This is a Statement from People Against IncineratioN

The *term 'energy recovery' is clearly misleading and clearly inaccurate*.

For the proposed incinerator to qualify as a "recovery" operation under Annex II on the revision of the Waste Framework Directive not only would Veolia have to lay pipes to identified (actual) heat users, but these users would need to have year-round use of the heat. Even so the 65% efficiency criterion is impossible to meet without using the heat. In other words, the proposal is technically for a waste disposal facility, and should be located at bottom of the waste hierarchy.

· According to the Environment Agencies (EA)  Barbara Young and Tricia Henton (Director of Environment Protection), in a recent letter to Paddy Tipping MP: "In the Waste Strategy 2007 it is proposed to use *Enhanced Capital Allowances and Renewable Obligation Certificates to promote Combined Heat and Power schemes*. Most of these incentives are linked to new technologies like *anaerobic digestion*. We support the Waste Strategy recommendation that new plants should be carefully sited in order to maximise opportunities for CHP". In relation to Rufford/Rainworth *this has obviously not been the case*.

· Again, as the *EU's Advocate General* puts it: "the decisive question is whether the waste is used for a genuine purpose: if it were not available for a given operation, would that operation none the less be carried out using some other material? In the case of waste being incinerated in a plant developed for that purpose, the answer to that question is clearly "no": *in the absence of available waste, there would be no incineration*."

· Additionally, Veolia's description of the site, using the term '*brownfield*' and avoiding the term '*greenfield*' is also clearly misleading and clearly inaccurate. Consultation based on *misleading and inaccurate information may be found to be invalid* (e.g. should the application be called in and a *public inquiry* be established). Whether or not Paddy Tipping's request for a public enquiry is recognised as valid by the Secretary of State, Notts County Council should be seen by all parties to be *acting honourably*. Allowing Veolia to mislead and misinform consultees is hardly a promising start to this consultation process!

· We urge NCC to rectify matters by ensuring that any public advertisements paid for by Notts County Council avoids misleading and misinforming potential consultees, and that NCC goes out of its way to highlight that the application is:

a. *a departure from the Local Plan*

b. for a development on *greenfield land*, earmarked for *restoration to heathland and woodland*, and subject to a *restoration condition* to this effect c. for a *waste disposal (incineration) facility*, and d. the notion the waste arising is on the increase in Nottinghamshire is also erroneous - the latest information from NCC demonstrates that *waste levels are stable and falling* (down from 450,073 in 2001/02 to 441,626 in 2005/06 and further to about 440,000 tonnes in 2006/07)

· Finally, we ask that NCC draws these matter to the attention of all potential consultees who receive copies of the application.