banner-env-air-01

SATEP                                 SPELTHORNE AGAINST THE ECO PARK

                                                                                       STOP THE INCINERATOR                                                          

 

Together we can stop the 'Eco Park' (that isn't Eco or a Park).  

 

At Charlton Lane tip, Surrey plans to build an incinerator that will emit more toxic particulate matter (PM10 & PM2.5) into Spelthorne's already highly polluted air, with a fall-out zone that covers our schools, nurseries and homes.  The proposed incineration technology is totally unproven to burn black bin bag household waste safely. Why we're fighting? Doctors predicted it, data from the ONS confirms it: Colnbrook's infant mortality rate has more than DOUBLED since the Grundons incinerator was built in 2010...see article.  

 

SATEP is not affiliated to any political party.  We are reisdents fighting to stop an incinerator being built in the wrong location, using the wrong technology and for all the wrong reasons (corporate greed before human health - how can that ever be right?).

phpOxq3zZPM DSCF0960 kids in masks

LATEST NEWS - see the News Section for more!

 

JAN 31: NEARLY 200 RESIDENTS JOIN PROTEST AGAINST DESTRUCTION OF GREENBELT TREES TO MAKE WAY FOR INCINERATOR

 

SEPT 20: HUNDREDS OF LOCAL RESIDENTS PROTEST AGAINST ECO PARK AS COMMUNITY COMES TOGETHER TO FIGHT INCINERATOR - AMAZING VIDEO FOOTAGE HERE

 

August: Growing support for anti-Eco Park protest, 20th September 10am.

 

August:  Residents anger at Eco Park incinerator. Friends of Shepperton facebook group plans public demonstration 20th September

 

July: Spelthorne's Air Quality is getting worse.

 

March: Surrey 'knows Eco Park gasifier is risky and prone to failure' - FOI reveals

 

Feb 18: Get your floody priorities right, Surrey!  SATEP calls for Surrey to stop wasting £5m and counting on Eco Park and start investing in flood defences and fire & rescue service cover.

 

Feb 4: Incinerator study into effects of emissions on human health postponed til 2015  'cover up'?

 

Swap Derby for Surrey #incinerator to see why Spelthorne is being dumped on with #Ecopark #allaboutthemoney

 

28-29 Jan: Footpath Inquiry: objectors shine light on serious lack of consultation with fire service; risks to footpath users inadequately considered.

 

Surrey's rotten Eco Park exposed in Private Eye 'Waste of Energy' feature!!!

 

Another day, another waste fire

 

Even 'safe' levels of air pollution can harm your health - latest report

 

infographic

THE FIGHT GOES ON!

 

SATEP is committed to fighting the Eco Park incinerator in every way.  

 

However, we are just ordinary, local residents armed only with funds raised from the community - THANK YOU.  

 

In January, local residents decided not to pursue a Judicial Review after the Court advised that there was no case to answer. Not a surprising outcome: Surrey CC spent £££thousands of residents' money on top lawyers ensuring that the planning processes used to pass te Eco Park application was armour-plated.  Surrey simply ticked all the right boxes. It doesn't make what they have done, or what they are doing, any more right or good; and certainly not green or 'Eco' in safeguarding the health of Spelthorne residents.

 

OUR FIGHT CONTINUES, AND IF THE WORST HAPPENS WE SHALL NEED TO FUND MONITORING EQUIPMENT TO ENSURE ANY EMISSIONS BREACHES (AND THERE WILL BE) ARE PROPERLY AND QUICKLY ADDRESSED.

 

DONATE via Bank Transfer, or paying in cheques

We can now accept direct payment into Nat West via

Sortcode: 01 01 23

Account Number: 1587 9380

 

THANK YOU!

SURREY’S ECO PARK MYTHS EXPLODED!  

 

Surrey's determination to build the Eco Park is driven by money: SITA’s profits and Surrey’s £200m PFI grant from DEFRA.  Here we expose the truth behind the Eco Park myths peddled by Surrey:    

 

PROXIMITY: Surrey claims that waste must be treated ‘in county’ but it applies the 'Proximity Principle' on false premises now it has added a new RDF processing plant to Eco Park plans. Critically the Proximity Principle does not apply to RDF waste which can be much better treated in large efficient incinerators elsewhere. Best value can be realised anywhere in the EC as per DEFRA, EC and SCC waste policies.  

 

DEFRA PFI SUPPORT: DEFRA's c£200M waste PFI support is not dependent upon the Eco Park, and will not be lost because it is varied. DEFRA only requires significant "eco" waste infrastructure projects to be created in County.

 

ROCs: It's unlikely OFGEM will award the proposed Eco Park incinerator double ROCs as a gasifier at 2 x c.£40/MWh. Its physical design does not comply with OFGEM's fundamental definition of a gasifier - that will output an energetic fuel gas for combustion in a subsequent process.  

 

RISK: Most municipal waste gasifiers globally, and at Dargavel, have failed, unless repurposed as direct EfW combustion - which can be better delivered elsewhere as recovery in cheaper more efficient full sized plants ten times the capacity of Eco Park.  Failure to work as advertised is a very high probability for this experiment. For independent research - Ref: Google: "global WTERT council history of Gasification"

 

PRICE: At the core of the logic for all three waste policies is the lowest price consistent with the adequate R1 compliant energy recovery from our waste fuel, to raise waste affordably up the hierarchy.  UK prices are well documented by the "WRAP Gate Fees Report" at down to £60/tonne for modern EfW. They are as low as £8/tonne plus freight for R1 EfW in Sweden. Google "1-3_Prognos_Tolvik" for ref. data, see slide 6.

We are not told the gate fee proposed for the Charlton Lane "gasifier”, so cannot begin to compare. We do know it will be CHP-less disposal of our waste in an inadequately sized, hence inherently inefficient and overpriced, facility.

 

QUESTION: Will the Eco Park value for money determination, now delayed to Surrey Council’s April cabinet, transparently apply all the crucial considerations listed above to compare the full range of options, in particular the lower gate fees for better R1 qualifying energy recovery widely available elsewhere, and fully justify its results to Councillors, exclusive of any contract cancellation penalties?

 

FOOTPATH TREES FOOTPATH TREES