Main objections
Fundamental reasons why this project should not proceed.
PFA was deposited on this site from Cottam Power Station between the 1970s and 1980s. Asbestos was used during the construction of the power station. The UK government say that PFA lagoons are likely to be contaminated with many chemicals and asbestos, and therefore considered PFA deposits as HAZARDOUS”. Very low levels of asbestos exposure can cause a fatal form of cancer (mesothelioma). According to the Health and Safety Executive, there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. Airborne emissions of asbestos and chemicals hazardous to health will be released as dust affecting air and water quality, wildlife and vegetation when contaiminated PFA deposits are disturbed. There are no mitigation measures which could guarantee prevention, other than leaving the site undisturbed.
RISKS TO NATURE
We need nature more than we need fly ash
1 – A waste of public funds: the restoration of the Lound, Sutton and Bellmoor gravel pits benefitted from funding from a variety of public sources including £1 million of lottery money. It seems perverse to dig it all up again.
2 – Risks to nature and rare species: the Idle Valley wetlands are one of England’s most important birding sites with rare species, passage migrants and large flocks of over-wintering wildfowl.
3 – Flood risk and water pollution: the site abuts a flood risk zone. A single flood or leak could contaminate the river and lakes including the beaver dam.
4 – Loss of amenity: disruption of customary walking trails and leisure pursuits, with associated loss of physical and mental health benefits.
The UK is a signatory to the Convention on Biodiversity which commits to protecting 30% of our land area by 2030. We cannot achieve this if we continue to destroy nature.
The Idle Valley is acknowledged as one of England’s finest birding sites.
RISKS TO HEALTH
Fly ash is known to contain toxic contaminants
5 – An environmental hazard. In addition to its properties when dry as a very fine dust, and when wet as a sludge, fly ash is known to contain dangerous contaminants including asbestos. That’s why they went to such lengths to bury it.
6 – Toxic dust pollution: there is a high risk of ‘fugitive’ dust affecting nearby lakes, properties and people.
7 – A huge volume of traffic: 26,000 extra HGV movements every year for 25 years. That’s one every seven and a half minutes through our rural villages.
8 – More air pollution: Exhaust fumes are a known killer and these trucks will generate 2,224 tonnes of additional emissions every year.
FALSE CLAIMS AND OMISSIONS
Some serious exaggerations
9 – False green claims: it’s not in Retford and it’s not ‘circular economy’.
10 – Misleading claims: fly ash is not used as a one-to-one substitute for cement but in a ratio of 6-35%.
11 – Misleading emissions data: potential emissions reductions are 170kgCO2e per tonne of PFA, not 1,000kg as claimed.
12 – It’s not just the SSSI: the risks are to the entire wetlands ecosystem not just the formal nature reserve.
Cumulative impacts in addition to existing industrial sites on Chainbridge Lane and Bellmoor Industrial Park, as well as the West Burton nuclear fusion laboratory just six miles away, risk changing the fundamental essence of the entire area.
CERTAIN UNCERTAINTY
13 – The experimental nature of the project: means that having disrupted the ecosystem and the neighbourhood, it may not proceed anyway.
14 – Uncertain future: there is no management team to hold to account for risk in the short term and for taking responsibility for restoration 25-40 years in the future.
15 – Alternatives exist: there are alternatives to fly ash, alternatives ways of reducing emissions in cement production, and alternatives to this particular site. There is no alternative to nature: it’s our life support system.
16 – Lack of experience: the project promoter has no previous experience in this type of operation.