County councillors backed the plans for the site near the M40 at Ardley on Monday despite protests and after the first bid was rejected last year.

Members gave permission for the plant to be at the site for 35 years with the countryside restored after that period.

But Banbury MP Tony Baldry has written to the government asking for the decision to be “called in”.

Waste firm Viridor challenged the refusal last year and a public inquiry was held with the planning inspector due to make a decision in January next year.

In the meantime the second application was submitted which has now won approval.

‘Import rubbish’
Mr Baldry raised his concerns in a letter to Eric Pickles, secretary of state for the Department for Communities and Local Government.

He said: “I think it is very difficult on any commonsense approach to consider a building that is estimated to last for at least 35 years as being ‘temporary’.

“I would imagine that any constituents of mine who sought to put up buildings… without planning permission but on the basis that they were ‘temporary structures’ for 35 years, would receive very short shrift from planners.”

He also raised fears that the plant would need to burn more residual waste than Oxfordshire actually had meaning rubbish would be “imported” from elsewhere.

Viridor believes it can turn 300,000 tonnes of waste into electricity every year.

The firm said construction could start as early as next April with the first waste being burnt in 2014.

But campaigners said the fight was far from over with protesters looking into legal challenges.

He will write to Eric Pickles, the Government’s Communities and Local Government Secretary, to urge him to call in the scheme.

Oxfordshire County Council’s planning and regulation committee approved the plan for Ardley Fields on Monday, a year after a similar bid was defeated.

Waste firm Viridor appealed against refusal of its first plan. A planning inquiry into this scheme is due to report next January.

Viridor said work on the plant could start in April next year.

Mr Baldry said the Incinerator was contrary to Cherwell District Council’s local plan, which sets out what development is allowed.

He said: “I will write Mr Pickles to ask him to consider calling in the decision, not least because this has been part of a public inquiry where people made detailed submissions and the appeal included the district council. That process has been overtaken by events.”

Campaigners say they are considering their position. Jon O’Neill, chairman of Ardley Against the Incinerator, said: “We need to know what happens next and how we go forward.”

Labour county councillor John Tanner will next week call for members to back a motion opposing the “blot on the Oxfordshire countryside”.

20 October 2010

Below is the text of a letter Tony Baldry MP has recently written to Eric Pickles MP regarding the Ardley Incinerator.

Ardley Incinerator
You will shortly I anticipate be receiving from the Planning Inspectorate a report in respect of the appeal by Viridor against the decision by Oxfordshire County Council to refuse an Energy From Waste facility at Ardley in my constituency.

The main grounds for the County Council refusing planning permission were that the form and volume of such a plant would be out of keeping with what is essentially a rural area.

It is a self-evident maxim that one can only extract gravel or other minerals where they are to be found and it was for this reason that stone, over many years, has been extracted from Ardley quarry, leaving sizeable voids, as a consequence of which, Ardley over the years has become a waste disposal tip.

However, the landscape over the years has been managed in a relatively sensitive way to seek to ensure that the landfill sites do not detract from the neighbouring countryside.

What is now being proposed is a significant industrial plant of some substantial volume, which will inevitably have an impact upon the amenity of neighbouring communities.

There are also legitimate concerns about the costs of such an incinerator.

This will be the largest single contract, if it goes ahead, ever entered into by Oxfordshire County Council.

However, other waste disposal authorities in the country seem to have come up with far more cost-effective solutions. Once locked into the contract, the County Council will be committed for a considerable number of years, and there doesn’t appear to be in place any mechanism that seeks to ensure that the County Council or Council Tax payers are getting the best value for money.

To be effective, such an Energy From Waste facility needs a constant and substantial feed stock. Even if there is a contract in place to take all of Oxfordshire’s surplus waste, that is still likely to leave this facility short of feed stock, as a consequence of which we are likely to see waste and rubbish being driven from other parts of the country to come to Ardley.

This does not appear to be particularly green. Moreover, not very far away as the crow flies, Buckinghamshire County Council are proposing to have an Energy From Waste facility at Calvert.

So if both of these facilities are seeking to attract waste from elsewhere in the country, we are likely to see not insignificant heavy lorry traffic movements being generated around Bicester as a consequence of these two developments. Traffic around Bicester is already congested and this is almost certainly going to make matters worse.

Tony Baldry

Richard Benyon: That is certainly part of our waste review and it is also part of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s review of the planning process, because that process must be at the heart of obtaining energy from waste. I hope that we can give assurances that the key driver in all these areas will be sustainable development, and how we manage waste will be at the heart of that. Energy from waste is part of the mix, but it must always remain a less-favoured solution than recycling. These matters have to be resolved locally, but the Department can provide a clear driver and clear strategy.

Tony Baldry has written to Oxfordshire County Council’s chief executive Joanna Simons urging the authority to refuse Viridor’s application.

The firm recently submitted a second application for a £100m incinerator at Ardley Fields, despite the first application due to be heard at a public inquiry in July.

Mr Baldry’s move comes weeks after Ardley With Fewcott Parish council penned a similar letter to the council chief.

They claimed Viridor’s latest application was almost the same at the original, and it should not be looked at until after the public inquiry.

The company’s first application was unanimously rejected last year by Oxfordshire County Council’s planning committee, and Viridor opted to go to appeal.

Mr Baldry’s letter said the second application made minor changes by extending the life of the incinerator to 35 years and varied how the firm would use any residual heat.

He said: “It is very difficult to see how either of these grounds are a material difference from the original planning application.

“Parliament introduced legislation to prevent developers making multiple planning applications, simply in an attempt to wear down local authorities, planning officers and councillors.

“Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Oxfordshire County Council have the right to refuse this second planning application if it is deemed to be ‘similar to another’.

“It is clear that this second application is substantially the same as the first application, and can I urge the county council to decline to accept the application.”

Ian Corkin, of Ardley with Fewcott Parish Council, welcomed the move.

He said: “We are pleased to have Tony’s support, not only as our local MP, but also as a former planning minister. It is a welcome endorsement of our assertion that OCC should reject the second application.”

Oxfordshire County Council spokesman Owen Morton reiterated a decision over the application would be made when it came before the planning committee. Robert Ryan, Viridor project manager, said: “We are confident that the documents submitted to the planning authority stressed the strong need for the facility and addresses issues previously raised.”

In Viridor’s new application, no changes have been made to the proposed capacity and size of the facility at Ardley, but the company said it had looked at the need of the facility, and ways heat and power from the site could be utilised, and had revised the landfill aspects of the scheme.

If it is given the go-ahead, the plant will burn up to 300,000 tonnes of non-recyclable waste every year and will produce enough electricity to power 60 per cent of homes across the Cherwell district.

Tony Baldry sent a letter to council chief executive Joanna Simons urging the authority to refuse Viridor’s application.

The firm recently submitted a second application for a £100m incinerator at Ardley Fields, near Bicester, despite the first application being the subject of a public inquiry due to be held in July.

Mr Baldry’s move comes weeks after Ardley With Fewcott Parish Council penned a similar letter to the council chief.

They claimed Viridor’s latest application was almost the same at the original and should not be looked at until after the public inquiry.

The company’s first application was unanimously rejected last year by the county’s planning committee and Viridor opted to go to appeal.

Mr Baldry’s letter said the second application made minor changes by extending the life of the incinerator to 35 years and varied how the firm would use any residual heat.

He said: “It’s very difficult to see how either of these grounds are a material difference from the original planning application.

“Parliament introduced legislation to prevent developers making multiple planning applications, simply in an attempt to wear down local authorities, planning officers and councillors.

“Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Oxfordshire County Council has the right to refuse this second planning application if it is deemed to be ‘similar to another’.

“It is clear that this second application is substantially the same as the first application and I urge the council not to accept it.”

Ian Corkin, of Ardley with Fewcott Parish Council, welcomed the news.

He said: “We’re pleased we have Tony’s support, not only as our local MP, but also as a former planning minister.

“It’s a welcome endorsement to our assertion that the council should reject the second application.”

County council spokesman Owen Morton said a decision would be made when the application came before the planning committee.

Viridor project manager Robert Ryan said: “We are confident the documents submitted to the planning authority stress the strong need for the facility and address issues previously raised.”

In Viridor’s new application, no changes have been made to the proposed capacity and size of the plant at Ardley. But the company said it had looked at demand, and ways heat and power from the site could be utilised. It had also revised landfill aspects of the scheme.

If it is given the go-ahead, the plant could burn up to 300,000 tonnes of non- recyclable waste every year and provide about 21 per cent of the district’s electricity.

As you will recall, County Councillors rejected the planning application by Viridor to establish a waste incinerator at Ardley, and that matter now is the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State, with the appeal I understand due to be heard by an inspector in July.

Viridor have subsequently made a further planning application which, as I understand it, does not differ materially from the original planning application, save that Viridor are now asking for greater longevity on the site – I understand some 35 years – and variations on how they may use any residual heat.

It is very difficult to see how either of these grounds are a material difference from the original planning application.

As you will know, Parliament introduced legislation to prevent developers making multiple planning applications, simply in an attempt to wear down Local Authorities, planning officers and Councillors. Under Section 70 B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Oxfordshire County Council have the right to refuse this second planning application if it is deemed to be “similar to another”.

Clearly the land to which the application relates is the same, or substantially the same, and the development is clearly the same, or substantially the same.

It is clear that this second application is substantially the same as the first application and can I urge the County Council to decline to accept the application?

Apart from anything else, it cannot be good public policy simultaneously for an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to be having to consider one planning application whilst at the same time the County Council are having to consider a similar planning application relating to the same processes on the same land, particularly as I understand it nothing in this new planning application deals with the basis on which the initial planning application was rejected by County Councillors.

Can I suggest, therefore, that the second planning application should be rejected in accordance with the provisions on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and rejected on sound planning and public policy grounds.

Tony Baldry