Northampton Borough Council Decline Rotton Kilbride Land for Unpopular Gasification Plant
The local Community Does not want Rolton Groups Monster Incinerator... as Northampton Borough Council drops Team Rolton... insufficient public consultation.
|
|
|
|
Northampton Borough Council turn down Rolton Kilbride option on land at Westbridge St James as thier proposed site for a Monster Incinerator Scheme. This is in an area which already has serious problems with air quality. Why would you put a 225,000 tons a year waste to energy monster incinerator in the middle of St James Northampton which is at illegal levels of pollution. Rolton Group propose to pay £10,000 to the community in return for a 225,000 tons of waste incineration a year. This reminds me of the early settlers dirty deals with the naive native American Indians. Good advice, like the best steak, is very rare, not baked trash that pollutes our air. With no working examples only failed incinerators and lines of invetsors losing shirts.
|
NoMoInNoHo Graham Croucher on Stuart Linnell at Breakfast, BBC Radio Northampton.
Graham Croucher chairman of st james residents association explains why he left the board of Rolton Kilbrides community interest company Northampton-community-energy-scheme CIC. There was no benefit or interest for the community. Using a CIC is a way for a scheme to look like its a community interest project when really it was a cynical attempt to get local approval to install large trash incinerator. The community is left with the incinerator and the smell and the trash when the developers get the cash. |
|
|
|
Stuart Linnel BBC Radio Northampton Margaret bates Admits she has no example of technology works.
Professor Margaret Bates hired gun and expert and apologist for the waste to energy industry, explains how good the technology Rolton Kilbride is proposing. However when challeneg about health concerns of Nano particulates PM10 and PM 2.5 particulates. That the World health organisation classes these particulates as dangerous and carcinogenic your body cannot deal with them. Margaret Bates had no answer. When it was put to her that the technology of gasification of mixed black bin waster was a failed technology. We had not found one working example on a large commercial scale after talking to experts in Europe, USA or in the UK. Professor Margaret Bates the expert was unable to give one example either. Rolton Kilbride a branch set up by Peter Rolton from Rolton Group state that 'the grandest visions must be grounded in commercial reality' then why are they proposing a technology that has a grounded in reality track record of failure with investors losing thier shirts?. Rolton Group claim to be 'experts in the built environment' so why are they against a public referndum what have they got to hide if thier technology and plans are built by experts in the built environment and thier 'grandest visions must be grounded in commercial reality'? This only makes them more suspicious.Plus being grounded in reality why would you propose a waste incineration plant for 225,000 tons of trash a year in an area which has poor air qulity having maintained illegal levels of NO2 and other toxins for more than 10 years. How can you propose this and claim to have a real world strategy of caring for the community setting up a CIC Community Interest Company, where does the interest Lie hear?
Professor Margaret Bates hired gun and expert and apologist for the waste to energy industry, explains how good the technology Rolton Kilbride is proposing. However when challeneg about health concerns of Nano particulates PM10 and PM 2.5 particulates. That the World health organisation classes these particulates as dangerous and carcinogenic your body cannot deal with them. Margaret Bates had no answer. When it was put to her that the technology of gasification of mixed black bin waster was a failed technology. We had not found one working example on a large commercial scale after talking to experts in Europe, USA or in the UK. Professor Margaret Bates the expert was unable to give one example either. Rolton Kilbride a branch set up by Peter Rolton from Rolton Group state that 'the grandest visions must be grounded in commercial reality' then why are they proposing a technology that has a grounded in reality track record of failure with investors losing thier shirts?. Rolton Group claim to be 'experts in the built environment' so why are they against a public referndum what have they got to hide if thier technology and plans are built by experts in the built environment and thier 'grandest visions must be grounded in commercial reality'? This only makes them more suspicious.Plus being grounded in reality why would you propose a waste incineration plant for 225,000 tons of trash a year in an area which has poor air qulity having maintained illegal levels of NO2 and other toxins for more than 10 years. How can you propose this and claim to have a real world strategy of caring for the community setting up a CIC Community Interest Company, where does the interest Lie hear?
