANKS had already spent £20,000 on their fight to keep aspects of the Derby and Derbyshire waste contract secret - hidden away from the public. In a strange twist they appeared to be suggesting to the local newspaper the Derby Telegraph that they had NOT paid £20,000 to stop me from gaining a copy of the contracts as reported here http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/derby-man-wins-right-to-see-controversial-sinfin-incinerator-contract-but-council-to-appeal/story-30288364-detail/story.html

 

The council was simply playing with words - £20,000 was spent but the city council only paid a third of the payment!

What are they trying to hide from the residents of Derby and Derbyshire ? what is so controversial that they redact whole pages of their waste contract ?  In these times of austerity and government cuts surely the public have a right to know what their taxes are being spent on.

NOW WE HAVE THE CHANCE TO FIND OUT!

©SIMON BACON 2017

 

If only the council had some money to invest!

Derby used to have an events venue called the Assembly Rooms which was closed after a fire in the attached car park and so Derby now lacks a suitable venue for theatre and music because the council claimed the venue needed to much work doing to it after the fire. This has been the subject of great debate since the fire. The council proposes to replace the venue but is not able to say when due to lack of funds.

The local newspaper the Derby Telegraph ran this story on the venues closure and proposed replacement.

 http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/3-000-capacity-concert-venue-1-600-seat-theatre/story-28928499-detail/story.html 

 

IF ONLY THE CITY HAD SOME MONEY TO INVEST!

 

Derby used to have two large swimming venues open to the public and supporting local aquatic clubs allowing them to compete at local and international level.

Sadly due to suggested government cuts this has led to the council closing the Moorways swimming facility - a corner stone of local swimming provision dating back decades. The pool closed to the public at the end of March 2016 and residents are now struggling to continue their swimming as the cities other main venue has a faulty roof.

The local newspaper the Derby Telegraph ran this story on the pools closure

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Sadness-Moorways-pool-closes-public/story-29028675-detail/story.html

 

IF ONLY THE CITY HAD SOME MONEY TO INVEST!

The city of Derby is slowly collapsing due to claimed government cuts forcing the council to reduce its budget to make savings. Money has to come out of specific pots to fund things which is regularly pointed out by the council.

IF ONLY THE CITY HAD SOME MONEY TO INVEST!

Well the reality is the council WOULD have money to invest in either of the projects if it had not jumped in with both feet with the Sinfin waste incineration plant project which first raised its head in public circles in late 2008.
A joint contract between the city and Derbyshire County Council will see Derby hosting the plant AND paying £25 MILLION towards the plants construction - which is 50% of the council build cost.
Now is it fair that the cities residents have to host the controversial plant AND pay 50% of the council payment for construction?
But it gets worse as the city does not collect enough residual waste to provide 50% of the plants feedstock and as recycling increases that in turn stops the city from being able to provide 50% of the feedstock.
You can read one of my previous blog posts to learn more about that situation by following this link

http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/derby-city-council-public-are-being.html

But what does it actually mean to us in the city? what it means is at the time the proposal was born the council - and so whoever was in charge sold the residents down the river by agreeing a joint contract that was in the County Councils favour and this continued up until the councils signed the full contracts - meaning that political parties of various colours in the city have played a part.
Someone in power somewhere was told city waste would spiral upwards and it would be good value for the city. At the same time the council was potentially in a better financial position than it is now but clearly potential changes in waste prediction or council finances were not considered carefully enough leading to the position we are now in.

SO WHAT ABOUT THE MONEY?

Derby is paying £25 million for a 25 year contract period at the start of the waste incineration plants operation which is a payment towards the plants construction. That's obviously £1 million per year for the processing of 95,000 tonnes of waste - 50% of the plants through put if you consider Derby is paying 50% of the build payment.
Based on 2014/15 data from DEFRA the city only collected 79,320 tonnes of residual waste leaving the city 15,680 tonnes short. At a rate of £10.53 (£1,000,000 divided by 95,000 tonnes) we as a city are paying £165,110.40 per year to much for the project - or £4,127,760 over the 25 year investment.

SO LETS GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING!

We need a new performance venue and we need a new swimming pool but the city has no money!

WELL WE COULD HAVE HAD £4.1 MILLION TO INVEST WITH BETTER PLANNING AND NEGOTIATIONS.

In an example of why we are in the mess that we are in in the city I attended the Derby City Council Full Council meeting on March 2nd 2016 to ask Cllr Asaf Afzal specific questions on the unfair share the city is paying. Even when the £4 million over payment was highlighted to Cllr Afzal he still considered that it was good value for the council - ignoring the fact that we share those claimed savings with Derbyshire County Council we are STILL over £4 million worse off.

WITH A COUNCIL WITH ITS HEAD IN THE SAND ON THE ISSUE THERE IS LITTLE WONDER WE ARE PAYING AN UNFAIR SHARE AND SO LITTLE WONDER WE HAVE NO MONEY FOR EVENTS VENUES AND SWIMMING POOLS!

©SIMON BACON 2016

A game of tag thats tag the recycling bin!

When it comes to waste disposal in Derby UK there can be nothing worse than going out to fetch your bin in only to find the green tag of doom attached to the lid!

 

 

 

This is the tag that the council binmen attach to your bin if you have done something wrong - you may have overfilled it or you may have made it to heavy or you may have put things in you shouldn't. Don't expect the bin man to mark what the issue is - you are expected to guess what the problem is.

 

Back in 2014 I published another blog post that focused on the proposal to remove kerbside collections from areas of the city due to claims of contamination which can be viewed here http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-decay-of-recycling-in-derby.html 

 

My blog has highlighted media coverage on the subject where kerbside collections were removed in areas such as Mackworth, Arboretum and Normanton wards of the city. The justification was that bins were contaminated leading to rejection of loads by Biffa the councils recycling provider. When I exposed that loads were not being rejected shortly afterwards Biffa conveniently started rejecting material.

Back in September 2014 my FOI request number 6346 showed that the contamination rate for the city was less than 6% at 5.8% and is shown below.

 

"How many loads of blue bin recyclables have been rejected by your contractor BIFFA at its Victory Road sorting facility in 2013/14

ANSWER: None, rejects are taken out during the sorting process. The average percentage of rejected material from the start of the new blue bin collection system on June 4^th 2013 to 31^st March 2014 was 5.8% "

NOW REMEMBER THAT PERCENTAGE - 5.8% CONTAMINATION FOR LATER !

     Where blue bin kerbside recycling was removed the replacement service - a restricted set of bring sites just became prime hot spots for fly tipping as shown below.

 

In recent weeks once again the council bin men in the Normanton ward of the city have been tagging bins in the streets. Some for lids being left up - where people try and recycle to much !

 

 

Others for questionable amounts of incorrect materials in the bins - or contamination to use the councils words. What the council misses is when tagging the bins they put that bin into limbo. The resident doesn't not know what they have done wrong because the council does not identify the actual issue but the council also will not empty the bin until the issue is addressed. What happens is we end up blighting communities with bins in limbo where the residents don't sort the issue and the council doesn't act. Is that really the way forward to improve recycling in the city - which has crashed to around 33%?

 





The council cabinet member when challenged on the extended tagging of bins in Normanton said that officers would look into it and empty those tagged in error but that they needed to maintain their stance on quality of material collected - siting recent load rejection by its contractor Biffa. I have not seen any bins being reviewed in this way.

So the council have removed kerbside blue bin collections from many streets in a number of communities to help reduce recycling contamination. Lets just remember that contamination rate for 2013/14 - 5.8% so what is it now ? remove the poor recyclers and surely that rate improves further.

 

ERRRR NO!

its now

16%

 

SO IT HAS INCREASED BY OVER 10%

This is confirmed in an email last week from the cabinet member for waste Councillor Asaf Afzal where he states

"Over the last 3 reporting quarters the average contamination was 16 per cent. "

 

CLEARLY THE COUNCIL DOES NOT HAVE A GRIP ON RECYCLING IN THE CITY.

 



 



©SIMON BACON 2016

 

Educating Derby on rubbish is err RUBBISH!

With the current state of the streets in areas of Derby blighted by fly tipped waste, in the image below it's recyclable waste dumped on Middleton Street, Normanton

 recycling bins being removed because of claims that residents don't use them correctly http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Rubbish-bins-Derby-s-green-protesters-blues/story-25756604-detail/story.html which has been questioned on this blog before due to a lack of evidence and then the dire spiral downwards of the cities recycling rate from a high of 48% to a new predicted low of 32% covered in this previous blog post http://derby-waste-a-rubbish-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-decay-of-recycling-in-derby.html . It would seem a simple no brainer to spend a healthy amount of the councils waste budget on waste minimisation and education.
Sadly this is not the case as a recent FOI request on the subject put into Derby City Council after I viewed the councils accounts highlighted that in total the council was spending less than £50,000 on waste minimisation and education while paying Resource Recovery Solutions - RRS (a Shanks waste company) over £8.66 million for disposal of waste and operation of the Raynesway HWRC site. Of that £8.66 million less than £34,000 was paid to RRS for minimisation and education and when added to the spend from outside of the waste contract the figure was less than £50,000.
It struck me why are we paying a waste contractor over £8 million to handle waste - much of which will end up landfilled or incinerated via a contract which cost in 2013/14 £118 per tonne when the alternatives being reduction, reuse and recycling cost £10 per tonne or less! The council keep telling us they have no money due to government cuts but they are actually preferring to handle waste via its most expensive route.
Come on its a no brainer isn't it ? every tonne extra recycled costing the council £10 or reduced - costing the council nothing is a tonne the council isn't paying £118 a tonne to dispose of.
On 28th January I went to the Full Council meeting at Derby City Council to put a public question to the council in relation to why the council is spending so much on disposal compared to educating residents.

f. Question from Simon Bacon to Councillor Afzal 

In 2013/14 Derby City Council paid Resource Recovery Solutions - a SHANKS company £8,666,724 to handle 79,995 tonnes of the waste of Derby. Of that just £33,279 was spent on waste minimisation and education and when added to non RRS spend on waste minimisation and education of £13,984 equates to spending less than £50,000 on sustainable waste management education.   
Why is Derby City Council spending so little on waste reduction while spending so much on disposal via landfill and incineration.

The response was a fair bit of waffle about what they are going to do bla bla bla but they also set out that Household waste management costs for 2012/13 published by Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and reported by the Audit Commission, indicate that of £3.3 Billion spent nationally on household waste management, only £25.6 Million was spent of waste minimisation, which is less than 1% of the total national spend on household waste. Derby allocated around 0.5% of its 2013-14 waste spends on recycling and waste reduction initiatives. However, the national average cannot be considered an absolute target for spend and the city is satisfied it has got good value for money from the budget it has spent on educating its residents and young people in waste matters.

What the council is admitting there is that it spends less than the national average on waste education at a time when the streets are in a state, blue bin recycling is being removed and the recycling rate is spirally downwards.
As a follow up question I asked at a time when recycling is going so wrong in Derby is the council spending so little.
The answer came from the leader of the council Ranjit Banwait who indicated they couldn't spend more on waste education due to government cuts. What Councillor Banwait ignores in saying this is the saving that comes from educating residents on waste disposal becomes self financing due to the gulf between recycling costing £10 and residual disposal costing £118 - every tonne diverted via education saves £108 !
Landfilling and incinerating waste is rubbish ! we should be educating residents how to dispose of their waste in the correct way leading to cleaner streets, better, higher recycling rates and reduced disposal costs -
SAVING US MONEY !

©SIMON BACON 2016



The brownfield site that isnt !

It was late 2008 when the residents of Derby learnt of a proposal to build a large incineration plant in Sinfin Lane in Derby. Until news broke of a proposal to burn the wastes of Derby and Derbyshire in the heart of Derby such thoughts were off the radar of the residents of the city who went about their daily lives. For those who lived close to the proposal - which we learnt would be built on the Sinfin Tannery site - an ex brick works, tannery and later landfill shock and horror hit them.

The wards of Sinfin, Osmaston and Normanton which circle the proposed site have for many years suffered social deprivation with unemployment and ill health being key issues. In the case of Sinfin and Osmaston heavy industry has been a close neighbour for decades and just at a time when due to foundry closures the communities air was beginning to improve the proposal put forward by the councils to be built on land owned by Derby City Council was sprung on unsuspecting residents.

What residents didn't know was that for a number of years the councils of Derby and Derbyshire had been plotting a joint method of disposing of the waste of the city and county by engaging with waste management companies.

The picture painted by the developer - Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) who at the time was a joint venture between United Utilities and Interserve and the councils was of a state of the art plant that wasn't an incinerator but was in fact a "gasification plant". This claim was soon rumbled by campaigners against the proposal who used the definition of an incineration plant in the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) which confirmed just what objectors thought - that gasification was just another name for an incineration plant.

The Sinfin Tannery was put forward as a brownfield site and so some (the council's and developer) felt this waste incineration proposal was ideally suited to such a position. The realities are very different as the Sinfin Tannery was in fact an oasis of wildlife in an area of heavy industry. The scars of industry had been covered over by grass, trees, wildflowers and a population of Common Lizards had moved onto the site - Derby's only known population. The image below was taken at the time of the 2nd public inquiry by which time Shanks Waste had taken over the contract from United Utilities and Interserve. We attended a site visit with the planning inspector and as you can see the site is not a brownfield as you would expect - it is a prime example of recovered industrial land which has become a great place for biodiversity.

 

 

Having been thrown out by planners after a long campaign by the local community and environmental groups including Sinfin, Spondon and all Against INcineration (S.S.A.I.N) and Derby Friends of the Earth supported nationally by the UK Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) http://ukwin.org.uk/ a prolonged battle spanning from 2009 to this day has taken place taking in two public inquiries and a number of legal battles in the High Court. Planning permission was finally passed for the project calling into question the UK governments localism agenda where local people it is suggested are able to mould their communities.

We tend to consider that localism is a lie peddled by the UK government. 

 

©SIMON BACON 2016