As part of the "Hampshire Waste Strategy into the New Millennium" three new incinerators are to be built throughout the county. The site for North Hants is earmarked to be the same place where an old incinerator has just closed down, Chineham, just outside Basingstoke (the other proposed sites in the county are on the outskirts of Southampton and Portsmouth).

While the news that planning permission is going to be lodged with Basingstoke council this summer is a blow for the people of Chineham who have only just got rid of this old polluting burner it is also alarming for the residents in our area. This is because the Blackwater Valley is about 15-20 miles to the north-east of Chineham and is therefore invariably downwind when the prevailing south-westerly winds blow. The fear for us is that we will get the pollution from this new burner travelling up here and adding to the already poor air quality we have in this area due to the high density of traffic. Most worrying of all is that some of the emissions will be dioxins which are chlorine based chemicals that are formed when plastic materials are burnt. Dioxins have been proven to be both toxic and carcinogenic (cancer causing) when ingested in just minute amounts. New incinerator designs such as these are supposed to minimise dioxin emissions, but in practice it is impossible to reduce them below a certain level, and the unknown factor in all this is at what level do the emissions become safe?

BVFoE will be joining other groups in the area to oppose the planning permission of the Chineham burner. (See below for details)

Chineham near Basingstoke is the proposed location for a new household waste incinerator. Planning permission for the site will be lodged with Basingstoke and Deane council this summer and the plant could be operational by 2001. It will be capable of burning 90,000 tonnes of waste per annum, or approximately 60% of the domestic waste produced in the north of Hampshire (Rushmoor, Hart and Basingstoke and Deane councils).

Although there is no local FoE group in Basingstoke, there is a ground swell of opposition to the proposal headed by Chineham parish and borough councillor Martin Biermann.

Incineration is not the only method of waste management. Alternatives include:

Landfill - burying the waste.

Recycling - I hope that this is self-explanatory!

Waste minimisation - This can also be described as waste reduction or waste avoidance. It involves producing less packaging by manufacturers; the consumer turning to items which last longer and avoiding the use of some disposable products; and not buying consumer items that aren't needed (for example buying one Sunday paper instead of two).

The new incinerator will contribute to an increase in council tax bills. It will cost over £20 million to build; to which has to be added the cost of operating the plant, interest charges and decommissioning costs. The costs are not fixed because of the terms of the agreement signed with the contractor. Contract prices are based on volume (throughput) - a higher cost is paid per tonne for low tonnage supplied to the incinerator - but the contract is also tough for the contractor because if less waste is supplied they don't get as much money.

More needs to be done to use resources efficiently instead of wasting them. Friends of the Earth research shows, that for an environmentally sustainable and equitable future, we need to reduce our consumption of wood products (including paper) by 69% by the year 2010 and of non-renewable resources (like aluminium, steel and cement) by around 80% by the year 2050.

Hampshire County Council's commitment to burning waste sends the wrong message to the Government and other local authorities. Instead of aspiring to the objectives suggested by Friends of the Earth research they are showing the way to other councils to burn most of their household waste.

A co-ordinated effort is needed by national and local government to increase levels of recycling and to minimise waste. Hampshire County Council should be lobbying the government for resources to be directed towards these areas; instead of which they are leading the field in a waste disposal technology which is not the answer to our problems and has been rejected by other environmentally concerned local authorities.

At present domestic (and commercial) waste goes to landfill. FoE recognises the harm that landfill does to the environment does not promote incineration as an alternative.

Landfill sites are subject to a special tax which Hampshire residents pay, indirectly, through council tax; the Government introduced this landfill tax to make recycling a more favourable option than landfill;

The tax's effectiveness will be reduced by incineration because, ironically, burning 60% of domestic waste eliminates demand for landfill from this source. The need to find new sites and meet tighter regulations has recently increased the cost of landfill. But in line with economic theories of supply and demand a reduction in demand makes more landfill available and therefore cheaper; and as such it makes economic sense to landfill waste rather than recycle it.

If the incinerator is built it will become easier to find landfill sites for commercial waste thus reducing the incentive of companies to recycle. Landfill will similarly become an effective option for household waste which is not currently recycled (about 15% at present) or burnt (60%).

Waste minimisation reduces the amount of rubbish needing disposal thus saving the council money. But incineration is expensive and there is insufficient money left in the pot to promote waste avoidance.

Collected waste volumes are predicted to grow by 1-3% per year; Hampshire County Council nevertheless has a commitment to containing volumes at 1995 levels. In order to achieve this target it has launched a War on Waste initiative. But this campaign is short of money and has avoided the use of leaflets or advertising which would reach a large section of the community.

With incineration, households that produce less rubbish pay the same council tax bills as more profligate households; a successful waste avoidance campaign would reduce bills and be a popular measure with households on lower incomes or wanting to improve our environment (and remember that many people take part in recycling schemes).

A public meeting is planned for the 27th April at 7.30pm in the St Joseph's Room, Christchurch, Reading Road, Chineham. Anna Thomas will be presenting the FoE point of view, and there will also be a speaker from the Green Party. Legal experts and campaigners who have stopped incinerators elsewhere will be on hand to explain what needs to be done.

Incineration is not the answer and we need to make local people aware of this in advance of any planning application. Having a speaker from Underwood Street explaining Friends of the Earth's side of the story should be the start of a successful local campaign.

The Inquiry into the Rushmoor Local Plan is scheduled to commence on the 7th July. The Inquiry will be held at the council offices in Farnborough.

BVFoE has raised objections in respect of several matters. Our objections can be summarised as follows:

We have objected to the possible impacts of increased levels of flying from the airfield and in particular pollution generated by aircraft. We also want to ensure that motorised traffic to and from the airfield does not cause a deterioration in the local environment or contribute to global environmental problems.

The strategic gap between Farnborough and Fleet has been deleted (except for a narrow strip to the west of Cove). The strategic gap has been replaced by a new countryside area designation. We are objecting as we do not believe that the new countryside policy will protect this area from undesirable development.

At the previous local plan inquiry (in 1991) we objected, successfully, to proposed housing development at Hawley Wood. We would prefer to see Hawley Wood saved from this threat again. However, Rushmoor Borough Council are required to make provision for a certain number of new houses to be built in the local plan. Before developing a case against the development we will have to examine the latest figures for housing completions and availability of other sites for housing in Rushmoor. It would be irresponsible of us to make an objection without thinking through the consequences. We must ensure that the housing requirement can be met without threatening other valuable areas of open space in Rushmoor.

In order to encourage cycling as a means of commuting to the railway stations it has been recently announced that two of the stations in our area are going to get new cycle shelters. The lucky two are Farnborough and Fleet stations with the new shelters being financed by SW Trains and Hants County Council. They will also be putting in new "racks" instead of the outdated grids that are currently there. Let us hope that "racks" really means Sheffield stands so that the bike frame can be padlocked to it instead of those useless front wheel clamps which ruin the wheels and may mean that when you arrive back from your train journey all you find is the front wheel with the rest of the bike nicked. Also, while trying to make these two stations cycle friendly why don’t SW Trains do something about the bridges for those cyclists who want to take their bikes with them (and not forgetting those passengers who require wheelchair access)? Ramps instead of steps are urgently required when crossing to the opposite platform.

Surrey stations in the area have also been promised new modern storage areas in the near future in a similar scheme financed partly by Surrey county council with SW Trains.

Perhaps with all these good promises SW Trains will be in line for a Cycle Mark. A Cycle Mark is an award given to a rail operator for one year when he meets a prescribed code of practice as developed jointly by SUSTRANS, Cyclists’ Public Affairs Group, and the CTC. The code of practice includes general customer operation; improved access to stations; cycle parking; and onboard storage of cycles.

Passengers are invited to help monitor the achievements of their rail operators. Contact Adrian Ashurst for a passenger feedback form.

Fed up with supporting losing football teams like Farnborough Town or Aldershot and even Swindon! Change to Fulham and help fight climate change !

Fulham are aiming to become the world’s first carbon-neutral football club by teaming up with the Environmental Task Force and encouraging supporters to sponsor tree planting. The trees will be planted around the Fulham area as well as a whole forest planned under the flight path to Gatwick airport planted to spell the letters FFC as seen from the air.

The Brazilian government has finally released the latest satellite data on deforestation rates in the Amazonian rainforest. Grim reading indeed!

It revealed that the rates in the 1990’s are now higher than in the 80’s. In 1995, for example, a record 29,059 square kms of forest were lost (an area the size of Belgium). This year, judging by the report of massive fires in the area, could be even higher.

One of the reasons for this disastrous situation is the pressure on Brazil to exploit their natural resource (timber) to pay back their debt to the developed world. This is money lent over the years by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund so that Brazil can "modernise". Brazil now owes $112 billion to the US alone and are finding it impossible just to keep up with the interest payments let alone pay back any of the debt owed.

The only way for Brazil and many other developing countries to get back on a level footing and hence escape from the pressures of destroying their ecosystems is for the West to write off these massive debts. This is why a coalition of international organisations, called Jubilee 2000 has been formed. As a new start for the millennium they are calling upon the WB and IMF to cancel the debts. As part of the People’s Summit, running at the same time as the G8 (economic summit for the West) in Birmingham, they are organising a mass action on Saturday 16 May. For more information on the campaign contact Jubilee 2000 (Tel: 0171 401 9999) or visit their web site:

www.oneworld.org/jubilee2000

Over 300 of our Sites of Special Scientific Interest are damaged each year in the UK. The problem is that SSSI status does not ensure an area is protected under current legislation.

FoE has joined up with 21 other groups and produced a Wildlife Charter outlining the changes needed to improve protection of SSSIs. We want to see the charter incorporated in a new Wildlife Bill.

BVFoE, together with Hants FoE, will be campaigning on this issue. We have a Day of Action on May 9 (see the Diary), please support it.

The last edition of this newsletter reported on the threat of new housing to the countryside. Since then the housing topic has become a hot topic in the environmental agenda. The Hampshire Greenfield Alliance intends to unite opposition to greenfield housing development. FoE groups in Hampshire belong to the Alliance.

The Alliance is developing an environmentally aware policy that will provide housing for the people of Hampshire:

Brownfield sites (such as derelict land) within existing urban areas are an alternative location for housing to greenfield sites in the countryside. But the supply of such sites is not inexhaustible. Therefore we need to explore other ways of providing new homes.

A large number of houses are unoccupied (around five per cent of the housing stock in Hampshire). This is undesirable given the continuing problem of homelessness. This figure includes flats above shops which government, private owners, property companies and building societies should join together to make available.

More suitable types of housing are needed. The additional demand for housing is largely due to the decrease in size of household units. Yet surveys show that people prefer not to live in smaller units such as one bedroom flats regardless of the household size - such attitudes may be due to a perception that low density housing on greenfield sites is desirable. We need, therefore, to change the environment in which buyers make their decisions. By improving the quality of life of towns and cities house buyers can be persuaded as to the desirability of living in housing built at a higher density in smaller units in urban areas. We need to increase awareness of the damage that greenfield development does - building in the countryside does not improve our quality of life if it destroys the environment which people move into to enjoy.

The Alliance is gathering groups together in pursuit of a common agenda and was initially centred around Winchester, the proposed location for a major housing development. It has rapidly expanded to incorporate groups opposed to greenfield housing development across Hampshire; too often the classic tactics of divide and rule have been used to place greenfield development in one location because of local opposition in another (whereas we want less greenfield development all round!).

A major reason for objecting to greenfield development is because dispersal of housing increases the journey length by car, which in turn contributes to atmospheric pollution and climate change. We need to unite groups in urban and rural areas to demonstrate that this sort of effect is bad for us all.

In order for the European Union to reach its target of 8% cut in CO₂ emissions by 2012, as agreed at last year’s Kyoto climate summit, renewable forms of energy are going to have to be used to generate ever larger amounts of our electricity. The European Commission has recognised this with the publication of a White Paper on Renewable Energy Sources (RES). This far-reaching document is calling for a massive injection of money (£75billion) into renewables from the 15 member states over the next 12 years. This would double the share of renewables from the current 6% up to 12% of energy generated in Europe by 2010.

The White Paper has already met the tacit approval of the majority of the member countries who realise the long-term benefits of such a policy. However there is a notable exception, John Battle, the Minister of Science for the UK government, has already indicated that we will not be supporting it as he regards the target of 12% as unrealistic. This is despite pre-election promises that New Labour would be making renewables a priority in government and is yet another example that when it comes down to putting ‘its money where its mouth is’ this Government is sadly lacking in conviction.

The Road Traffic Reduction (UK Targets) Bill with the help of government support has now passed its Second Reading and then the Report Stage. It is now heading for its final stage, the Third Reading, on 24 April.

It was a sad day in March when we had our last activist meeting under the chairmanship of Paul Flinn. Paul is leaving the group to pursue an academic course in Cheshire. As well as leading the activist group he has also been our keen Biodiversity & Habitat campaigner for nearly four years.

Thanks for all your work Paul, you will be badly missed in the group.

All the best for the future up North!

The Group has obtained a copy of 'The Good Wood Guide'' for loan to members.. This book, researched by national Friends of the Earth scientists is an invaluable source of information listing the different woods throughout the world that are classified as endangered, enabling the consumer to be aware of which products to avoid buying. Also listed is information regarding suppliers of recycled and reclaimed wood, of which there are several in the Blackwater Valley area. Some of these suppliers design and construct household items such as tables and kitchen cabinets to customer specifications. If you would like to borrow the book (2 week loan) please contact Julie Kimber 01252 (510424), or email: julie@kimber.u-net.com

Underwood Street (FoE EWNI) has condemned March’s Budget as "a calculated act of betrayal of Labour’s election promises" on the environment.

New Labour fought the Election promising to "put the environment at the heart of Government" and to be "the first truly green Government ever". But FoE say that Gordon Brown has wasted another golden opportunity to begin green tax reform.

FoE has published its own Green Budget package. It showed that a green tax package could raise up to £28 million a year by 2010. The result could be to create almost 400,000 new jobs by 2010 and contribute a 7% cut in carbon dioxide emissions towards the Government’s 20% target.

Charles Secrett, Director of FoE, said: "A green budget would be good for jobs, good for the environment, good for families and good for the future".

8.00 pm, 2nd Tuesday of each month Guest speakers, videos, quizzes, etc.

All members and non-members are most welcome. Meetings are held at Rushmoor Council Community Services, Meudon Avenue, Farnborough (behind the library). See diary for details of forthcoming meetings.

The views expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily representative of Blackwater Valley Friends of the Earth (BVFoE) or Friends of the Earth England Wales and Northern Ireland (FoE EWNI).

The Editor welcomes any letters or articles from members. Articles can be on local, national and international issues associated with the environment.

Go for it, this is your newsletter!

HOME