by George Tattum

Landowners in North Wales and Cheshire fear plans for a waste-fired kiln could threaten the region's farming industry.

The Country Landowners Association warns there could be a serious pollution risk which would devastate the dairy and livestock industries if Castle Cement is given the go-ahead to build the 48m kiln at Padeswood.

CLA regional surveyor Andrew Shirley says the unit will be operational 24-hours a day, 365-days a year.

'Our main worry is about the potential pollution from the burning of Cemfuel, which is made up of chemical waste,' he said.

Castle says modernising the plant will safeguard 160 jobs, but the CLA says the wider effects on agriculture, as well as on human health and the environment, should be taken into account.

Mr Shirley said they are concerned that filter systems designed to catch harmful particles released during incineration may not be effective.

'If there are any faults or breakdowns it is highly possible dioxins and dangerous particulates will be released into the atmosphere,' he said.

'Dioxins are known to be cancer causing and build up in the body over time.

'They can be released from the body in mother's milk and that is a particular concern for this region, which is one of the country's most important dairy and livestock areas.

'Any threat, even a perceived threat, would be devastating for the industry. As well as significant risks for North Wales, a prevailing westerly wind could leave most of Cheshire vulnerable to being hit by a possible pollution plume.'

The CLA is backing anti-kiln protest group CANK and will also put in a formal objection to Castle's plans at the autumn public inquiry.

Tony Allan, general manager of Castle's Padeswood works, said: 'Our modernisation plans will reduce emissions from our cement works, not increase them.

'There cannot be any risk to the health of the community or to the region's farming industry.

'I am astonished such a body as the CLA should issue such an inaccurate statement about our plans without first having the courtesy of making contact with us to check the facts.

'I am inviting the CLA's regional director to meet me so she may be better briefed on what is a major investment for the future of industry in North Wales.'

by George Tattum

Campaigners fighting a cement company's £48m kiln plan claim the project will cost jobs.

Action group Phoenix say apart from reducing the number employed at Castle's Padeswood plant, the waste-fired kiln will burn material that could be recycled and, in that process, create new jobs.

Phoenix spokeswoman Gilly Boyd says Castle admit a new kiln would mean 33 fewer jobs on-site and 100 fewer at the company's other plants.

She says if the material scheduled to fire the kiln - waste chemicals, plastics and shredded tyres - was recycled instead, many extra jobs could be created.

Mrs Boyd added incinerators created 100 to 290 jobs for every million tonnes of waste processed, while recycling produced a figure of between 400 and 590.

Campaigners claim waste is far too valuable to burn, but recycling has huge benefits for water and air quality as well as major job opportunities which would be lost under Castle's plans.

Another criticism levelled by Phoenix is the proposed Castle kiln will produce dangerous dioxins, extremely harmful to health.

Mrs Boyd said even low-level exposure interferes with the immune system, reproductive system and early growth and development of humans and animals.

She urges anyone concerned about Castle's plans to contact Phoenix at Chapel House, Penymynydd near Chester.

'We will present their points of view as part of our case at the public inquiry into Castle's plans, which begins at Clwyd Theatr Cymru on October 11th,' she added.

The public inquiry is expected to last up to three weeks.

A spokewoman for Castle Cement said it will be firing the new kiln with material that cannot be recycled and there is no alternative to incineration.

She said there will be no dangerous release of dioxins and the new kiln will produce less emissions than the existing plant.

Castle also points to a report from the North Wales Health Authority which says emissions from the kiln will not be harmful to health.

The company added the loss of 33 jobs at Padeswood will be partly offset by the recruitment of 20 extra transport staff.

Landowners claim a new cement kiln could pose a serious pollution risk for livestock and dairy farms in North East Wales.

The warning came at yesterday's Flint & Denbigh Show from the Country Landowners Association.

The CLA is opposing plans by Castle Cement to build a waste-fired kiln at its Padeswood plant as part of a £48 million investment package.

Members fear it will spew health-threatening dioxins and heavy metals in to the atmosphere.

The CLA is organising a private presentation for members on the possible threat of pollution and escape of harmful gasses posed by the new kiln.

CLA regional surveyor Andrew Shirley said: 'We are not convinced that the proposed filtration system can be completely foolproof.'

Tony Allan, general manager of the Padeswood plant, said: 'Castle Cement agrees wholeheartedly that CLA members should be made fully aware of our £48 million investment plans for Padeswood works.

'With this in mind, we would urge the CLA to allow Castle to participate in the private briefing or to make a separate presentation to its members.

'We hope the CLA will act responsibly by ensuring members are able to make an informed judgement having been allowed to hear both sides of the argument and not just the scaremongering statements issued by..........(last part of article was not printed)

Campaigning councillor Derek Darlington
has decorated his Penyffordd home
with anti-kiln posters

Villagers are mounting a poster campaign to show their opposition to a cement company's £48 million investment plans.

It is reckoned only one person in 15 in Penyffordd and Penymynydd backs plans for a waste-fired kiln on their doorstep.

Councillor Derek Darlington says Castle Cement's plans to plough millions into it's ageing Padeswood works should be thrown out.

The heated issue will be thrashed out at next week's public inquiry into the company's application.

The hearing was ordered by the Welsh Asembly even though Flintshire planning committee approved the project against the advice of it's own officers. Thousands of people sent in letters of objection to the kiln.

Cllr Darlington, who has plastered his home in Hawarden Road, Penyffordd, with anti-kiln leaflets, is encouraging villagers to follow suit.

'I am issiung an advice leaflet door-to-door telling residents what they can do to oppose the scheme,' he says.

'On the back of the newsletter is a No To The Kiln slogan which people can put up in their windows. They are also available in the village post office.'

Cllr Darlington says letters to Flintshire County Council are running 15-1 against the kiln plan.

He will be giving evidence at the inquiry focussing on concerns that the proposed 360ft high chimney will blight the landscape and increased production will mean a lot of extra traffic on the local road network.

Castle Cement refutes claims the new kiln, to be fired with tyres, waste chemicals and plastics will create a serious health hazard and an environmental disaster.

The company argues a modern kiln would emit far less pollution than the ageing 50-year-old plant.

The public inquiry opens at Cymru Theatr Clwyd in Mold on Wednesday and is expected to last three weeks.

CANK Note
Want to participate?
The No To The Kiln poster is available for printing out on this site.

A protest group claims there is widespread opposition to Castle Cement's £48m kiln plan.

Phoenix says people's main concerns are the potential health risks of firing the kiln with waste chemicals, old tyres and plastics, and the impact of plant on the environment.

In detailed evidence to the inquiry, Phoenix claims Castle can only promise emission controls in theory, but not guarantee them in practice.

Secretary, Gilly Boyd, of Penymynydd, said thousands of letters have been sent in from the public, community councils and the business community opposing the project.

'Public concern is partly generated by Castle Cement's poor past record of environmental performance,' says the Phoenix statement.

Safeguards proposed by Castle to keep emissions within safety levels have not impressed the protest group.

'The Environment Agency has a poor past record in ineffectiveness to prevent cement companies from regular breaches of their operating licences and we will illustrate during the inquiry why we have so little confidence in it to protect the public against accidents and unacceptable levels of unauthorised emissions,' it says.

'Phoenix is concerned the EA will not be able to protect them from any future problems caused by the burning of toxic and hazardous waste.'

Mrs Boyd says around 25,000 letters, faxes and e-mails objecting to the new kiln have been sent to the Welsh Assembly.

She says communities near Padeswood have not been given enough easily digestible information on the use of Cemfuel, the controversial waste material Castle plans to fire the kiln with if it is given planning consent.

'Despite Castle Cement's open door policy and it's information publications, nowhere is it stated that the fuels could cause a major accident with far reaching consequences for local residents and the environment,' says the Phoenix statement. 'There are no contingency plans to warn local residents in the event of an accident.'

A public inquiry into Castle Cement's £48m kiln plan will be told Labour councillors attempted to 'rush the application through'.

The claim will be made by Buckley councillor Arnold Woolley, chairman of CANK - Campaign Against the New Kiln.

In his written evidence to the inquiry he says as chairman of Buckley Town Council planning committee in February 1999, he refused to agree to behind-the-scenes plans by Labour party county councillors to rush through the outline application for the kiln.

'For party unity a 'no observation at this time' comment was recorded and forwarded to Flintshire County Council,' says Cllr Woolley, himself a Labour councillor.

'A behind-the-scenes caucus meeting was held which was a touch acrimonious. During it I was advised it did not matter what Buckley Town Council did or did  not do in relation to this application. It would be passed at county level anyway.'

Cllr Woolley say the more he read the application the more concerned he became.

He said even though Castle Cement was allowed to make a presentation to Labour dominated Buckley Town Council, opponents of the plan were not given the same opportunity.

Cllr Woolley adds: 'I began to get a distinct feeling a less than open and fully consultative agenda was being attempted'.

He reveals how he attempted to present a 40-minute case to town councillors, but was told he would not be allowed to speak for more than five minutes.

Buckley Town Council did oppose the application and Cllr Woolley went on to chair CANK.

Apart from objecting to the kiln plan on health and environmental grounds, Cllr Woolley also says the planned 360ft chimney would be a major eyesore visible from the town centre and the surrounding countryside.

Building the kiln would undoubtedly strengthen Castle as a cement producer, but the risks to other people were simply ' a step too far', he said.

by Bob Clough-Parker

These columns have commented before about an environmental lobby group called BANANA. It has nothing to do with the European Commission and it's apparent aim of European Union greengrocers being allowed to sell only straight bananas but, rather, stands for Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.

It's membership is made up exclusively of the militant wing of it's parent body, the Not In My Back Yard organisation.

In general, of course, most planning applications are, by implication, not likely to excite NIMBY attention, and even BANANA members are unconcerned when the application proposals are for something a few miles away.

Take, for example, the plans by Castle Cement to construct a 350-feet kiln on a site at Padeswood, just across the Welsh border from Chester.

Such was the local public outcry of residents, businesses and environmental and medical experts in North Wales that the Welsh Assembly decided that Flintshire County Council's decision to grant planning permission was flawed.

The public inquiry, which has already been going for months, was resumed this week.

Aside from the visual intrusion of such a monstrous kiln chimney, the basis of the objectors' concerns and anxieties is compelling.

The Castle Cement owners intend to burn not the normal kind of domestic waste product that most of us would regard as a worthy example of recycling, albeit that is precisely how they originally wanted everyone to perceive matters.

Rather, it will be a highly toxic mix of hazardous industrial waste, solvents, paints, oils and chemical waste containing chlorine.

Not least, they will be burning tyres, many of which are dumped on the United Kingdom from countries such as Germany who know, only too well, that tyre-burning produces dioxins. The only safe emission level for these dioxins is absolute zero.

Chester is eight miles - downwind - of Padeswood and so Chester residents, businesses and visitors are going to be in the direct firing line for the fall-out of toxic particles of dioxins, heavy metals and other really hazardous material.

The impact on the Chester area's economy - in terms of business, growth and economic competitiveness - is potentially very serious indeed.

Clearly, there is a natural desire, on the most pragmatic terms, for Chester City Council to develop partnerships with neighbouring local authorities.

But, surely, the time has arrived when the city council and the City of Chester MP to take a vigourous and public stance against Castle Cement's application, in order to properly to protect the health of the citizens and the welfare of business.

by George Tattum

A Tory claims Castle Cement's proposed £48m kiln at Padeswood would create unacceptable health risks to the community.

Mark Ishwerwood, prospective Conservative parliamentry candidate for Alyn & Deeside, told the public inquiry at Mold into the kiln application the scheme should be rejected.

He claimed North Wales Health Authority has failed to reassure the public that the proposed waste-fired kiln poses no risk.

Mr Isherwood, who lives at Pontybodkin, said insufficient research has been carried out to prove the kiln - which would be fired with plastics, old tyres and waste chemicals - would not pump out dangerous pollution which would harm health and the environment.

He added: 'Anxious to cut their manufacturing costs, cement companies are increasingly turning to alternative fuels, generally made from waste products.

'The cement industry's next target is scrap tyres, whose disposal is becoming a major problem in the UK and Europe.

'We cannot be certain that Castle Cement are monitoring the hazardous content of the flue gasses from recycled fuel-burning kilns enough to be sure that they are safe.'

Mr Isherwood, a father-of-six who has three children suffering from asthma, claimed that if the filtering systems on Castle's proposed kiln failed, a 'toxic timebomb' could be released.

He also feared that dangerous gases and dioxins could escape, possibly settling on the soil and entering the food chain.

The Tory candidate said the party welcomes investment in North East Wales, provided it has no adverse effect on health.

But, he said, the risk from the kiln plan was not acceptable, adding in a statement to the planning inspector:
'We are now satisfied that the potential health implications are significant and, with the full support of the Conservative Party prospective parliamentary candidates in every constituency bordering Alyn & Deeside, call on you to refuse planning approval.'

Castle Cement refuted claims the new kiln posed a threat to health, and pointed out the new plant would actually cut emissions.

CANK Note:
For an alternative view of this decision and the circumstances behind it, see the letter written by the Clitheroe branch of the Friends of the Earth to the Environment Agency dated 7th January 2001

Castle Cement, which is hoping to invest £48m in a waste-fired kiln at Padeswood, has been given a major boost in it's bid to burn alternative fuels.

The company is currently involved in a public inquiry into the building of the kiln after the National Assembly called in it's planning application, which had been approved by Flintshire County Council.

Opponents claim burning Cemfuel - made from waste chemicals - will harm health and cause environmental damage, an accusation vehemently denied by the firm.

Castle's confidence in Cemfuel has just been given a boost by the Environment Agency, following extensive trials of the alternative fuel at the company's Clitheroe plant.

The agency says it proposes to allow the burning of Cemfuel at the Lancashire plant, but will first give the public a chance to discuss the issue.

And it has granted permission for the permanent use of another alternative fuel - Profuel - at the company's Ketton works in Rutland.

Castle Cement welcomes the two decisions and says Cemfuel actually cuts emissions and is environmentally friendly.

Padeswood General Manager, Tony Allan said: 'This latest development of our alternative fuels programme in England has been after a long and rigourous process including public consultation and detailed analyses of emissions data.

'It follows trials which have shown that environmental performance has improved.

'The same rigourous process would be followed for the new kiln at Padeswood and the same environmental benefits would be achieved in Wales.'

The Environment Agency said last week it planned to allow the burning of Cemfuel at Clitheroe, but a series of surgeries will be held to give the public a chance to discuss the issue. A final decision will be made in January.

A spokeswoman for the EA in Wales said Castle's application to fire the proposed new kiln at Padeswood with Cemfuel was still being processed.

by George Tattum

Approval of Castle Cement's application to build a waste-fired kiln at Padeswood will sentence up to 30,000 people to an uncertain future, says an anti-kiln group.

The forecast was made by the Phoenix Coalition as the public inquiry into the application drew to a close this week.

Spokewoman Irene Jones, of Buckley, claimed the proposed kiln would spew out dangerous, health-threatening, emissions which would be deposited over a 46-mile radius from the plant.

She said it would condemn 30,000 in the area 'to a future filled with insecurity and uncertainty'.

The kiln will be fired with Cemfuel, a mix of waste chemicals and old tyres.

Phoenix claims the plans to build a 360ft-high tower as part of the kiln complex is sufficient reason to refuse the application.

This would blight the landscape and there was also the threat of more lorries on the roads, as production was set to increase considerably if the plan was approved, they say.

Flintshire Green Party spokeman, Cllr Klaus Armstrong-Braun claims the application is illegal, as the kiln should be classed as a waste incinerator - an allegation Castle refutes.

He wants the Eurpoean Commission to step in and rule the proposed kiln must be classed as an incinerator, which would mean it would have to comply with much more stringent regulations.

Castle's counsel, Vernon Pugh QC, warned that refusal of planning consent would be a 'personal tragedy' for workers and their families.

He dismissed protestors' claims that the new kiln would harm the environment as 'inaccurate, untruthful, misleading and emotive'.

He pointed the investment would bring major improvements to the 50-year old plant's environmental performance, including reduced emissions and no material increase in traffic.

Mr Pugh said the design of the kiln, including the tower, was consistent with similar cement works in Europe.

Castle's production director, Peter Weller, said: 'The new kiln at Padeswood is not only the best environmental option, but it will also secure jobs and cement-making in North Wales.

'Without investment, it is unlikely that the plant could remain financially viable and it's eventual closure would be inevitable.'

Welsh Assembly inspector, Anthony Vaughan is expected to announce his decision in the Spring.

A PROTEST group is challenging claims that a proposed £48m cement kiln will not be harmful to health.

Castle Cement is hoping to make the massive investment at it's Padeswood plant, but anti-kiln campaigners hope a Welsh Assembly planning inspector will throw out the scheme following a lengthy public inquiry.

The company says newly-published data shows the health of people in Clitheroe, where Castle has burned controversial chemical waste mix Cemfuel for many years, is better than in most other North West areas.

The company intends to use the solvent-based liquid fuel at the proposed Padeswood kiln.

The report, put together by Dr Steven Morton, director of public health for East Lancashire Health Authority, was compiled in response to concerns about the burning of Cemfuel in Clitheroe.

But anti-kiln group Phoenix is unhappy that the company has claimed backing from a report in which the details have yet to be made public.

Spokewoman Irene Jones of Meg's Lane, Buckley, said: 'Castle's announcement that a favourable report by East Lancs Health Authority regarding Clitheroe has turned out to be inaccurate and premature.

'The authority has confirmed to us that the report has not been completed and will not be released until the end of March.'

She also said that during a visit to the Clitheroe works, organised as part of the public inquiry, protestors took the opportunity to inspect the site.

She added: 'The plant, itself, although in better repair than Padeswood, was in a terrible state, with accumulations of dust piled high in many places like snowdrifts.'

Dr Morton told The Chronicle on Wednesday that he was still putting the finishing touches to his report on public health in the Ribble Valley, where large companies like Castle and ICI  had major operations.

'I did share my preliminary findings at a closed meeting with the Environment Agency, Ribble Valley Borough Council and the East Lancashire Health Authority,' he said.

'Nobody from Castle Cement has contacted me about my findings, which is unfortunate, but I can't disagree with their statement that the health of people in the Clitheroe area is better than most other areas in the north west region. That is unlikely to change by the time my report is officially published at the end of March.'

Tony Allan, general manager of Castle's Padeswood works, said: ' We totally refute the allegations made regarding our Ribblesdale works in Lancashire.

'We are happy to let the democratic process take it's course. We would urge those opposing Castle's plans to do the same, rather than attempt to hold their own inquiry via the media.'

CANK Comment

Castle are opposing the EA's decision to take quarterly spot checks for dioxins instead of the usual two pa.

They say they want to be treated like other cement kilns in the UK. But WHY SHOULD THEY - they are the worst dioxin polluting cement company in the UK with their plant at Padeswood producing over 6 times and their Clitheroe plant almost 3 times the dioxin output of the next cement plant - Blue Circle at Gravesend.

Many more checks are needed to ensure that they rapidly come closer in emissions levels to the other UK cement plants.

Could it be that they will simply find it much more onerous to keep having to amend their fuel mix, prior to these spot checks (where notice is always given), to try and comply with their emission limits?
If this plant were not consistantly breaking those limits -  2, 4, or 52 checks each year should not be a problem. The cost of such tests is small in relation to the money involved here so is non-compliance the concern?

So much for Castle's much professed 'Open Door' policy.
 
 

by George Tattum

Castle Cement has been accused of holding up measures to cut emissions from its existing Padeswood plant.

Criticism of the firm's decision to appeal against an Environmental Agency notice aimed at reducing the amount of shale used in their cement-making process has come from Arnold Woolley, chairman of the Campaign Against the New Kiln.

He applauded the Agency for ordering Castle to reduce the amount of shale and to use Pulversied Fuel Ash (PFA) instead.

In addition, the Agency also welcomed the Agency's ruling that two annual spot checks for dioxin emissions at Padeswood should be replaced by quarterly checks.

The company has appealed against the Agency notice, but denies its stance in any way compromises its determination to reduce emissions.

Tony Allan, general manager of the Padeswood works, said if CANK and other opponents of the new kiln had not hampered Castle's £48m investment plans, the old kilns would have already been replaced by state-of-the-art technology.

"I want to make it clear CANK is distorting the facts," he said.

"We are not opposing the Agency's request for us to reduce the amount of shale we used in the cement-making process.

"We have simply asked for extra time to conduct tests, as the first tests proved inconclusive.

"I can confirm we are opposing quarterly checks for dioxins, as opposed to the present two.

"This is simply because we want to be treated the same as any other cement plants in the UK, which have only two spot checks annually. All we are asking for is a level playing field."

Mr Allan said that the Agency's notice related to the existing cement-making process and pointed out the company has just spent £110,000 on reducing emissions from kiln three.

This reflected Castle's commitment to cutting pollution.

But Mr Woolley said the firm should comply with the Agency's ruling, as the existing kiln would continue producing cement for another two-and-a-half years.

"Here is a company spreading the message that it cares for the community, yet it is appealing against an Environment Agency notice aimed at minimising pollution," he added.

The Agency confirmed the company was opposing parts of the notice issued under the Environments Protection Act 1990.

The spokesman added: "Castle Cement have appealed against some of the conditions of the notice relating to the limits imposed on dioxin emissions and the timescale for implementing them, a requirement to increase the frequency of dioxin monitoring and a requirement to control the minimum oxygen concentration in the exhaust gas from the cement kilns.

"The appeal is now with the National Assembly for Wales and the Agency is awaiting their response."
 

A new joint strategy to change the expensive and unpopular way Cheshire deals with its evergrowing mountain of houselhold waste has been launched.

All Cheshire authorities have co-operated in drawing up a blueprint to reduce the vast tonnage of waste sent to landfill sites while increasing recycling and composting to meet Government targets.

Cheshire households produce around 420,000 tonnes of household waste annually, 85% going to landfill and the remainder recycled or composted.

And to meet national and European targets for landfill and recycling Cheshire must more than double its recycling figures to 33% by 2005 and reduce landfill to 35% by 2020.

The new strategy is based on the reduction of waste; the achievement of the highest possible levels of recycling and composting and - if needed - reviewing the demand for energy from waste treatment in 2004.

Public consultations produced a high level of support for plans ranging from the separation and kerbside collection of recyclables and reducing waste by the promotion of home and community composting schemes, to stopping junk mail.

Expansion of compost sites; improvement of household waste and recycling centres, and the development of refuse transfer stations and other new recycling facilities for materials etc, are all included.

Formulated by a Waste Task Group - established in 1999 by the Local Government Association - the strategy even includes lobbying the Government and industry to reduce packaging.

Many features of the blueprint - launched at Ellesmere Port's Blue Planet Aquarium - are already being implemented.

Delegates watched presentations on trials of kerbside recycling and green waste collections at Macclesfield and Vale Royal; a rural waste minimisation initiative at Crewe and Nantwich and a county-wide paper collection project.

Cheshire LGA Waste Task Group Chairman, Councillor Wesley Fitzgerald, said: 'Agreeing the joint strategy is an important step in changing the way household waste is managed and protecting the Cheshire environment for both this and future generations.

'It will enable local authorities and the householders they serve to meet the challenge presented by a year-on-year increase of household waste, shortage of landfill space and the need to meet national and European targets.

'These are issues which affect all of us and we all have a part to play in bringing about changes which will benefit the county's quality of life for many years to come.'

by David Holmes

Campaigners opposing a proposed waste incinerator are jubilant that its council backers have made a dramatic U-turn.

Councillors in Wrexham have bowed to pressure on both sides of the English-Welsh border from people worried about toxic emissions from the plant which would operate next to a recycling facility.

The proposed incinerator, which attracted more than 200 letters from objectors and a 13,000-name petition, would be based on the Wrexham Industrial Estate, just 2km from the boundary with Cheshire.
Wrexham Council's planning committee resolved by 26 votes to 17 not to support the application at a forthcoming public inquiry after the controversial scheme by the HLC group was 'called-in' by the Welsh Assembly.

This is a major turnaround by the council which had previously supported HLC as the preferred bidder to manage the disposal of the borough's waste over a 25 year period.

Caroline Munro, chairman of the Dee Borders Action Group, said: 'This is a skirmish but we feel triumphant about the battle and the war ahead.'

Mrs Munro, of Tilston, added: 'We feel the council decision was a victory for democracy and common sense. We were impressed with the level of debate which was thoughtful and did show that councillors far from just toeing the party line, have given a great deal of care and thought to this and taken notice of the feelings of the general public and the 13,000 signatures that were presented.'

Cllr Neil Ritchie (Con, Tilston) said: 'It's good news and quite unexpected. Congratulations to the council for doing it at long last.

'I have heard HLC still want to go ahead with the inquiry. How can HLC legitimately continue with this application and the inquiry on that basis if Wreham temselves are no longer willing to go ahead with it?'

He added: ' I also question the basis of the 'call-in' by the Welsh Assembly.

'The scheme was called in because the council had originally voted in favour of it. They voted to approve the incinerator part of it.'

A council spokesman said councillors voted against the Wrexham Waste Recovery Centre, incorporating the incinerator, because the scheme was contrary to local development plan policies and was premature in terms of national policy.

Steve Burnett, project manager for HLC Wrexham Ltd, confirmed his company was going ahead despite the council's change of heart.

He said: 'I think the council had the luxury of being more cavalier in the way they took the decision.

'They knew they were no longer the final determining body any more. We are pressing ahead with the inquiry process and quite confident of prevailing in that forum.'

On December 4 the appointed planning inspector will hold a pre-inquiry meeting to make arrangements. Details from the Planning Inspectorate at Crown Buildings, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NQ

CANK Comment
So Mr Burnett, Project Manager of HLC Wrexham believes that, in spite of Wrexham people not wanting his incinerator and Wrexham councillors now refusing to support it, the plant will go ahead anyway. What does that say of his and his company's respect for the wishes of the community in which they hope to operate and for the democratic process in general?

by George Tattum

A protest group hoping to block the operation of a new £48 million cement kiln is delighted with the public response to its own DIY health survey.

The Campaign Against the New Kiln (CANK) is convinced Castle Cement's waste fired kiln, now under construction at Padeswood, will be a threat to health and the environment.

The company was given permission to build the controversial new kiln after a lengthy public inquiry, but is awaitnig an operating licence from the Environment Agency.

CANK has asked 1,420 households in nearby Penyffordd and Penymynydd to complete a detailed health questionnaire.

The survey is to gather data about the health of communities downwind of the current cement plant, built in the early 1950's.

Arnold Woolley, of Buckley, chairman of CANK, said more than 30% of households had filled in questionnaires so far and more forms were expected by the end of the month.

'The results will permit experts to analyse the information and form a picture of how the health of the local community compares with other communities,' he said.

'It covers a wide range, from cancers and asthma to pregnancy problems and childhood illnesses. What will be of interest will be any trends that can reliably be linked to the fact that the community is downwind of the existing kiln.

'If this kind of survey had been carried out much earlier by the authorities, it would have avoided the cost of an expensive public inquiry and the upset to people living in the area.'

Questionnaires will be passed on to medical experts for independant analysis.

Danny Coulston, general manager of Castle Cement, Padeswood said: 'This issue is a matter for the Environment Agency and is not in our jurisdiction. In any case we would question the validity of the health survey results.' (see CANK Comment below)

A spokesman for the Environment Agency said they welcomed CANK's health study, adding: 'The accurate interpretation of such data is a very complex task.

'We will be consulting our specialist advisors at Birmingham University to allow us to take approriate consideration of the data in our assessment of Castle Cement's application for the new kiln.

'The Agency has already made a commitment to require an appropriate baseline health study as part of our assessment. It is likely that this will be undertaken by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit at Imperial College, London.' (See CANK Comment below)

EA's commitment to a baseline health study
This is good news indeed and would seems to revert to a promise made by the EA at an earlier Liason Meeting to conduct such a survey.
In an intervening Liason Meeting, however, CANK and others were disturbed to hear that all the EA were planning to do was to ask for a reappraisal of the health data already put forward by Dr Roberts, widely criticised, which in turn was derived from Castle Cement. This clearly does not amount to a baseline health study.
Good to see that a study is now to be conducted - BUT IT MUST BE INDEPENDANT.
STOP PRESS
CANK has just learned that the Small Area Statistics Unit (SAHSU) at Imperial College, London may not be as independant as the Environment Agency have suggested:
Formed in 1984 after the Black Report into Sellafield child leukemias it has developed methodology for small areas which, it has been alleged, is designed to lose effects rather than find them.
For example, in the past they have applied the concentric circle technique to their analyses which looks at rates of contamination at different distances from a point source but does not allow for land topology or wind and water directions. Additionally, we understand that the radii of the circles appear to be chosen so that there is no effect found.
These allegations bear a remarkable similarity to Dr Richard Roberts' testimony at the Public Inquiry where, astonishingly, he applied the same theory to the hilly terrain surrounding Castle Cement at Padeswood. Additionally, he chose an unusual diameter circle which just excluded the large and potentially vulnerable population centre at Bistre, Buckley.
Dr Vyvyan Howard, CANK's health expert suggested that the concentric circle analysis might be applied to a point source in the middle of flat terrain with no wind blowing.
Hardly the local terrain around Padeswood where a prevailing south westerly wind runs over the hills of North Wales!

It should also be mentioned that we understand that SAHSU is not part of Imperial College, one of the best scientific institutions in the country. It is simply attached to it.