tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36939759.post6084333352760384946..comments2024-01-17T07:03:57.842+00:00Comments on The Mad Ranter: Say no to the Hartlebury Incinerator?FlipChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09449939046593105926noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36939759.post-10599812449180368442010-01-12T09:31:41.770+00:002010-01-12T09:31:41.770+00:00Except the arguments you've presented haven...Except the arguments you've presented haven't convinced me to grab my pitchfork and torch.<br /><br />One of my weaknesses is that I don't like to see anyone stumble through ignorance, if there was a Yes to the Incinerator site I'd also be offering similar criticism to them if needed.<br /><br />There's nothing overtly wrong with the website that minor tweaking wouldn't fix. As I said make sure journos can get their quick fixes to print and make sure they don't make you sound like NIMBYs as they currently are.<br /><br />As an example take the Kidderminster campaign. I was against the incinerator. The site itself was suited to such a construction, but location wasn't.<br /><br />Point 1: Traffic would be forced through one or both of two residential areas that weren't equipped to deal with the levels of traffic. This would affect everyone in the area.<br /><br />Point 2: The argument for the placement in Kidderminster was that it was a central location for the county, yet this came at the same time that the hospital was down-graded and the Worcester hospitals improved as <i>they</i> were a central location for the county. A contradiction they didn't bother to correct.<br /><br />Point 3: As they tried to settle the arguments the construction grew more complex. Build an extra road. Through an SSI? We'll build it on stilts. ??. The lengths that were being taken to build here suggested an ulterior motive.<br /><br />That's what you need, traffic through Crown Lane isn't going to affect me or those in Kidderminster likewise eyesores and property values. Find some arguments that bring in the rest of the district.FlipChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09449939046593105926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36939759.post-79975956949362625912010-01-11T18:49:30.732+00:002010-01-11T18:49:30.732+00:00Dear Mad Ranter,
Thanks for the constructive criti...Dear Mad Ranter,<br />Thanks for the constructive criticism.We really need someone to help us with this website design as you can see we are inexperienced and need our campaign to stand out.Could you offer your services (free of course!!!!!?) I notice you live in Stourport so you are likely to be affected by this proposal too.Are you willing to get off your blog and HELP?Active Campaignernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36939759.post-49380871222056741152010-01-11T09:08:20.202+00:002010-01-11T09:08:20.202+00:00Dear Active Campaigner,
Thank you for the additio...Dear Active Campaigner,<br /><br />Thank you for the additional information. I ran through the information as listed in both the fact sheet and information page.<br /><br />Re-checking, the fact about the height of the building came from another source and your information (45m/80m) only appears in the small box on the home page. So yep I missed that, but in fairness I expected that information to be recapped on the main information page (remember Google can link to internal pages so people might miss things).<br /><br />Otherwise I can't see where the facts you mention regarding burning, new legislation etc. feature on the site.<br /><br />What I did was look at what the incinerator was supposed to do and the reasons you are against it. As I said while your arguments require questions to be answered by the builders etc. Nothing <i>as presented</i> convinces me to stop it.FlipChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09449939046593105926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36939759.post-70965714685762295972010-01-10T22:41:27.037+00:002010-01-10T22:41:27.037+00:00Dear Mad Ranter,
First of all get your facts strai...Dear Mad Ranter,<br />First of all get your facts straight about this incinerator.<br />Mercia claim that this is burning non -recyclable waste however if you read THEIR scoping document in actual fact 16% is paper and card, 4% is glass and a massive 47% is classed as organic material, ALL OF WHICH can be recycled in some way rather than burnt.<br />Secondly while the building may be 35m high, the incinerator stack itself is 80 metres high, slight difference perhaps?<br />Aside from all the health issues and other issues like noise,pollutants, smell, contamination of farmland and killing of wildlife, this proposal DISCOURAGES recycling as the council have to guarantee 200,000 tonnes of waste to be burnt, EVERY YEAR for the next 25 years.<br />Mercia's proposals also assume that waste will INCREASE over the next 25 years.<br />The figures simply do NOT add up.<br />A new recycling plant at Norton can accomodate 105,000 tonnes of rubbish every year.<br />From Hereford and Worcester's waste figures it appears that around 160,000 tonnes waste go to landfill each year.<br />If 105,000 tonnes can now be recycled, doing the maths this only leaves 55,000 tonnes to be incinerated.<br />This volume does not justify the £120m initial cost.This excludes future running costs.<br />Therefore in order to get the volume up to 200,000 tonnes they will need to ship in the waste from other areas like Birmingham.<br />All of this does not take into account new legislation about recycling batteries/plastics etc which will be the main source of fuel for this incinerator.<br />Assuming you are a taxpayer, you and I will be paying for this as it will be funded by tax credits given by Defra.Where does Defra get it's money from- you and I!!!!<br />We take onboard your comments about the web design and you can expect a new revised layout shortly .Why not put your voice to good use and come along to the public meeting on the 14th january, Hartlebury Village Hall,Waresley Court Road, Hartlebury 7pm - IF YOU DARE!!!!!!!Active Campaignernoreply@blogger.com