Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
St Clair
,
New South Wales
Message
I oppose plans to build an Energy from Waste plant at Eastern Creek.
There are still significant information shortfalls in the EIS, including the source of the waste and the inability of the applicant to guarantee procedures and processes that satisfactorily demonstrate how all industrial waste will be appropriately sorted.
They are still to guarantee that their predictions of low emissions are valid and achievable.
The incinerator proposal fails to comply with the area's zoning requirements and is therefore prohibited.
It will have a significant impact on critically endangered ecological communities.
Furthermore the location and design of the Energy from Waste plant fails to encourage a high standard of development.
There are still significant information shortfalls in the EIS, including the source of the waste and the inability of the applicant to guarantee procedures and processes that satisfactorily demonstrate how all industrial waste will be appropriately sorted.
They are still to guarantee that their predictions of low emissions are valid and achievable.
The incinerator proposal fails to comply with the area's zoning requirements and is therefore prohibited.
It will have a significant impact on critically endangered ecological communities.
Furthermore the location and design of the Energy from Waste plant fails to encourage a high standard of development.
Gillian Reffell
Object
Gillian Reffell
Object
Summer Hill
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to any approval of an energy from waste / incinerator in Blacktown.
Western Sydney already suffers from Sydney's worst air quality - you only have to look at the EPA monitoring to see that.
There is an airport proposed for western Sydney which will SIGNIFICANTLY further reduce the air quality of that part of the region.
The government should not be adding another air pollution source into an already compromised area.
If you want to have an incinerator put it out of the Sydney air shed.
I OBJECT to any approval of this proposal.
Western Sydney already suffers from Sydney's worst air quality - you only have to look at the EPA monitoring to see that.
There is an airport proposed for western Sydney which will SIGNIFICANTLY further reduce the air quality of that part of the region.
The government should not be adding another air pollution source into an already compromised area.
If you want to have an incinerator put it out of the Sydney air shed.
I OBJECT to any approval of this proposal.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Jamisontown
,
New South Wales
Message
The Next Generation Energy from Waste Facility, Eastern Creek - I object to this.
As per the submission by the NSW Health Western Sydney Local Health District I am extremely concerned about the potential impact of the proposed incinerator on local population health. The incinerator would greatly increase pollutants in the air as well as increase the level of pollutants in the environment, leading to contamination of food and drinking water. The proposed incinerator would therefore adversely impact on the local Prospect Reservoir which is a major catchment for Sydney's drinking water. Air quality would also be affected by a number of pollutants from the incinerator, for example acid gases, dioxins and toxic metals. Dioxin is known to be a highly toxic compound which may cause cancer and neurological damage, and disrupt reproductive systems, thyroid systems, respiratory systems, etc. (Zafar, 2008). The Asthma Foundation NSW pointed out in their 2006 submission for the "Inquiry into and report on the health impacts of air pollution in the Sydney Basin" that air pollutants such as airborne particles, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and ozone are common triggers for asthma and contribute to increased hospitalisations and mortality for people with asthma. The location of the proposed incinerator is close to highly populated and expanding residential areas and therefore there would be a significant impact on the health of those residing in Western Sydney. Western Sydney is already well known as an area of poor air quality owing to the geography of the land, being at the base of the Blue Mountains with air pollutants collecting in this area. Therefore any further air pollution from an incinerator would be significant for the health of this local population. It is also worth noting that respiratory illness such as asthma is already prevalent in Western Sydney as a result of the poor air quality and therefore health costs to the population and the government would be exacerbated by the proposed incinerator.
As stated by Sharma et al (2013), incinerators release a wide variety of pollutants depending on the composition of the waste, which leads to health deterioration and environmental degradation. These significant pollutants emitted include particulate matter, metals, acid gases, oxides of nitrogen, and sulphur, as well as countless other substances of unknown toxicity. The process of waste incineration poses a significant threat to public health and the environment. The major impact on health is a higher incidence of cancer and respiratory symptoms. Other potential effects are congenital abnormalities, hormonal defects, and increase in sex ratio. The effect on the environment includes global warming, acidification, photochemical ozone or smog formation and human and animal toxicity. Thus, there is a need to develop and use more environmentally friendly technologies (Sharma et al, 2013).
In light of the recent UN summit for climate change I would have thought that Australia would be making more effort to investigate alternative options which have less environmental impacts to address its population needs. The Australian government is saying they want to reduce our ecological footprint however by developments such as the proposed incinerator they would be adversely impacting air quality, environment, health of the population, etc.
Sharma R, Sharma V, Sharma M, Sharma R (2013) The impact of incinerators on human health and environment. In Reviews on Environmental Health, 2013; 28(1):67-72. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23612530
Zafar, S (2008) NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF INCINERATION-BASED WASTE-TO-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY. In Alternative Energy News. http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/negative-impacts-waste-to-energy/
As per the submission by the NSW Health Western Sydney Local Health District I am extremely concerned about the potential impact of the proposed incinerator on local population health. The incinerator would greatly increase pollutants in the air as well as increase the level of pollutants in the environment, leading to contamination of food and drinking water. The proposed incinerator would therefore adversely impact on the local Prospect Reservoir which is a major catchment for Sydney's drinking water. Air quality would also be affected by a number of pollutants from the incinerator, for example acid gases, dioxins and toxic metals. Dioxin is known to be a highly toxic compound which may cause cancer and neurological damage, and disrupt reproductive systems, thyroid systems, respiratory systems, etc. (Zafar, 2008). The Asthma Foundation NSW pointed out in their 2006 submission for the "Inquiry into and report on the health impacts of air pollution in the Sydney Basin" that air pollutants such as airborne particles, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and ozone are common triggers for asthma and contribute to increased hospitalisations and mortality for people with asthma. The location of the proposed incinerator is close to highly populated and expanding residential areas and therefore there would be a significant impact on the health of those residing in Western Sydney. Western Sydney is already well known as an area of poor air quality owing to the geography of the land, being at the base of the Blue Mountains with air pollutants collecting in this area. Therefore any further air pollution from an incinerator would be significant for the health of this local population. It is also worth noting that respiratory illness such as asthma is already prevalent in Western Sydney as a result of the poor air quality and therefore health costs to the population and the government would be exacerbated by the proposed incinerator.
As stated by Sharma et al (2013), incinerators release a wide variety of pollutants depending on the composition of the waste, which leads to health deterioration and environmental degradation. These significant pollutants emitted include particulate matter, metals, acid gases, oxides of nitrogen, and sulphur, as well as countless other substances of unknown toxicity. The process of waste incineration poses a significant threat to public health and the environment. The major impact on health is a higher incidence of cancer and respiratory symptoms. Other potential effects are congenital abnormalities, hormonal defects, and increase in sex ratio. The effect on the environment includes global warming, acidification, photochemical ozone or smog formation and human and animal toxicity. Thus, there is a need to develop and use more environmentally friendly technologies (Sharma et al, 2013).
In light of the recent UN summit for climate change I would have thought that Australia would be making more effort to investigate alternative options which have less environmental impacts to address its population needs. The Australian government is saying they want to reduce our ecological footprint however by developments such as the proposed incinerator they would be adversely impacting air quality, environment, health of the population, etc.
Sharma R, Sharma V, Sharma M, Sharma R (2013) The impact of incinerators on human health and environment. In Reviews on Environmental Health, 2013; 28(1):67-72. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23612530
Zafar, S (2008) NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF INCINERATION-BASED WASTE-TO-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY. In Alternative Energy News. http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/negative-impacts-waste-to-energy/
Maria Kristina Gutierrez
Object
Maria Kristina Gutierrez
Object
Doonside
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the World's Largest Incinerator being built in the heart of Western Sydney by a company whose CEO has a reputation for infringements with the EPA.
This is near where I lived, not only will it be a health hazzard, but also will bring the value of our property down. Everything bad is happening to Western Sydney already eg. trains are super packed, even though we bring so much taxes to NSW!!!
It's time the NSW Gov does something to improve Western Sydney, not worsen it.
This is near where I lived, not only will it be a health hazzard, but also will bring the value of our property down. Everything bad is happening to Western Sydney already eg. trains are super packed, even though we bring so much taxes to NSW!!!
It's time the NSW Gov does something to improve Western Sydney, not worsen it.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Dharruk
,
New South Wales
Message
I understand that this would help with cutting down waste and landfill but why put it in such a populated area. What sort of life are we going to leave for our future generations. We need to start looking after this earth or they will have nothing.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Minchinbury
,
New South Wales
Message
25th February 2017
For the attention of NSW Government, Department of Planning and Environment.
Dear Sir / Madam,
I strongly oppose to the propose plan to develop a large incinerator facility (energy from waste plant) at Eastern Creek by the Next Generation company, application number: SSD 6236, location: Honeycomb Drive, Eastern Creek, NSW.
The facility to be built is a large incinerator plant which will affect the community in the vastly surrounding area. My objections based on the following grounds:
1. There are still gaps in the EIS that I have significant concerns about, including the source of the waste and the inability of the applicant to guarantee procedures and processes that satisfactorily demonstrate how all waste will be satisfactorily sorted.
2. What measures will be in place to ensure hazardous materials from being concealed in the waste stream and are not mixed in with the third party waste.
3. The EIS has not verified that the predicted emissions are valid and achievable.
4. The proposal fails to meet the objectives of the IN1 zone and is therefore prohibited.
5. The proposal will have a significant impact on critically endangered ecological communities.
6. The proposal as submitted fails to promote biological diversity.
7. The location and design of the EFW plant fails to encourage a high standard of development.
8. The following issues have not been addressed satisfactorily:
The validity of the proposal as a solution to waste disposal.
Waste management issues, including validity of the waste sources, inadequate sorting processes, incineration of material that can be recycled, lack of accountability to resource recovery rates and a plan for ash processing.
Air quality concerns, including lack of detail on actual pollutants, clarity on emission limits and odour assessments and how these will be monitored.
Human health concerns, including the accuracy of the assessment and whether it is valid and achievable, and whether it has been reviewed and assessed as satisfactory by NSW Health.
Noise concerns, including gaps in the acousticassessment.
Soil, water and drainage concerns for the site, including lack of detail to support some of the activities proposed, lack of flood modelling, salinity and stormwater treatment concerns.
Plume rise assessment concerns and the potential impacts on aviation airspace. Confirmation the technology is appropriate to the Australian setting.
Concerns about the EPA's licensing fees and its ability to regulate and monitor the plant, its ability to make the operator accountable if it does not meet the predicted emission levels, and requirements to upgrade as technology improves.
The appropriateness of the proponent and operator to hold an environmental protection licence.
A lack of commitment by the proponent to:
ISO 14001 environmental certification
A community liaison group
A visitor information centre
Funding local community improvements and enhancement
Community forums and holding an annual open day
Payment of a host fee.
Significant biodiversity concerns, including the destruction of River-flat Eucalyptus Forest, placing it at risk of extinction in the local area.
Lack of conservation management to preserve artefacts found on the site and ongoing conservation management.
Concerns with road designs.
Visual impact of the site and the applicant's minimalist approach to Council's repeated concerns about design.
The possibility of the incinerator residual plume pollution affecting the health of greater Sydney city region as its close proximity location to the Sydney Prospect Water Resevoir.
For the attention of NSW Government, Department of Planning and Environment.
Dear Sir / Madam,
I strongly oppose to the propose plan to develop a large incinerator facility (energy from waste plant) at Eastern Creek by the Next Generation company, application number: SSD 6236, location: Honeycomb Drive, Eastern Creek, NSW.
The facility to be built is a large incinerator plant which will affect the community in the vastly surrounding area. My objections based on the following grounds:
1. There are still gaps in the EIS that I have significant concerns about, including the source of the waste and the inability of the applicant to guarantee procedures and processes that satisfactorily demonstrate how all waste will be satisfactorily sorted.
2. What measures will be in place to ensure hazardous materials from being concealed in the waste stream and are not mixed in with the third party waste.
3. The EIS has not verified that the predicted emissions are valid and achievable.
4. The proposal fails to meet the objectives of the IN1 zone and is therefore prohibited.
5. The proposal will have a significant impact on critically endangered ecological communities.
6. The proposal as submitted fails to promote biological diversity.
7. The location and design of the EFW plant fails to encourage a high standard of development.
8. The following issues have not been addressed satisfactorily:
The validity of the proposal as a solution to waste disposal.
Waste management issues, including validity of the waste sources, inadequate sorting processes, incineration of material that can be recycled, lack of accountability to resource recovery rates and a plan for ash processing.
Air quality concerns, including lack of detail on actual pollutants, clarity on emission limits and odour assessments and how these will be monitored.
Human health concerns, including the accuracy of the assessment and whether it is valid and achievable, and whether it has been reviewed and assessed as satisfactory by NSW Health.
Noise concerns, including gaps in the acousticassessment.
Soil, water and drainage concerns for the site, including lack of detail to support some of the activities proposed, lack of flood modelling, salinity and stormwater treatment concerns.
Plume rise assessment concerns and the potential impacts on aviation airspace. Confirmation the technology is appropriate to the Australian setting.
Concerns about the EPA's licensing fees and its ability to regulate and monitor the plant, its ability to make the operator accountable if it does not meet the predicted emission levels, and requirements to upgrade as technology improves.
The appropriateness of the proponent and operator to hold an environmental protection licence.
A lack of commitment by the proponent to:
ISO 14001 environmental certification
A community liaison group
A visitor information centre
Funding local community improvements and enhancement
Community forums and holding an annual open day
Payment of a host fee.
Significant biodiversity concerns, including the destruction of River-flat Eucalyptus Forest, placing it at risk of extinction in the local area.
Lack of conservation management to preserve artefacts found on the site and ongoing conservation management.
Concerns with road designs.
Visual impact of the site and the applicant's minimalist approach to Council's repeated concerns about design.
The possibility of the incinerator residual plume pollution affecting the health of greater Sydney city region as its close proximity location to the Sydney Prospect Water Resevoir.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Marayong
,
New South Wales
Message
I oppose plans to build an Energy from Waste plant at Eastern Creek.
There are still significant information shortfalls in the EIS, including the source of the waste and the inability of the applicant to guarantee procedures and processes that satisfactorily demonstrate how all industrial waste will be appropriately sorted.
They are still to guarantee that their predictions of low emissions are valid and achievable.
The incinerator proposal fails to comply with the area's zoning requirements and is therefore prohibited.
It will have a significant impact on critically endangered ecological communities.
Furthermore the location and design of the Energy from Waste plant fails to encourage a high standard of development.
There are still significant information shortfalls in the EIS, including the source of the waste and the inability of the applicant to guarantee procedures and processes that satisfactorily demonstrate how all industrial waste will be appropriately sorted.
They are still to guarantee that their predictions of low emissions are valid and achievable.
The incinerator proposal fails to comply with the area's zoning requirements and is therefore prohibited.
It will have a significant impact on critically endangered ecological communities.
Furthermore the location and design of the Energy from Waste plant fails to encourage a high standard of development.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Minchinbury
,
New South Wales
Message
25th February 2017
For the attention of NSW Government, Department of Planning and Environment.
Dear Sir / Madam,
I strongly oppose to the propose plan to develop a large incinerator facility (energy from waste plant) at Eastern Creek by the Next Generation company, application number: SSD 6236, location: Honeycomb Drive, Eastern Creek, NSW.
The facility to be built is a large incinerator plant which will affect the community in the vastly surrounding area. My objections based on the following grounds:
1. There are still gaps in the EIS that I have significant concerns about, including the source of the waste and the inability of the applicant to guarantee procedures and processes that satisfactorily demonstrate how all waste will be satisfactorily sorted.
2. What measures will be in place to ensure hazardous materials from being concealed in the waste stream and are not mixed in with the third party waste.
3. The EIS has not verified that the predicted emissions are valid and achievable.
4. The proposal fails to meet the objectives of the IN1 zone and is therefore prohibited.
5. The proposal will have a significant impact on critically endangered ecological communities.
6. The proposal as submitted fails to promote biological diversity.
7. The location and design of the EFW plant fails to encourage a high standard of development.
8. The following issues have not been addressed satisfactorily:
The validity of the proposal as a solution to waste disposal.
Waste management issues, including validity of the waste sources, inadequate sorting processes, incineration of material that can be recycled, lack of accountability to resource recovery rates and a plan for ash processing.
Air quality concerns, including lack of detail on actual pollutants, clarity on emission limits and odour assessments and how these will be monitored.
Human health concerns, including the accuracy of the assessment and whether it is valid and achievable, and whether it has been reviewed and assessed as satisfactory by NSW Health.
Noise concerns, including gaps in the acousticassessment.
Soil, water and drainage concerns for the site, including lack of detail to support some of the activities proposed, lack of flood modelling, salinity and stormwater treatment concerns.
Plume rise assessment concerns and the potential impacts on aviation airspace. Confirmation the technology is appropriate to the Australian setting.
Concerns about the EPA's licensing fees and its ability to regulate and monitor the plant, its ability to make the operator accountable if it does not meet the predicted emission levels, and requirements to upgrade as technology improves.
The appropriateness of the proponent and operator to hold an environmental protection licence.
A lack of commitment by the proponent to:
ISO 14001 environmental certification
A community liaison group
A visitor information centre
Funding local community improvements and enhancement
Community forums and holding an annual open day
Payment of a host fee.
Significant biodiversity concerns, including the destruction of River-flat Eucalyptus Forest, placing it at risk of extinction in the local area.
Lack of conservation management to preserve artefacts found on the site and ongoing conservation management.
Concerns with road designs.
Visual impact of the site and the applicant's minimalist approach to Council's repeated concerns about design.
The possibility of the incinerator residual plume pollution affecting the health of greater Sydney city region as its close proximity location to the Sydney Prospect Water Resevoir.
For the attention of NSW Government, Department of Planning and Environment.
Dear Sir / Madam,
I strongly oppose to the propose plan to develop a large incinerator facility (energy from waste plant) at Eastern Creek by the Next Generation company, application number: SSD 6236, location: Honeycomb Drive, Eastern Creek, NSW.
The facility to be built is a large incinerator plant which will affect the community in the vastly surrounding area. My objections based on the following grounds:
1. There are still gaps in the EIS that I have significant concerns about, including the source of the waste and the inability of the applicant to guarantee procedures and processes that satisfactorily demonstrate how all waste will be satisfactorily sorted.
2. What measures will be in place to ensure hazardous materials from being concealed in the waste stream and are not mixed in with the third party waste.
3. The EIS has not verified that the predicted emissions are valid and achievable.
4. The proposal fails to meet the objectives of the IN1 zone and is therefore prohibited.
5. The proposal will have a significant impact on critically endangered ecological communities.
6. The proposal as submitted fails to promote biological diversity.
7. The location and design of the EFW plant fails to encourage a high standard of development.
8. The following issues have not been addressed satisfactorily:
The validity of the proposal as a solution to waste disposal.
Waste management issues, including validity of the waste sources, inadequate sorting processes, incineration of material that can be recycled, lack of accountability to resource recovery rates and a plan for ash processing.
Air quality concerns, including lack of detail on actual pollutants, clarity on emission limits and odour assessments and how these will be monitored.
Human health concerns, including the accuracy of the assessment and whether it is valid and achievable, and whether it has been reviewed and assessed as satisfactory by NSW Health.
Noise concerns, including gaps in the acousticassessment.
Soil, water and drainage concerns for the site, including lack of detail to support some of the activities proposed, lack of flood modelling, salinity and stormwater treatment concerns.
Plume rise assessment concerns and the potential impacts on aviation airspace. Confirmation the technology is appropriate to the Australian setting.
Concerns about the EPA's licensing fees and its ability to regulate and monitor the plant, its ability to make the operator accountable if it does not meet the predicted emission levels, and requirements to upgrade as technology improves.
The appropriateness of the proponent and operator to hold an environmental protection licence.
A lack of commitment by the proponent to:
ISO 14001 environmental certification
A community liaison group
A visitor information centre
Funding local community improvements and enhancement
Community forums and holding an annual open day
Payment of a host fee.
Significant biodiversity concerns, including the destruction of River-flat Eucalyptus Forest, placing it at risk of extinction in the local area.
Lack of conservation management to preserve artefacts found on the site and ongoing conservation management.
Concerns with road designs.
Visual impact of the site and the applicant's minimalist approach to Council's repeated concerns about design.
The possibility of the incinerator residual plume pollution affecting the health of greater Sydney city region as its close proximity location to the Sydney Prospect Water Resevoir.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LALOR PARK
,
New South Wales
Message
The fact that Ian Malouf proposes to operate an Incinerator on a site where he already owns two other waste management facilities will enable non transparency of the waste being burnt. How will the Government and families living in the area be able to trust that Ian Malouf and The Next Generation will act under EPA guidelines? His companies Dial a Dump, Alexandria Landfill, Boiling Pty Ltd (owned by Ian Malouf's wife) & others, have a history of illegally disposing of asbestos and failing to comply with EPA cleanup directives.
Residents in Erskine park saw Alexandria Landfill move Asbestos from its St Peters site (now aquired by Westconnect, which cost the Government 50 million to clean up the site)
The site proposed for The Next Generation NSW Pty Ltd is also the location of Genesis Xero Waste & a landfill also owned by Ian Malouf. These facilities will have direct synergies allowing the unseen transfer of waste via an underground culvert under a public roadway. This is a worry and promotes non transparency. How will the Government be able to monitor what is actually burnt in the incinerator?
Ian Malouf and the Next Generation NSW Pty Ltd can not be trusted to operate within the terms of any agreement as shown by the history of environmental breaches made by Dial a Dump and companies owned by his wife and mother-in-law. Once such incident putting his own children at risk from asbestos contamination at his mother-in-law's home. (dirt contaminated with asbestos was laid across the home)
Ian Malouf was the subject of an EPA investigation in 2011 for being linked to companies that were being investigated for serious pollution offenses. http://econews.com.au/10902/nsw-premier-confirms-dump-boss-epa-investigation/
I cannot support this project as it will put the health of families at risk. If Ian Malouf doesn't care about contaminating his own family with asbestos why would he do the right thing by Western Sydney families. This man cannot be trusted to operate a company within the law.
Enabling this to go ahead would be a receipy for disaster. It can't go ahead. The risks are just to great.
Residents in Erskine park saw Alexandria Landfill move Asbestos from its St Peters site (now aquired by Westconnect, which cost the Government 50 million to clean up the site)
The site proposed for The Next Generation NSW Pty Ltd is also the location of Genesis Xero Waste & a landfill also owned by Ian Malouf. These facilities will have direct synergies allowing the unseen transfer of waste via an underground culvert under a public roadway. This is a worry and promotes non transparency. How will the Government be able to monitor what is actually burnt in the incinerator?
Ian Malouf and the Next Generation NSW Pty Ltd can not be trusted to operate within the terms of any agreement as shown by the history of environmental breaches made by Dial a Dump and companies owned by his wife and mother-in-law. Once such incident putting his own children at risk from asbestos contamination at his mother-in-law's home. (dirt contaminated with asbestos was laid across the home)
Ian Malouf was the subject of an EPA investigation in 2011 for being linked to companies that were being investigated for serious pollution offenses. http://econews.com.au/10902/nsw-premier-confirms-dump-boss-epa-investigation/
I cannot support this project as it will put the health of families at risk. If Ian Malouf doesn't care about contaminating his own family with asbestos why would he do the right thing by Western Sydney families. This man cannot be trusted to operate a company within the law.
Enabling this to go ahead would be a receipy for disaster. It can't go ahead. The risks are just to great.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Greystanes
,
New South Wales
Message
I oppose plans to build an Energy from Waste plant at Eastern Creek.
There are still significant information shortfalls in the EIS, including the source of the waste and the inability of the applicant to guarantee procedures and processes that satisfactorily demonstrate how all industrial waste will be appropriately sorted.
They are still to guarantee that their predictions of low emissions are valid and achievable.
The incinerator proposal fails to comply with the area's zoning requirements and is therefore prohibited.
It will have a significant impact on critically endangered ecological communities.
Furthermore the location and design of the Energy from Waste plant fails to encourage a high standard of development.
There are still significant information shortfalls in the EIS, including the source of the waste and the inability of the applicant to guarantee procedures and processes that satisfactorily demonstrate how all industrial waste will be appropriately sorted.
They are still to guarantee that their predictions of low emissions are valid and achievable.
The incinerator proposal fails to comply with the area's zoning requirements and is therefore prohibited.
It will have a significant impact on critically endangered ecological communities.
Furthermore the location and design of the Energy from Waste plant fails to encourage a high standard of development.