Hafod Quarry

Pooch Breaches Hafod Security

2007-09-28T08:31:00.000+01:00

Despite reassurances from ‘our’ politicians, the Environment Agency and Murky Waste that security the Hafod Landfill Site would be improved it was again breeched last night. The intrepid intruder managed to sneak on site unnoticed and remain there all night, escaping the attention of the state of the art video monitoring system.

When a waste monkey opened the gate this morning the dastardly intruder made his bid for freedom; he is currently being debugged by the protest group whilst enjoying a nice plate of Lincolnshire Sausages.

Well done Pooch, you’re a star.

Truly Amazing!

2007-09-10T14:04:00.000+01:00

Wow!

Little Chef Profits Boost!

2007-09-07T16:29:00.001+01:00

Confusion was in the air at the gates of Hafod this morning as the waste monkeys left without tipping! As the protesters speculated as to the reason, Dull and his mates hurried along to the Little Chef. Grandad said he thought he’d passed a sign saying Dull was to have an extra egg on his Olympic breakfast; the waste monkeys excitedly turned their trucks and followed Dull. And like the star over the stable in Bethlehem there it was, a sign....

(They'd even painted it blue to match his truck, ah bless!)

This can’t be right can it?

2007-08-14T20:37:00.000+01:00

Not even Dull and Co can defend sending a man to clean an arterial road with a domestic dust pan and brush, can they?

Acceptable or unacceptable?

2007-08-08T19:32:00.000+01:00

This email was sent last week to Mr Allan (managing director of MWH), local politicians and officers of WCBC and Environment Agency Wales.

The attached photographs were taken this morning, 02/08/07, outside Hafod landfill site and show large quantities of wet clay strewn all over the B5426 outside the landfill gates.

Please reply to this email indicating if you personally think this amount of debris on the road is acceptable or not acceptable.

If you do not respond by Wednesday 08/08/07 I will assume you regard the situation as acceptable.

The responses will be posted here and on www.hafodaction.org.uk shortly!

One to go!

2007-08-08T05:49:00.000+01:00

Two days to go!

2007-08-07T05:40:00.000+01:00

Three days to go!

2007-08-06T19:59:00.000+01:00

Four days to go!

2007-08-05T20:40:00.001+01:00

There's Something Not Quite Right Here!

2007-07-19T08:30:00.000+01:00

And what action was taken against a slow moving vehicle driving the wrong way up the public highway without any warning lights? Yeah, you've guessed ... NONE!

Justice, MWH Style!

Discuss!

2007-07-17T20:32:00.001+01:00

We have five layers of democracy (Care to share details of your expenses anyone?), a billion pound plus Environment Agency and a local Planning Department which in 2006/07 cost us over £1.5 million!

How the hell have we ended up with this - somebody in public life has taken their eye off the ball somewhere!

Bird Man of Hafod!

2007-07-13T09:08:00.001+01:00

From the MWH website ...

The Group recognises that its employees are its biggest asset and is an accredited Investors in People organisation. The Group's Training and Development Policy ensures its employees are provided with opportunities for training, not only to ensure they have the correct knowledge and expertise to carry out their job safely and efficiently, but to promote personal development.

Yeah, right!

No traffic issues?

2007-07-10T19:38:00.000+01:00

Simple question for WCBC planning department or Mr Allan, not you Dull, why are members of the public forced to queue up behind the MWH sweeper all day?

Name one other company in the county that causes a tail back like the one above every single day?

Spot the Difference!

2007-07-06T09:22:00.001+01:00

Trinny and Susannah fans excitedly gathered at the gates of Hafod Landfill Site this morning to witness the mother of all makeovers! And out he popped, sparkling! New signs, working lights and beautifully clean! I almost fancied him myself.

And from the front - flashing lights to warn unsuspecting drivers of the dangers of a slow moving sweeper at a hump backed bridge / cross roads on a main arterial route to the A483.

You too could enjoy a makeover; visit www.trinnyandsusannah.com

Perhaps they could educate Dull, employ Mark and give Numpty2 some working rear warning lights (VOSA are on to that as we speak!).

Happy Bidding!

2007-07-04T19:42:00.002+01:00

We are sure that Tigger, Sponge Bob, Zebra and that rather excited little thing that dances along side him, must really brighten up your working day as you drive your rubbish about.

Then we realised why the Sweeper Driver always looks so glum; his cab lacks the paraphernalia that makes such an obvious difference to your general happiness at work.

So we’ve been on E Bay and sourced the perfect cab friend!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190127651621

State of the art CCTV and vigilant staff?

2007-06-29T19:47:00.000+01:00

We are constantly assured that any children straying onto Hafod landfill will not be harmed because the state of the art CCTV and vigilant staff will spot them instantly and apprehend them.

This morning us eagle eyed protestors noticed immediately that the lifebuoy was missing off the pole by the lagoon, but the site staff appear to be blissfully unaware on their morning checks.

Well done!

Coincidence?

2007-06-25T13:01:00.001+01:00

There appears to be an awful lot of coincidences around Hafod landfill just lately. We were told the infestation of flies we suffered had nothing to do with the landfill, and it was a regional problem. I suppose the fact that Bangor and Hafod road has never ever flooded like this before is an unfortunate coincidence too.

Discuss.

2007-06-24T22:06:00.000+01:00

I was one of the people that started this blog because the campaign to stop Mersey Waste dumping in Hafod needed a voice on the internet. That voice has, sadly, been hijacked by two groups of small-minded individuals who seem to think that petty abuse is its purpose.

Health and safety MWH style.

2007-06-18T20:24:00.001+01:00

Just a few feet from the entrance to Hafod Landfill, obscured from vision by a bank of soil is this lagoon. The lagoon has slippery steep sides and contains deep dirty water, so MWH have taken precautionary measures to deal with this potential hazard to local children.

And here they are, two lifebuoys held on sticks.

Most responsible companies would have a security guard on the gate or fence the lagoon off to prevent access by children but not “our neighbours” they buy two rubber rings!

Mr Rob Allan (managing director of MWH) reads this blog, so come on Mr Allan tell the people of Johnstown and Ruabon the cost of these lifebuoys and explain why the safety of our children are not worth more?

European Capital of Culture?

2007-05-23T22:22:00.001+01:00

Is this really how a civilised city disposes of its waste - by dumping it, tonnes at a time, fifty miles away and just a few metres from people’s houses and our children's school?

And then they have the front to bid for, win and accept the title 'European Capital of Culture'!

Clay on road "no danger to motorists" MWH Quote

2007-05-19T08:21:00.000+01:00

A Mersey Waste Holdings representative has told Hafod Action Group that the clay and debris dropped by their vehicles on the B5426 outside the landfill pose "no danger to motorists".
The planning permission clearly states that

"All waste haulage vehicles leaving the site shall pass through the vehicular cleansing facility provided in accordance with condition 9 above and shall have their wheels, underbodies and sides thoroughly cleansed before they leave the site."

It seems MWH do not understand their obligations in relation to the planning consent. This may explain why since the start of operations in August 2006 the road outside the landfill site has been constantly covered in debris originating from the site.

Wind stops Hafod again!!!

2007-05-08T18:51:00.000+01:00

After being reported to the environment agency again today for litter escaping the site the so called management of Hafod landfill shut the tip. The number of chances MWH have been given by the environment agency despite breeching the PPC is unbelievable. When will any enforcement action be taken against MWH? They systematically breech the PPC every time there are strong winds and every time the environment agency turns a blind eye.

Alan Skip Hire cause traffic chaos at Hafod

2007-04-22T04:28:00.000+01:00

Alan Skip Hire cause traffic chaos at Hafod

This was the scene outside Hafod landfill on Friday morning when an Alan Skip Hire driver decided to cause traffic chaos by parking on the B5426 and leaving his cab to hurl abuse at the peaceful protestors. These protesters consisted of both male and female OAP’s neither of which wanted to hear his abusive rants. MWH have put in for NEW planning permission to considerably increase traffic movements outside Hafod landfill. When the existing landfill traffic cause this much havoc not even the planning department of WCBC will grant them the permission. Will they?

Next time you need a skip you may choose to look a little further than your friendly local skip hire firm!

Oops we have buried the clay by mistake!!!

2007-04-05T21:10:00.000+01:00

I think we all need to look at this:

http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/english/planning_portal/plan_apps/

PlansData.cfm?ID=P/2007/0440

This planning application by MWH is to quarry 350,000m3 of clay from the Hafod landfill site and stockpile it on the North side of Bangor road. This is the very same clay that Dennis Ruabon buried because it is low quality. This quarrying will conveniently create a larger void in the landfill site to be filled with Merseyside rubbish. The details of this will be confirmed by the modification order that has been due out since late last year but is still with the specialist firm of lawyers at the expense of Wrexham council tax payers. Yes you have read that correctly the council tax payers of Wrexham are paying through the nose for specialist solicitors to ensure that MWH can continue to dump in the illegal landfill. If you believe Gerry Kellet in the planning department of WCBC he will tell you that MWH have had no input into the modification order. Mr Kellet has also stated that MWH have no more information on the contents of the order than the general public. If this is true how can MWH submit such a detailed planning application? Why has the engineering work already commenced? Has Mr Allan had a crystal ball this year in place of the more traditional Easter eggs?

Welsh landfill quarry was secret chemical dump

2007-02-12T10:27:00.000Z

Today's Guardian reveals how a Welsh quarry was used as a secret chemical dump for years by an unscrupulous owner. How safe is Hafod from leaking its landfill waste?

The wasteland: how years of secret chemical dumping left a toxic legacy
Monsanto helped to create one of the most contaminated sites in Britain

The old toxic waste dump at Brofiscin quarry smells of sick when it rains and the small brook that flows from it gushes a vivid orange.
Barton Williams, its owner, says he had no idea exactly what lies below his land, or how dangerous it is. "It's leaking, isn't it? It's the wrong colour. They haven't told me what's in there. The Environment Agency hasn't been open about what's in it at all and the council didn't even tell me it was toxic waste when I bought the land. They only told the public three years ago."

He remembers tankers dumping drums, slurry and sludge from the Monsanto chemical works in Newport and elsewhere in the 36-metre deep quarry on the edge of Groesfaen village near Cardiff. "They just tipped it in, anything really. They were lax in those days."

Groesfaen, now a Cardiff commuter village, is full of recently built £250,000 executive homes - some right on the edge of the quarry. Today, the many newcomers know little of the scale or nature of the dumping of carcinogenic and other chemical waste between 1965 and 1972. The tip, which was unlined, never had a licence for chemical dumping and water pollution was forbidden.

The first most people knew that something was wrong was in 2003 when vile smells escaped from the quarry and drifted over the village. The local Rhondda Cynon Taff council warned people to stay away but said there was no immediate health danger.

"People are worried about the value of their properties, they hope it will just go away," said one woman, who asked not to be identified, this week.

Previously unseen Environment Agency documents from 2005 show that almost 30 years after being filled, Brofiscin is one of the most contaminated places in Britain. According to engineering company WS Atkins, in a report prepared for the agency and the local authority in 2005 but never made public, the site contains at least 67 toxic chemicals. Seven PCBs have been identified, along with vinyl chlorides and naphthalene.

The unlined quarry is still leaking, the report says. "Pollution of water has been occurring since the 1970s, the waste and groundwater has been shown to contain significant quantities of poisonous, noxious and polluting material, pollution of ... waters will continue to occur ... the council is of the opinion that the metal drums will continue to deteriorate over time releasing poisonous, noxious and polluting materials," it says.

Villagers are angry that they were not told the exact condition or contents of the tip. "We do not know about this report. If there is still leakage and there is any danger, then it must be cleared up as soon as possible," said a local councillor, Jonathan Huish.

Douglas Gowan, the pollution consultant who first investigated the site between 1967 and 1973 for the National Farmers' Union, after reports of dead cattle and deformed calves in the vicinity, is one of the few people to have witnessed the landfilling of chemicals at Brofiscin. In 1967 he convened a team of toxicologists and engineers and took soil and water samples for analysis. His reports were sent to the Welsh Office but not acted upon. In a report requested by the Environment Agency of Wales last year, he states: "From 1969 to 1973 [we] actively monitored the site and witnessed not just landfill tipping in regular hours, but also dumping at night. Most of the waste came from Monsanto and I believe that almost all contained some amounts of PCBs. I saw ... vehicles dumping slurry, liquids and tars as well as ... open drums."

Even as Monsanto and other companies were sending chemicals to Brofiscin and a nearby dump, Maendy, from 1965 to 1972, in St Louis, Missouri, company executives were alarmed. From 1965 onwards evidence had been accumulating from around the world of widespread contamination from PCBs and related chemicals. PCBs were being reported in wildlife, human milk, and water, and had been found in British fish in 1967.

Internal company papers show that Monsanto knew about the PCB dangers earlier. Toxicity tests on the effects of two PCBs in 1953 showed that more than 50% of the rats subjected to them died, and all of them showed damage. With experts at the company in no doubt that Monsanto's PCBs were responsible for contamination, the company set up, in 1968, a committee to assess its options. In a paper distributed to only 12 people but which surfaced at a trial of the company in 2002, it admitted "that the evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence as residues in the environment is beyond question ... the public and legal pressures to eliminate them to prevent global contamination are inevitable".

It expected legislation, but papers seen by the Guardian reveal near panic. "The subject is snowballing. Where do we go from here? The alternatives: go out of business; sell the hell out of them as long as we can and do nothing else; try to stay in business; have alternative products", wrote the recipient of one paper.

In 1969 the company wrote a confidential Pollution Abatement Plan which admitted that "the problem involves the entire United States, Canada and sections of Europe, especially the UK and Sweden".

Monsanto's main production centre of PCBs was at Anniston in Alabama, but in 1971 it shifted production largely to Newport. According to the government, the company made 61,500 tonnes of PCBs at Newport. Internal Monsanto documents seen by the Guardian show the Newport factory was leaky and at one point was "losing" 1.7kg (3.7lb) a day of some of the most dangerous PCBs.

Herbert Vodden, a Monsanto physicist who tested how long the PCBs took to break down, told the Guardian that companies employed by Monsanto to take the waste were responsible for its disposal. "The sites were supposed to be impervious and watertight, It was the [waste] contractors' responsibility to find the sites ... usually they were reasonably cooperative. There were no regulations then. We were in their hands."

Mr Vodden said the company initially lobbied the government to carry on making PCBs in the 1960s. "They were very supportive", he said. And when it decided to pull out of PCB manufacture, "the department of industry argued against us withdrawing them. They came and told us that we should continue".

Hafod Quarry sweeper de-grits the road

2007-02-07T20:04:00.000Z

Report from Hafod on a freezing cold morning...

7.10am - a Wrexham County Borough Council gritting vehicle deposits grit onBangor Road / New Hall Road junction. Nothing wrong with that you might say until just a few minutes later and bizarrely BEFORE a single waste vehicle had left the Hafod Landfill site you see the MWH hired Road Cleaner sweeping it all away again! And all this going on in sub zero temperatures before itwas even light!

And people ask why we protest at the gate each day - you would not be asking that if it was your father, mother, sister, brother, son, daughter or friend that had a fatal accident on a now ungritted road due to the direct actions of MWH. If the authorities stood outside the gates each morning as we do,they would soon realise that a serious accident is inevitable on the B5426 between the landfill gates and the A483 slip road.

In the last two weeks we have seen debris all over the road, sweeper lorries travelling at walking pace with upwards of fifteen cars trailing them, the same sweeper lorries driving and reversing the WRONG way down both the North and South bound slip roads, waste vehicles reversing down Bangor Road on the wrong side of the road before attempting three point turns in the crossroads of Bangor Road / New Hall Road and now the removal of salt from the road in sub zero temperatures, minutes after the council has laid it.

We are paying for the road to be gritted via our council tax, then MWH sweep it up and throw it away leaving law abiding motorists at risk, you really couldn't make it up. Council Tax Revenues being wasted is one thing (with WCBC that's nothing new) but when the same authority have such a cavalier attitude to road safety on account of keeping MWH / Hafod Landfill happy it really does make you wonder what is going on! Answers please WCBC, answers please...

Unions back recycling not landfill

2007-02-05T19:53:00.000Z

At a recent meeting of Wrexham County Trades Union Council it was agreed to support a resolution on refuse disposal moved by the Union AMICUS. It read:

There are 38 landfill sites in Wales, one at Hafod near Wrexham is importing 300,000 tonnes of refuse per annum from Merseyside and other authorities.

There is at present no consistent policy operated by local authorities for dealing with refuse, a common policy is required in order to comply with EU directives thereby avoiding landfill and carbon emissions.

Wrexham County Trades Union Council calls on the Wales TUC to conduct an investigation into this issue and urge the National Assembly to introduce a waste strategy for Wales which recycles refuse at source in localised custom-built plants that do not involve Incineration or Pyrolysis / Gasification but recycles refuse into a product that can be used in industry.

This has to be yet another thorn in the side of MWH and its associates and welcome support for the members of the Hafod Environmental Group.

The Wales TUC, which represents half the workers in Wales (including some T&GWU truck drivers no doubt), will debate this motion at their annual conference in May. If passed, it will add half a million voices to our call for a proper waste policy rather than the current free-for-all that puts profit before people and communities.

The weather gets the better of Hafod

2007-01-11T14:33:00.000Z

Quarry gates open at 6.40am, in breach of PPC licence

Litter problem
In the windy weather over the last few days, litter from inside Hafod tip has been blown onto the perimeter fence. The litter we can see is what catches on the barbed wire. It is reasonable to assume that some of it has gone over the fence - local farmers have been complaining of litter blowing from the site into their fields. Who'd have thought such a thing could happen, when we were all assured that the litter would be properly covered up each day?

Hafod operators ignore rules on opening hours
On Tuesday 9th January, the gates of the landfill site at Hafod blew open at approximately 6:40am. Today, Thursday 11th, the gates were once again open when members of the ever-vigilant Hafod Action Group arrived at 6:40am. This isn't just an idle moan - these incidents are breaches of the PPC permit, which clearly states the site must be locked outside operating hours. There seems little point in issuing a PPC permit if its conditions can be blatantly flouted by the operator.

However, what the Environment Agency has neglected to do, the weather succeeded in achieving this morning:

Windy weather closes the tip
When the vehicles arrived this morning, it was so windy that no tipping could take place and all the wagons were turned away.

Recycling - A tale of two councils

2007-01-06T16:13:00.000Z

Thought people might be interested in this article which was posted to uk indymedia.

Halloween mask causes distress?

2006-12-21T22:53:00.000Z

OK, own up! How many of you have ever worn a halloween mask? How about your children or grandchildren? We suggest you collect up all such masks and recycle them forthwith (What! Michael doesn't recycle rubber?), or hide them and hope that there's a mask amnesty sometime soon. The police are onto you!

A Hafod protester has been issued with an £80 fixed penalty notice for an alleged offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 which took place two months ago. The notice states that he, "along with others blocked gate at Hafod quarry preventing lorries from leaving whilst wearing halloween mask causing harassment alarm and distress to drivers and staff."

One of the protesters present on that morning, a week or so before Halloween, describes a scenario where protesters wearing halloween masks peacefully blockaded the gates while some wagons were inside. They stood silently in front of the gates until the police arrived, at which point and without being asked, they removed their masks and ended the blockade. The police made no mention of the masks at the time, nor did anyone mention being alarmed or distressed.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Public Order Act 1986, this is what Section 5 says:

5 Harassment, alarm or distress

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he-

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove-

(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if-

(a) he engages in offensive conduct which [a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5) In subsection (4) "offensive conduct" means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Here's what the Crown Prosecution Service has to say on the matter:

"There must be a person within the sight or hearing of the suspect who is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by the conduct in question. A police officer may be such a person, but remember that this is a question of fact to be decided in each case by the magistrates. In determining this, the magistrates may take into account the familiarity which police officers have with the words and conduct typically seen in incidents of disorderly conduct. (DPP v Orum [1988] Crim LR 848.)

Although the existence of a person who is caused harassment alarm and distress must be proved, there is no requirement that they actually give evidence. In appropriate cases, the offence may be proved on a police officer's evidence alone.

Police officers are aware of the difficult balance to be struck in dealing with those whose behaviour may be perceived by some as exuberant high spirits but by others as disorderly. In such cases informal methods of disposal may be appropriate and effective; but if this approach fails and the disorderly conduct continues then criminal proceedings may be necessary."

And this is from the freebeagles web site:

Under Section 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the police can issue fixed penalty notices where they suspect that a "penalty offence" has been committed. The relevant "penalty offences" are listed in Section 1 of the Act, and are mostly aimed at dealing with minor drunk / disorderly behaviour. But they also include Section 5 Public Order Act 1986 and this is the offence which is most likely to be used against activists.

Section 2 (1) of the Act states that a constable who has reason to believe that a person aged 16 or over has committed a penalty offence may give him a penalty notice in respect of the offence. The procedure is then very similar to many road traffic offences. The person who has received the notice has 21 days in which either to pay the penalty or to request to be tried for the offence.

If you pay the penalty, then no further proceedings may be brought for the offence, and the penalty will not form part of your criminal record. If you request to be tried, then the case may go to trial. If the penalty is not paid and no request is made to be tried within 21 days, then normally the penalty goes up by half and is dealt with just like any other fine. But the police may then charge you with an offence in exceptional circumstances eg if the offence turns out to be more serious than originally thought, or they discover you have convictions for similar offences.

There is no requirement to give a warning before issuing a penalty notice (although for Section 5 offences the police are encouraged to do so, see below). There appears to be no time limit for the issue of fixed penalties. They will probably usually be issued around the time of the offence, but could be issued at a police station after arrest and in theory any time up to 6 months after the date of the offence.

The penalties are divided in to "upper" and "lower tiers". "Upper tier" offences attract a penalty charge of £80, "lower tier" offences £40. Section 5 is an "upper tier offence". The use of penalty notices was trialed by five police forces between August 2002 and July 2003. The Home Office issued guidance notes to the police for when and how they should use the notices and how they should exercise their discretion. These are worth reading and can be downloaded on the internet from here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimpol/police/penalty/index.html

The Home Office notes state that with regard to Section 5 offences, the police should consider giving a warning first and that also they should bear in mind the statutory defences to Section 5. These include the defence that your conduct was reasonable and that you were not aware that your conduct was "threatening, insulting or abusive". Reading between the lines, it seems that the Home Office are not keen on the police issuing fixed penalties for each and every instance of minor disorderly conduct. But the guidance notes are not legally binding and ultimately it is a matter of discretion for the individual officer.

The police have already started to use this power against activists. It remains to be seen whether use of these penalties is part of the government's new offensive against animal rights "extremists". In our opinion this could well be the case.

Whether activists should pay them or not will depend on the circumstances. Often protestors will want to fight them in court for example where they have been issued with a penalty notice for banging a drum or blowing a whistle. In situations where there is no basis for a Section 5 charge, the CPS may well decide not to prosecute you anyway.

On the other hand there will be times when someone might want to pay the penalty for example if he has been involved in serious disorder. Once the penalty is paid the police cannot take any further action for the offence.

So, it appears that the police have powers to issue fixed penalty notices in cases where the Crown Prosecution Service might not take the case to court. Mmmm. And why now? Only a cynic would say that this is an attempt to make people fearful of taking part in protests at the site.

If the protester asks for the case to be tried, and if the CPS agrees that it should be tried, it's going to make for an interesting court case.

Santa supports Hafod protesters

2006-12-16T17:59:00.000Z

Santa Claus paid a visit to Hafod Quarry today to support the festive protesters at the gate.

Local campaigners against the landfill are there every day keeping an eye on what's going on - just as well as the authorities don't seem to be able to keep a check on the place. Here's a report from one of the protesters:

At 6:55am this morning a tanker lorry drew up to the landfill gates and the driver then jumped out of the cab opened the gates and drove in and closed the gates behind him. When Garry (site supervisor) came down to open the gates soon after 7:00am I asked him why the driver had opened the gate and entered before 7:00am. Garry shrugged his shoulders and when I pushed him for an answer he said “it was 7 O Clock”. I informed him that I had a photograph time stamped at 6:58am of the driver going through the gates but he declined to comment. Shortly after this conversation Garry came out of the site and asked to speak to me. He informed me that the driver was Polish and his boss had been informed and as a result the driver had been “banned from the site”.

We would've thought that it was the responsibility of the quarry operators, MWH, to ensure that no vehicles enter the site before 7am, but why take the flak when you've got a Polish driver to blame? And why was the driver's nationality even mentioned by the supervisor? It's hardly relevant to the story.

Wigley gives Hafod Landfill the thumbs down

2006-11-25T13:43:00.000Z

Dafydd Wigley joined the picket at Hafod this morning. The former Plaid Cymru leader is standing on the North Wales regional list for the Assembly and came down to show his support for the protest. Some media coverage despite the rain.

Carwyn the hypocrite (no, we haven't forgotten about him)

2006-11-25T08:52:00.000Z

The Western Mail has exposed Carwyn Jones's environmental hypocrisy - this time allowing opencast mining within 500m of homes in Merthyr while opposing the same thing in his own constituency.

ENVIRONMENT Minister Carwyn Jones has been accused of hypocrisy after welcoming the withdrawal of a plan for an opencast mine in his own constituency while supporting another.

Reacting to the news that Celtic Energy has withdrawn proposals for an opencast mine at Pyle in his Bridgend constituency, Mr Jones, pictured, said, "The opencast would have had a hugely detrimental impact on people in the Pyle and Margam areas.

"I have been working closely with local residents and campaign groups to ensure that their quality of life was not adversely affected by the proposal."

Welsh Liberal Democrat Assembly leader Mike German sought to contrast Mr Jones's position on the Pyle scheme with his support for opencast at Merthyr Tydfil.

He said, "As Minister for Planning, Carwyn Jones has the opportunity to protect all communities in Wales from the 'detrimental impact' of opencast by introducing a 500m buffer-zone between opencast sites and people's homes. So far he has not done this.

"The people of Merthyr Tydfil deserve just as much protection from what Carwyn Jones himself describes as the 'adverse affects' of opencast mining as the people of Bridgend." Mr Jones replied "It is not open to me to impose a buffer zone in Merthyr because the issue was decided by a committee nearly two years ago."

Ask Rhodri Morgan!

2006-11-22T10:44:00.000Z

What's all this about landfill, Rhodri?

Rhodri Morgan will be in Colwyn Bay tomorrow Thursday 23rd November from 6pm at an "Ask Rhodri!" session chaired by the editor of the Daily Post. Hafod protesters will be asking questions about the landfill. Your support is needed, so come along with your banners and voices.

Where? Ysgol Bod Alaw, Abergele Road, Colwyn Bay, LL29 7ST.

For more information: E Mail: hafodaction@hotmail.co.uk or phone Graham 844343 / 07747 634975 or Howard 07817 479957.

Rhodri Morgan opened the Recyclo recycling plant on Deeside, where he said: "Reuse, recycle and compost is the way forward." Right Rhodri. So why has the Assembly allowed this huge landfill project to go ahead when it meets neither the terms on which permission was originally given nor the current policy, guidance and regulation?

Hafod campaign opens up European front

2006-11-21T14:26:00.000Z

A petition aimed at closing Hafod quarry has been presented to the European Parliament. Plaid Cymru MEP Jill Evans has handed a petition to the Chair of the European Parliament's Petitions Committee, Marcin Libicki. She has presented this on behalf of the Hafod Environmental Group campaigners.

Jill Evans said: "Putting a petition to the European Parliament can be a way of getting action taken when others have let you down. In this case both the local authority and the Welsh Assembly Government have badly let down the people who have to live with this landfill site. My own petition dealing with a similar case at the Nantygwyddon landfill site in the Rhondda some years ago certainly helped in closing it down and I hope that this petition will have equal success.

"It is crazy that in the 21st century we are still transporting waste for miles and dumping it in holes in the ground when we know that it will affect people's health and the environment. I am working in the European Parliament to get stronger laws on reducing waste, increasing recycling and phasing out landfill. In line with all their declared environmental and sustainability policies the Labour government in the Assembly should be doing the same.

"It is a disgrace that once again we see a community having to take action themselves because no-one else will stand up for their interests."

Mersey Waste evade protesters' questions

2006-11-17T19:26:00.000Z

A dozen Hafod campaigners went to the Mersey Waste Disposal Authority's special meeting in Liverpool this afternoon. Rarely has such a boring meeting been conducted in such a hot room!

The main item for debate was whether to press ahead with a waste recovery centre in Liverpool and whether this should be one that took separated glass and paper - an appalling level of complacency and ignorance from a body that's meant to be leading the way on waste disposal.

The Hafod campaigners asked six questions and got answers to just one - confirmation that the site does not have a holding bay as required by its licence.

Other questions were answered with waffle and bluster amid growing frustration from the campigners.

The final question from Barrie Price of Ruabon got the same response and he then explained how much the Hafod landfill was costing Merseyside taxpayers - £1,000 per lorry or £240,000 a week to tip their rubbish while the MWDA debated whether to start separating glass from paper (apparently it's not "cost effective").

The chairman was just about to kick that into the long grass when one of the other councillors showed signs of life - the staggering figures were of interest to him and other board members. Maybe if they can't be swayed by the environmental and health arguments, they might be swayed by the thought of saving some money by recycling and re-using.

10,000 hits

2006-11-16T11:40:00.000Z

We've only been going for six weeks but already this blog has generated more than 10,000 hits, which shows how interested people are in this issue.
Everybody who visits the blog has come through word of mouth. We've had no publicity yet we've grown because of the grassroots network of campaigners locally and throughout Wales and beyond. Thanks.
Your comments also show how passionate many people feel about the ongoing scandal of landfill at the Hafod. It's been great to have so much feedback so quickly. We know that those in power read this blog and that they have been shaken to the core by the message you've put over so relentlessly. It's been a shock to these complacent politicians (locally, in Cardiff and on Merseyside) to see their actions - or inaction - put under the spotlight. Long may it continue!
We'll continue to highlight the campaign and expose those responsible for this sorry mess until Hafod is closed down.

Hafod across the Mersey

2006-11-16T09:53:00.000Z

This Friday (17th Nov) the campaign sets its sights on Liverpool.

Murky Waste Holdings is having an Extraordinary General Meeting on that day. By happy coincidence the people who are dumping 300,000 tonnes of rubbish a year in Johnstown are discussing future plans for landfill.

Some group members have asked questions in advance and will be able to put supplementaries to them in person. We look forward to their answers.

The group is looking to catch the 12:00 train from Ruabon (12:07 in Wrexham) to go via Chester to Liverpool. The meeting starts at 2pm in Liverpool at the Authority's premises at North House, North John Street, Liverpool. Click here for more details.

We will be looking to come home soon after the meeting but can't confirm exact train times at this moment.

Come along and make sure your voice is heard across the Mersey.

2006-11-15T20:15:00.000Z

From tonight's Evening Leader:

Karen Sinclair, AM for Clwyd South, said: “I am furious at the Minister’s decision not to quash the planning permission on the Hafod site and bitterly disappointed he has let the decision of the local authority stand.”

Could it be that Karen is furious because this will cost her a place on the Cardiff Bay gravy train next May? Martyn Jones seems less bothered. He says he will use his "contacts" to stop Merseyside... something he was talking about three months ago. What exactly have you done, Martyn?

Martyn Jones, MP for Clwyd South said: “Obviously this is very disappointing news. I hoped the Assembly Minister would have overturned the council’s decision.

“The fact remains, however, that the actual culprits in all of this are Merseyside local authorities and their virtually complete dependence on landfilling their waste.

“I will be working to put as much pressure as I possibly can on those local authorities, and, via my contacts with DEFRA ministers, to ensure that all those authorities on Merseyside recycle considerably more of their waste, and end the plight of people in Johnstown.”

Carwyn didn't visit - Mersey Waste

2006-11-15T16:25:00.000Z

According to this letter from Mersey Waste, Carwyn Jones did not - as he has claimed - visit the site. Mersey Waste makes it clear that they would have stopped him.
Now this means that either

1. Carwyn Jones is lying about entering the site (as opposed to wandering about the perimeter) and hasn't done his job properly
or

2. Mersey Waste missed the minister's visited. That would suggest the company has inadequate security and anything could be dumped at the site without them knowing.

Either way, somebody's telling porkies.

LETTER FROM MERSEY WASTE HOLDINGS ASSOCIATES TO JANET RYDER AM
MWH Associates Limited
2nd Floor
Port of Liverpool Building
Pier Head
Liverpool
L3 IBY

Dear Ms Ryder

15th November 2006

HAFOD QUARRY - JOHNSTOWN

Further to your enquiry I can confirm as follows.

There is no record of the Minister, Carwyn Jones AM entering the site on the 12th October.

This does not preclude his having attended the area and walked around the external perimeter which would have enabled him to "inspect it from a number of aspects".

No one would have been allowed to walk within the site on an unsupervised basis. Visitors who make themselves known to us are required to sign in, undergo a health and safety induction and be provided with the appropriate protective clothing and equipment, where necessary.

It is highly unlikely that an unaccompanied person would not have been seen and challenged by site staff.

At all times of operation the entrance is viewed in the weighbridge office on a CCTV monitor.

The site is an 'open' area where an "unauthorised" visitor would have been clearly visible.

As stated according to all our records no visit was made but we will of course be pleased to welcome him in an official capacity should he choose to contact us.

Yours sincerely,

R.L. Allan
MANAGING DIRECTOR

Did Carwyn really visit the Hafod?

2006-11-15T10:34:00.000Z

Carwyn Jones is claiming that he visited Hafod Quarry privately on Thursday, 12 October 2006. This is the day after he received a delegation from Johnstown at the Assembly.

It seems he was on Assembly business in North Wales and visited the quarry. He has told Janet Ryder AM in an e-mail that his visit was not official:

“I entered the site and observed it at various points at the perimeter. I did not have an escort, save for my driver and Assistant Private Secretary nor indeed did I meet anyone on site. I had no contact with anybody while there. Nobody was aware of my visit.” (Carwyn Jones, 7 November 2006)

This raises a number of questions.

Firstly, the site owners Mersey Waste should have been informed on grounds of courtesy and health and safety. One wonders what Carwyn would have seen without an escort who knew the site. Was he able to see the Special Area of Conservation, for example?

When Geoffrey Hill, the Assembly planning inspector, went on the site in 2004 in a similarly sensitive situation regarding the planning appeal, he went through the proper channels and spent 2-3 hours on site.

Carwyn Jones, by his own admission, has trespassed on private property and disregarded warnings regarding health and safety. All visitors are required to report to security, where they are issued with safety helmets, high-visibility jackets and boots. The Minister appears to have ignored all these requirements and his actions seem bizarre at the very least.

If we are to believe his account explaining how he evaded security, it raises serious questions about Mersey Waste’s ability to prevent fly tipping or other illegal activities on the site. If they can’t stop three men wandering into the site unnoticed and unchallenged, who’s to stop a wagon containing toxic waste?

To add to the confusion, Mersey Waste's managing director Rob Allen has said that Carwyn has not been on the site.

So did Carwyn bother to go on site and examine the issues carefully? Or is this another case of Labour politicians attempting to hoodwink the public?

If he’s lied about his visit to Hafod, he should resign.

Carwyn decides not to revoke - full statement

2006-11-15T10:15:00.000Z

This is Carwyn Jones's statement on the Hafod. More comment to follow:

Lawrence Isted
Chief Planning Officer
Wrexham County Borough
Lambpit Street
P O Box 1290
Wrexham
LL11 1WL
Adran yr Amgylchedd, Cynllunio a Chefn Gwlad
Department for Environment, Planning and Countryside

Eich cyf . Your ref:
Ein cyf . Our ref: A PP116 25 001
Dyddiad . Date: 15 November 2006

Dear Mr Isted

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTIONS 100 AND 104
REQUEST FOR REVOCATION AND/OR DISCONTINUANCE ORDERS IN RESPECT OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE INFILLING WITH DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL REFUSE ASSOCIATED WITH SITE CONTROL BUILDING AND ENGINEERING OPERATIONS (INCLUDING OFFICE, WEIGHBRIDGE LABORATORY, WHEELWASH AND GAS VENTING AND COLLECTION SYSTEM) AND ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT AND RESTORATION TO AGRICULTURE AND AMENITY, OF HAFOD CLAYPIT, JOHNSTOWN, WREXHAM
PLANNING APPLICATION No. 6/18883

1. The Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside has asked me to refer to several letters in which the National Assembly for Wales has been asked to revoke or discontinue the above planning permission.

2. The National Assembly’s power to make orders under Sections 100 and 104 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has been delegated to the First Minister, who in turn delegated it to the Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside and who has further delegated it to officials. Notwithstanding the delegation to officials, the Minister remains authorised to determine these requests by section 63(4) of the Government of Wales Act 1998.

Planning history

3. Planning application 6/18883 for the infilling of Hafod Quarry, Johnstown, Wrexham with domestic, commercial and industrial refuse was refused by Clwyd County Council but, after an inquiry, planning permission was granted by the Secretary of State for Wales, on appeal on 10 July 1995. In 1998 an application to extend the time period for the submission of reserved matters was approved. Part of the southwestern corner of the site was designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in July 2001 and then as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) in December 2004.

4. The owners submitted an application to limit landfill to the areas not covered by those conservation designations and to revise the phasing and restoration of the site. The application was granted in August 2004 following an appeal to the National Assembly but that appeal decision was quashed in the High Court on the basis that the original application had not been valid.

5. The site operator began landfill operations on 23 August 2006. Your authority considered requests to revoke the permission granted in 1995 but decided, in September 2006, that while it would not revoke the permission it would – subject to confirmation by the National Assembly - modify it so that no infilling would be carried out in that area of the site subject to the conservation designations referred to in paragraph 3 above.

Revocation and discontinuance

6. Section 100 (read together with Section 97) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that, if it appears to the National Assembly that it is expedient to revoke or modify any permission to develop land granted on an application made to a local planning authority or to the Assembly or granted by the Assembly on appeal, it may by order revoke or modify the permission to such extent as it considers expedient.

7. Section 104 (read together with Section 102) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that if, having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations, it appears to the National Assembly that it is expedient in the interests of the proper planning of an area (including the interests of amenity)

(a) that any use of land should be discontinued or that any conditions should be imposed on the continuance of a use of land; or

(b) that any buildings or works should be altered or removed

it may, by order require the discontinuance of the use, or impose such conditions as may be specified in the order on the continuance of the use, or require such steps as may be so specified to be taken for the alteration or removal of the buildings or works, as the case may be. An order can also grant planning permission, subject to such conditions as are appropriate, for development of the land in question (thus allowing an appropriate alternative development to take place).

8. A planning permission may, in general, only be revoked or modified before it has been implemented. Where the permission is for building or other operations, it may be revoked or modified if it has been partially exercised, but revocation and modification orders cannot affect any development which has already been completed and cannot be made at all once the permitted operations are complete. Where the permission is for a change of use, an order cannot be made once that change has taken place. A discontinuance order would have to be made if it is thought appropriate for development to cease. It should be noted that whilst a discontinuance order can require the removal or alteration of buildings or works, there must be doubt as to whether the deposit of waste has constituted such operations and thus whether an order would be able to require the removal of waste already deposited. However, this question is subsidiary to the principal issue of whether it is appropriate to require the deposit to cease and thus arises only if the principal issue is determined in the affirmative. As the Assembly has been requested to make both revocation and discontinuance orders, it is appropriate now for it to consider both powers and whether it should exercise them.

Assembly’s policy on revocation and discontinuance

9. Judgement of planning proposals is primarily the responsibility of the local planning authority. The Minister notes that both the revocation and discontinuance powers are, in the 1990 Act, conferred initially on the local planning authority and supplemented by equivalent powers conferred on the Assembly. Moreover, an important principle of the planning system is that, in general, a permission, once granted, will enure permanently for the benefit of the land. The Welsh Assembly Government’s policy (set out at Planning Policy Wales paragraph 4.10) is that a revocation or discontinuance order will only be made if the planning permission (the original decision) is judged to be grossly wrong, so that damage would be done to the wider public interest. It is not considered an appropriate use of the power to make a revocation or discontinuance order on the basis that a different decision to the one made originally would result if the application were made today.

10. In considering the application of this policy to the planning consent in this case, examples of damage to the wider public interest which might justify the making of a revocation or discontinuance order include circumstances where:

• The development poses a very significant threat to an important wider planning objective, such as the protection of designated countryside or landscape, coastline, national heritage, or European or international obligations; or

 Issues of wider public safety or national security are at stake.

11. Where the development for which permission was granted complies with one or more policies in the development plan (and does not contravene any other development plan policies) it will be necessary to consider whether “other material considerations” support the case for revocation or discontinuance.

Basis of requests for revocation and/or discontinuance of the planning permission

12. The principal reasons, set out in correspondence, for requesting revocation of the 1995 permission are that landfill is now an unsustainable method of disposing of rubbish; that it was wrong to permit a landfill site so close to residential properties because of, for instance, smells and pollution; that the tip should not be used to take waste from as far away as Liverpool; and that the site is important in terms of environmental conservation.

Consideration of the requests

13. In considering the requests for revocation/discontinuance the Minister has had regard to all matters raised in the requests and the following advice and information:

The development plan

14. The Assembly’s Planning Division has indicated that the local planning authority’s Unitary Development Plan was adopted in February 2005 and supersedes all previous plans. The Wrexham UDP Proposals Map Plan 6 covers the Hafod Quarry site. Part of the site is also designated as an SAC. Policy EC6 says that

“Development either within or close to sites of biodiversity interest will only be permitted where it can be clearly demonstrated that the need for the development outweighs the need to safeguard the intrinsic nature conservation value of the site. Where such development is permitted damage should be kept to a minimum and compensatory measures should be provided. Measures to improve the biodiversity value of sites and enhance their natural conservation interest and landscape quality including the establishment of local nature reserves will be supported.”

15. There is also a waste management policy in the plan but no designation at Hafod. Policy MW12 indicates waste management facilities will be located having regard to a set of specified principles. Policy MW13 covering disposal allows disposal through landfilling of controlled wastes at sites with existing planning permission.

16. Your authority’s view about the development plan is that Policy MW13 allows landfilling at sites with planning permission but resists new proposals unless there is exceptional or specific need related to waste arising from within the County Borough. The Regional Waste Plan adopted by the Assembly (and supported by the Council) requires that 1.3 landfill sites be made available in the County Borough to aid regional sustainability in dealing with residual waste. In his report to your authority’s Planning Committee which met on 4 September 2006 the Planning Officer, Mr R Dewey concluded that “within a short time there will be no other active sites in the County Borough.”

The local authority’s consideration of the matter

17. Section 4.10 of Planning Policy Wales (PPW) indicates that the National Assembly has default powers in respect of making revocation and discontinuance orders. This means that the National Assembly can not only make an order on its own initiative but can also consider making an order when the local authority has been requested to do so and has either refused to consider the request or has considered the request but refused to make an order.

18. On 4 September 2006 your authority reviewed the existing 1995 planning permission for landfill at the quarry to consider modifying or revoking the permission. The operator, Mersey Waste Holdings Ltd (MWH), had made it clear that, although it did not intend to landfill on the part of the site which is now designated as an SAC, it would not voluntarily give up that part of the permission. The company suggested that the permission should be modified to prevent tipping there and to amend the phasing and restoration scheme. Your authority concluded that the making of a revocation order would present substantial difficulties but that there were no planning reasons to oppose the development of the site outside of the SAC. Your authority also concluded that a modification order (which would need to be confirmed by the Assembly before it could take effect) could modify the grant of permission to exclude the SAC and to impose a revised phasing and restoration scheme. The Minister is not here considering the merits of a modification order, but has noted in the context of his current determination the local planning authority’s view that a revocation or discontinuance order would not be necessary to deal satisfactorily with the matters of concern it had identified.

Waste

19. The Assembly’s Environment Protection and Quality Division (EPQD) has advised that there is no justification for the planning permission to be revoked or discontinued. Although Article 5(2) of the Waste Framework Directive requires that:

"The network [of waste disposal installations] must also enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations..."

(this is known as the "Proximity Principle"), stopping a landfill site in Wales taking waste from a nearby English authority would be inappropriate and would be a decision which could be subject to successful judicial review. There are many examples of wastes being transported for landfill across local authority, regional and National (UK) boundaries. Material flow studies show that more waste leaves NW Wales for disposal in England than the other way round, albeit largely commercial and industrial wastes rather than household waste. There is a lack of hazardous waste landfill sites in Wales, and the vast majority of that type of waste is exported.

20. EPQD have advised that the Hafod Quarry landfill site is a licensed, permitted landfill. MWH is complying with all relevant legislation and the proximity principle.

Conservation

21. The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) has already advised your authority that there are three options to consider in respect of identifying potential adverse effects arising from the landfill permission at Hafod. The advice given to your authority may be summarised as follows:-

22. The first option involves landfill within the SAC. CCW considers that landfill within the SAC would have a permanent adverse effect on the SAC site’s integrity. The population of great-crested newts would be adversely affected, by destruction of terrestrial and aquatic habitats that are used by the newts and are essential to maintaining population levels.

23. The second option involves allowing landfill operations to continue outside the SAC. The CCW advised your authority that, with appropriate conditions, as detailed in the Council’s proposed permission modification and the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations licence (PPC), the activities and associated effects of landfill outside the SAC would not have an adverse effect on the SAC site’s integrity and populations of great-crested newts within it. CCW based these conclusions on the assessments completed by the Environment Agency when they considered the PPC licence. Their appropriate assessment for the Johnstown Newt Sites addressed the potential indirect effects of the proposed landfill and concluded there would be no adverse effects on the SAC or great-crested newt population.

24. The third option involves no landfill. This would be the consequence of making revocation and/or discontinuance orders. The CCW advise that not proceeding with landfill within or adjacent to the SAC would mean there were no adverse effects on the SAC site’s integrity or great-crested newts within it.

25. The CCW’s advice on the three options was expressed to your authority and was used to inform your decision making process. The CCW has also confirmed to the Assembly Government that they advised on and concurred with the conclusions of their Appropriate Assessments in respect of landfill. Furthermore, the recently received great-crested newt monitoring report completed by North East Wales Wildlife for MWH as part of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive consent has been considered by CCW, who confirm that they concur with the findings of the report.

26. In conclusion, the CCW’s advice is that your authority’s proposed modification order overcomes all outstanding conservation objections. The appropriateness of any proposed modification order is not a matter for consideration by the Assembly Government at this time: however, the Minister notes in the present context that CCW do not consider that a revocation or discontinuance order is necessary to address their concerns.

27. The Assembly’s Deputy Environmental Science Adviser (DESA) has assessed the request for revocation and discontinuance against environmental considerations and has reached the same conclusion as the CCW. DESA advises that a key consideration is whether the continuance of the permission would impact on the designated site. Continuation of the current landfill permission would result in an estimated loss of 4.3 ha of designated habitat, which would place the Assembly Government in potential infraction of the EC Habitats Directive.

28. Revocation and/or discontinuance of the landfill permission would prevent significant adverse effects within the SAC. However, the data suggests that a modification to the planning permission to exclude activity from the designated area, coupled with planning conditions (i.e. restoration proposals and location of bunds), would be sufficient to prevent significant adverse effects and might be advantageous to the population of great crested newts.

29. On this basis, DESA not only agrees with your authority’s decision to issue a modification order but does not support the making of a revocation or discontinuance order by the Assembly. In the context of the current determination, the Assembly Government is not considering whether a modification order would be appropriate, but it has taken into account DESA’s view that a revocation or discontinuance order is not necessary.

Waste planning

30. The Assembly Government’s Planning Division considers that there are two main issues to be considered in relation to the requests for revocation/discontinuance of the landfill consent.

31. Firstly, Planning Policy Wales (PPW) and Technical Advice Note 21 “Waste” [TAN 21] provide guidance on waste planning. PPW states that local planning authorities are obliged by the EC Waste Directives to make provision for establishing an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal facilities and that sufficient facilities need to be provided to treat, manage or dispose of all the waste produced. The Regional Waste Plans have been developed in line with these principles. TAN 21 states that:

‘it is acknowledged that landfill will continue to be a disposal option for some time until alternative facilities are established’.

Disposal of waste to landfill will therefore need to continue for some years albeit at reducing volumes as recycling rates continue to increase.

32. Secondly, waste streams have always moved across boundaries. It would only be in exceptional circumstances that planning conditions would control the origin of the waste stream in determining planning permission for waste facilities. The origin of the waste is not normally therefore an issue for waste planning to control.

Amenity

33. The Assembly's Planning Division has indicated that when planning consent was given for the development in 1995, the Inspector considered the effect of the landfill on local amenity. This included the effect of noise, dust, litter, birds and vermin. The Inspector concluded that the development would have an impact but that the impact would not be unacceptable. There are no obvious changes in circumstances to lead the Division to conclude that a determination of the application now would lead to a different conclusion. Furthermore, the day to day monitoring, control and enforcement of landfill operations by the Environment Agency are controlled more stringently than hitherto.

Minister’s conclusions

34. The Minister is aware, from the large number of requests he has received seeking revocation or discontinuance of the 1995 planning permission and the campaign mounted by action groups, of the strength of feeling against the infilling of Hafod Quarry with domestic, commercial and industrial refuse. However, no evidence has been put before him to lead him to the conclusion that the planning permission granted in 1995 was grossly wrong, resulting in damage to the wider public interest which would justify the making of a revocation or discontinuance order.

35. The Minister has carefully considered the reasons forwarded for revocation and discontinuance orders being made, including those identified in paragraph 12 above, and weighed them against the advice and information provided above. He acknowledges the concerns of opponents to the infilling of Hafod Quarry with refuse but takes the view that they are not such as to outweigh the reasons provided in that advice and information for not making a revocation or discontinuance order.

36. In making his determination the Minister has considered only whether it is appropriate to make a revocation or discontinuance order in relation to the 1995 permission. He notes that your authority has indicated their intention to make an order modifying the 1995 permission so as to protect that part of the Quarry designated as an SSSI and SAC. Such an order will require confirmation by the National Assembly. If, however, your authority does not make such an order, the Minister would intend to consider in due course whether it would be appropriate for the National Assembly to make one.

Formal decision

37. For the reasons given above, and in exercise of the powers referred to in paragraph 2 above, the Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside has decided to refuse the requests for him to make revocation and discontinuance orders in respect of the planning permission granted by the Secretary of State for Wales on 10 July 1995 and referred to in paragraph 3 above.

38. Copies of this decision letter have been sent to Karen Sinclair AM, Janet Ryder AM, John Marek AM, Nicholas Bourne AM, Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas AM, Mark Isherwood AM, Eleanor Burnham AM, Martyn Jones MP, and certain other interested parties.

Yours sincerely

BOB EVANS
Head of Planning 1 Branch

How long do we have to wait, Carwyn?

2006-11-08T23:40:00.000Z

Carwyn Jones received a petition from protesters back on 11 October. A decision would be made before the end of the month, we were told.
He then said there were complex issues to decide and that it would be early November.
Today is the 15th of November.
For a barrister, he has an elastic concept of time.

How much longer, Carwyn?

Zero Waste - a realistic option

2006-11-08T13:43:00.000Z

"Zero Waste is a goal that is both pragmatic and visionary, to guide people to emulate sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded materials are resources for others to use. Zero Waste means designing and managing products and processes to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources and not burn or bury them. Implementing Zero Waste will eliminate all discharges to land, water or air that may be a threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health" - Zero Waste International Alliance

New Zealand has signed up to this and hits recycling figures of 70% and more in many of its boroughs. Doncaster City Council has signed up to the principle as has Blaenau Gwent here in Wales. Why don't we invite Liverpool to follow suit?

To quote Eifion Williams, of recycling group CYLCH: "This isn't just a form of words, it's a new mind-set that leads to practical action and the steady improvement of figures year on year. Villages in Monmouthshire, with their Zero Waste Village scheme are achieving 50% this year. In the website below is the good news on recycling achievements in Newport. Our Social Enterprise model there creates 54 jobs from recycling in the county and now achieves 27% landfill to recycling diversion there. They'll be we'll be over the 30% next year, it's still early days and the figure is still rising.

"It's time to remind taxpayers in Liverpool that these alternatives exist, they're being ripped off. Liverpool City Council by choosing landfilling at the Hafod are committing taxpayers to £11 per ton transport costs and £35-40 per ton gate fees. The 20-ton trucks they're bringing to the Hafod will be costing at least £1,000 for Liverpool's council. Forty trucks a day = £40,000 times six working days = £240,000. It's big business, the landfill companies make a packet and the councils who opt for these old-fashioned systems rip their taxpayers off for thousands.

"Check out the Newport Wastesavers website below. Their system costs the council in Newport nothing beyond the set up costs. The Wastesavers business model has been externally audited, so it's not just recyclers saying this. It works as follows: We would make £380 profit from recycling the contents of a 20-ton truck and it would cost £380 to employ new people and deploy the systems to collect. COST NEUTRAL, JOB CREATING & GREEN.

"In a nutshell, Newports taxpayers are being given the intelligent, cost-free system whereas Liverpool taxpayers are being massively short changed.

"If the Hafod Action group would like to formally invite Liverpool councilors to see and witness for themselves our 'Cleanstream Resource Centre' in Newport, please feel free and we at Cylch will be very happy to arrange."

www.wastesavers.co.uk
www.cylch.org.uk

Carwyn exploring "complex issues"

2006-11-06T09:49:00.000Z

Confirmation from the horse's mouth that Carwyn Jones has visited the site. It's unclear whether he went on the site.

====================
From: Carwyn Jones
Sent: 03 November 2006 13:50
To: Ryder, Janet (AM)

Dear Janet

I announced in committee last week that the decision would now be announced in early November.There are a number of complex issues to explore and I want to make sure that we have gone through them all thoroughly.

I visited the site on the 12th of October.I also examined the perimeter of the site from all angles. I should also say that I did not meet with anybody while I was there.

I trust this clarifies the situation.

Carwyn

=====================

From: Janet Ryder AM
To: Carwyn Jones AM
Sent: 03 November 2006 10:41

Dear Carwyn,

You have made it very clear that you will be announcing your decision regarding the Hafod Landfill site before the end of the month. That was in October. We are now in November and to date a number of people still do not know that decision. Could you tell me please what your final decision is on the future of the Hafod site and how this was announced?

You have also announced that you would be visiting the site before that decision was made could you tell me when that visit took place and what was the nature of the visit.

I look forward to your response.
Janet Ryder

These people run Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority

2006-11-02T20:14:00.000Z

There are nine members of Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority's board. They're all councillors from five different Mersey councils, which own MWDA. In turn, MWDA wholly owns Mersey Waste Disposal. It is, therefore, in their power to stop dumping their waste in Hafod.

We have already heard from Liberal Democrat Cllr Berni Turner, of Liverpool, who has criticised the decision to dump in Johnstown. She says that the four Labour councillors and sole Tory councillor are promoting the landfill dumping in Wales while the four Liberal Democrats are opposed.

If you wish to contact these people, please be polite. Some may be opposed to the dumping, others will simply not be aware of it (some were only co-opted onto the board in the past six months). If they do not respond, then we will have to make sure our message reaches them more directly.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

Councillor Bob Swann (Deputy Chairman) (Lab)
Tel: 0151 487 8974
Email: bob.swann@knowsley.gov.uk

Liverpool City Council

Councillor Paula Keaveney (Lib Dem)
Tel: 0151 494 0341
Email: paula.keaveney@liverpool.gov.uk

Councillor Nick Small (Lab)
Tel: 0151 225 2366
Email: nick.small@liverpool.gov.uk

Councillor Berni Turner (Lib Dem)
Tel: 0151 225 2352
Email: berni.turner@liverpool.gov.uk

St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Dave Crowther (Lib Dem - no picture)
Tel: 01925 290 232
Email: CllrDCrowther@sthelens.gov.uk

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor D Tattersall (Lib Dem - no picture)
Tel: 01704 225877
Email: david@tattersall95.freeserve.co.uk

Councillor K Cluskey (Chairman) (Lab - no picture)
Tel: 0151 920 3704
Email: kevin.cluskey@sefton.gov.uk

Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

Councillor J Salter (Lab)
Tel: 0151 638 1364
Email: johnsalter@wirral.gov.uk

Councillor S Moseley (Cons)
Tel: 07785 182536
Email: suzannemoseley@wirral.gov.uk

Councillors continue to monitor Hafod dumping

2006-11-01T20:41:00.000Z

Picture of councillors George James, Dave Bithell and Paul Pemberton who visited the protest yesterday and, as the previous post explains, witnessed a lorry breaking the conditions of the landfilling.

Councillors witness yet another quarry breach

2006-10-31T23:32:00.000Z

This morning, three Wrexham councillors - George James, Dave Bithell and Paul Pemberton - visited the protest at Hafod Quarry, only to witness one of the wagons arriving from the Johnstown direction (see pic) where it apparently caused traffic mayhem as it passed the school. The wagons should always approach the site from the by-pass, not via the village.

Please can someone elaborate on the story as I'm reporting from afar just now (East London to be exact).

Landfill payment halts Assembly budget

2006-10-27T20:55:00.000+01:00

Labour's Assembly budget plans were halted on Wednesday as Plaid Cymru, the Tories, the Liberal Democrats and independent members united behind a list of additions to the budget.

Among the additions are cash for the Wrexham to London rail link and - more relevantly for us - a commitment to fund any compensation claim arising from landfill issues from central rather than local government. This is a direct result of pressure over Hafod quarry, where irresponsible politicians at local and national level have bandied about the sum of £10m as a possible compensation claim by Murkey Waste.

The budget has now had to go back for further talks and it's likely the opposition parties - who outnumber Labour by 30-29 - will be able to force through the amendment.

If so, it will guarantee that Wrexham Council will not have to pay out any money in the unlikely event that a compensation case would be made by the tippers.

Councillors to investigate site

2006-10-24T15:33:00.000+01:00

Councillors Dave Bithell and Mark Pritchard are to investigate the Hafod site after complaints from local residents. They demanded access to the site from Murky Waste Holdings to check up on the landfilling amid concerns that the company is not sticking to planning guidelines.
If you have issues you want them to raise with MWH, please get in touch here

Service at Hafod

2006-10-24T14:03:00.001+01:00

Vicar of Ruabon, Mike Harrison, conducting a service yesterday
opposite the Quarry gates

HEG1 sent this report of yesterday's service at the Quarry:

On Monday 23rd October at approx. 8am, Rev. Mike Harrison, the Vicar of Ruabon, gave a service opposite the gates of the Hafod Landfill site. It was a moving service and pleasing to see how the Reverend had taken the time to prepare some literature especially for the service. The were some very relevant passages quoted from the Bible as well as a special prayer for all the local residents and those affected by this atrocity on our doorsteps.

In attendance were Councillors David Bithell and Paul Pemberton (who is on the planning committee), as well as Mark Isherwood AM. Local MP Martyn Jones and AM Karen Sinclair were not there. The police left the scene before the service commenced. It was good to see the Evening Leader there to take photographs. Reading the Evening Leader later that day, it struck me as apt that the Hewdens cleaning truck was in the background while all of this was going on.

This just goes to show that even though it appears that MANY (not all) of the officials we elected are against us, and that the local and national authorities care little for us and the environment, we are still united and we're not going anywhere. No matter how much others may pray we do.

Gate picket stepped up

2006-10-20T19:31:00.000+01:00

Defiant protesters have stepped up their campaign against the landfill dumping at Hafod. A meeting of more than 60 local people agreed to organise all-day pickets of the site. The site is open from 7am-6pm during the week and until 1pm on Saturdays.

The campaigners already have a long list of breaches of the site licence and need extra people to help with this collection of information.

Please get along when you can and help fill the rota whenever possible.

What if Carwyn says "carry on dumping"?

2006-10-20T19:21:00.000+01:00

We're in limbo at the moment, it seems, as we await Carwyn Jones's decision to revoke or not. Individuals, groups and politicians are putting pressure on him, so we'll see which way he jumps.

This gives us a chance to start discussing the next step. Of course if Carwyn decides to revoke or discontinue, then the onus passes on to the Assembly and Wrexham Council to stop Murkey Waste from dumping immediately.

But what if he decides to permit dumping?

To quote the Proclaimers - "What do you do when democracy fails you?"

You consider your options and take action.

Some people may lose heart and give up at this point. It's been a long fight for some protesters, who kept the fight going when all looked lost. But there are also a lot of people, some not able to attend the meetings and pickets for various reasons, who want to fight on and win this campaign.

Action can mean many things: You can take action to replace the politicians who failed you but in the short term we also have to take action to ensure that Mersey Waste is not allowed to continue dumping.

So far our focus has been on the politicians in the Guildhall and Assembly, who had it within their powers to act on our behalf. If they fail, our focus should switch to the people who make decisions at Murkey Waste.

Peaceful and imaginative protests should be the way in which we fight the vested interests who benefit from the tipping - the Merseyside councils and Murky Waste Holdings.

There are other avenues of protest of course. Jill Evans MEP successfully petitioned the European Parliament to close the Nantygwyddon tip in the Rhondda because of the affect it had on local people's health. But this could take months if not years and we must fight in the here and now.

What do you think?

Send a comment and let's discuss the way forward.

Playing Politics

2006-10-20T00:16:00.000+01:00

Granada TV's programme about Hafod Quarry was screened tonight. A sizeable chunk of the report was given to an interview with Martyn Jones outside the Houses of Parliament, where he said that Carwyn Jones had the power to issue a discontinuance order but... wait for it... there was a problem because Mersey Waste could then sue Wrexham County Borough Council and it would cost the council tax payers a lot of money blah blah blah. He went on to say that he "would like" Mersey Waste to, in effect, see the error of its ways and stop dumping at Hafod. Likely, eh?

Still time to write to Carwyn to urge him to stop the landfill:

Carwyn Jones
Minister for Environment, Planning & Countryside
National Assembly for Wales
Cardiff Bay
Cardiff
CF99 1NA

Carwyn.Jones@Wales.gsi.gov.uk.

Here's one letter sent by Janet Williams:

Dear Mr Jones,

I am writing with regard to the landfill site operated by Mersy Waste Holdings at Hafod Quarry in the county of Wrexham. I have had an interest in the site for some years now, and would urge you to issue a notice of discontinuation for the current use of the land.
The original application should have been no longer valid, since significant progress in waste management has occured since the time of determination by a planning inquiry. In addition there are now significant material considerations that have developed in the past ten years, including the designation of part of the site as SAC, changes in demography and transport, introduction of EIA and HIA and advances in understanding of the health impacts of landfill.
I attach evidence which was submitted to a hearing into the operations proposed at the site in July 2004, for your information and interest, and to assist your deliberations.
I would be willing to attend any meeting at the Assembly to give evidence should that be necessary.
I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Please send Carwyn any additional information you have to assist him in his deliberations. I'm sure that many promises were made about how the site would operate, and that many of these have already been broken. So it would be worth writing to tell Carwyn how the site affects you, after just a few weeks. These accounts alone should make it abundantly clear that it was a serious mistake on the part of the Environment Agency and the council to allow landfill to go ahead at Hafod.

Community Policing and Peaceful Protest

2006-10-19T22:30:00.000+01:00

Inspector Paul Firth attended the meeting of Hafod Action Group tonight, answered questions and explained how he sees things.

In spite of several brave attempts by members of the group to explain the community's concern over traffic issues and road safety, Paul continued to make comments demonstrating that he totally misunderstands people's motivation for reporting traffic offences.

Everyone who spoke talked of the risks to other road users caused by these infringements and their general concern that no-one should be killed or injured on the road as a result of traffic offences linked with the quarry. Paul Firth appeared not to be listening:

"Ladies and gents, reporting all these traffic infringements won't get the quarry closed," he countered. Several people tried to explain that traffic issues around the quarry are their concern because they live in the local community and don't want their local roads to become death traps, but that wasn't going to change Paul's view of how things are:

"It feels like we [the police] are being put into a position where we are the only ones who are going to put an end to tipping." This, in spite of the fact that he had sat through the meeting on Saturday with Karen and Martyn listening to a whole range of concerns, including many which were not police matters. He continued with a warning:

"You should be aware that we haven't been able to police drugs issues and burglaries in the area because the police are down there [at the quarry]." Some members challenged Paul to justify over-policing incidents, such as the three police officers who had been sent to police six peaceful protesters, and who stayed at the site gate for far longer than necessary to establish they weren't needed. People were too polite to raise the issue of the 14 police officers sent to police the protest on Monday. Paul now denies saying that he only has 4 officers to police 250 square miles in his patch. He did though. We heard him.

One of the many pieces of foam littering the roadway from the quarry right down onto the by-pass and causing drivers to swerve dangerously to avoid what look for all the world like large pieces of rock (this one was about 4" high).

Anyway, Paul has been into Hafod Quarry today to slap the wrists of Murkey Waste bosses, to tell them to leave the camera at the gate on 24/7 (although we all know that the most useful footage on CCTV has a habit of mysteriously disappearing when it's most needed) and to warn them that they've got to clean up their act or they'll "get it in the neck". He asked us to quote this phrase.

In order to deal with traffic infringements by wagon drivers and the sweeping vehicle, the police need EVIDENCE. Dates, times, number plates, witnesses, photos, video footage. Please report all future infringements to the police with as much accompanying evidence as possible.

When is a peaceful protest not a peaceful protest? Paul Firth is of the view that anything which stops Mersey Waste carrying out its lawful [even though we know it's not] business for even a few minutes is not peaceful protest. He needs to go and look at the long and illustrious history of civil disobedience by pacifists in this country and worldwide. In the face of grave injustices perpetrated or condoned by the state, when the systems of the state fail to rectify such injustices, good citizens have frequently taken action. Direct action is not incompatible with peaceful protest.

Carwyn speaks

2006-10-19T10:20:00.000+01:00

In response to an enquiry by Janet Ryder AM about discontinuance, Carwyn Jones has sent the following reply [my bold]:

Your constituent is right in saying that I could not make a Discontinuance Order without first consulting the local planning authority. Were I to propose to make an Order I would also have to serve notice on the local planning authority and offer them the opportunity of a Public Inquiry. However I intend firstly to make an assessment of whether the making of a Discontinuance Order may be appropriate in this case taking account of our policy set out in Planning Policy Wales. That is the point at which I am at and I will announce my conclusion later this month.

Yours sincerely

CF Jones

There's a link to the Planning policy here but it doesn't seem to be working at the moment. Also, although this is a government web site, it appears to be carrying an advertisement for a private company.

So, if that doesn't work, try this link instead. This policy is dated 2002. If that's the most recent one, then it will have been updated with various circulars and guidance. Haven't time to go hunting for more info now, but if you find any, please post under "comments" below.

Opposition parties reject Assembly budget

2006-10-19T00:01:00.000+01:00

The opposition parties in the Assembly have rejected Labour's draft budget because they want to include - among a shopping list of demands - help for councils "to overcome the difficulties they face over landfill sites".

The delicate balance of power in the Assembly means that Labour has to get opposition support for its budgets. Out of 60 AMs, Labour only has 29 with the opposition consisting of Plaid Cymru (12), Tories (11), Lib Dems (6), John Marek (1) and Trish Law (1).

Negotiations will continue until "a fair deal" is reached. The thinking behind this is to negate the argument that revocation will put an unfair cost on Wrexham Council in terms of compensation, an argument we would reject but one that has been used by a variety of politicians.

So the ball is firmly back in Carwyn's court...

Murkeyside's recycling is, er, rubbish

2006-10-17T15:40:00.000+01:00

Taken from the Liverpool edition of the Daily Post
Green rage at recycling fiasco
Oct 17 2006

By Liam Murphy, Daily Post Staff

THOUSANDS of tonnes of waste, painstakingly separated out by householders who thought it would be recycled as compost, is being dumped in landfill sites.

Wirral Council and Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority have admitted that the rubbish is going to landfill because it cannot be used as compost until it is confirmed as safe to use.

They warned last night that the situation may not change for up to a year.

The waste is part of the food and garden waste recycling scheme which so far includes 18,500 homes in West Kirby, Heswall, Oxton, Prenton and Bebington.

Other homes which have received their garden bins in a second distribution wave have not been given a caddy for their food waste, and are being instructed not to add food waste. Because of this their garden waste can be recycled.

Patrick Cleary of Wirral's Green Party said it showed that recycling in Merseyside and Wirral was "a shambles".

He said: "The recycling in Wirral has been abysmal and I'm very disappointed by this. It has been done successfully in other parts of the country.

"There are so many simple things that could have been done long ago. It would be so simple to give people a way to recycle metal and glass. I had that when I lived down south 10 years ago, and they've had it on the Continent for decades."

He said food recycling was more complex and required a greater change in culture, but added: "It comes across as being totally disorganised and last minute, and is costing people money through landfill taxes which they pay in their council tax.

"People wanting to recycle will be gutted to hear about this. The whole thing is a shambles and a disgrace."

According to a report to be presented to Wirral's cabinet this week food and garden waste at the recycling centre at Bidston has not yet reached the standards required by the State Veterinary Service and cannot be sold as compost.

The report by director of technical services David Green said: "Currently the end product is being land-filled, so there is no recycling benefit to Wirral."

The report says this is "usual practice" for a new plant.

The authority says from April to July, 2,175 tonnes of food and garden waste was collected from 18,500 households. This is almost as much as the amount of garden waste (2,573 tonnes) collected from the remaining 75,000 households which just have the garden waste only sacks.

Carl Beer, Director of Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority, said they are now in the testing and assessment stage of the compost materials produced by the in-vessel composter at Bidston with the State Veterinary Service (SVS).

He said: "As part of guidelines that were brought in following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, any food waste that is composted into materials for use on land must now be fully assessed by the SVS before it is certified for use.

"This assessment and approval process is standard and is happening across the UK on all food and combined green and food waste collections."

He said the tests could take "up to a year but sometimes longer" to ensure the compost is safe to use.

David Green, director of technical services for Wirral Council appealed to people not to be disheartened and to continue recycling.

"The mixed food and garden waste residents have given us to recycle is absolutely vital and highly valued and I would not want anyone to feel their efforts are being disregarded - this is just not the case.

liammurphy@dailypost.co.uk

North Wales Policing Priorities

2006-10-16T09:46:00.000+01:00

On Saturday, Inspector Paul Firth said he had 4 police officers to cover 250 square miles and that he would rather not use them to police the Hafod protest. Today, about 20 protesters peacefully blockaded the quarry for about 15 minutes. At least 8 police officers (oops! I've been corrected - there were 14) were sent to the scene in at least 4 police vehicles, including the one sponsored by Kronospan. When the police arrived, the protesters moved back to the other side of the road without even being asked.

Surely it is good sense to send a couple of officers out in the first instance to assess the situation before diverting large numbers of officers from other duties to police something which does not need that level of policing... isn't it? Or is the priority to keep Mersey Waste moving at all costs? Who are the police really working for - the people or for big business?

In the end, with nothing else to do, the police assumed a traffic management role, stopping vehicles (which should have the right of way) along Bangor Road to allow the waste wagons to leave the site. At one point this caused a large tailback up Bangor Road.

An audience with our elected representatives

2006-10-15T22:03:00.000+01:00

Martyn and Karen as pictured on their list of surgery dates

Apologies for the length of this post, but it was a very long and arduous meeting.

Towards the end of our discussion with Inspector Firth (see below), Martyn Jones MP and Karen Sinclair AM joined us and we talked about their involvement in the campaign. Both Martyn and Karen were very indignant that people felt they hadn't been supportive of the anti-landfill campaign. They said that nothing could be further from the truth. They also said they were very hurt by the nasty and unfair things which had been written about them in this blog.

Karen explained that she didn't write anything on her web site about landfill at Hafod Quarry (between August 25th and October 13th) because she and/or her office staff were on holiday and people are entitled to their holidays. What she didn't explain was how so many other topics managed to appear on her web site during this time. Karen invited people to come to her office and read the landfill file. She said that scarcely a week/week and a half go by without her contacting the Environment Agency about Hafod. The protesters pointed out that they are on the phone to the EA every day. Some of their disappointment in Karen relates to her extravagant claims in a press release posted on her web site about how she will ensure that the MWH licence is followed to the letter. It was suggested that Karen should not make promises she can't keep.

There appears to have been some breakdown in communication, as Karen says she is regularly on the phone to some of the campaigners, but there is clearly a need to get this information disseminated more widely, so people understand what Karen is doing on their behalf. Karen asked people to let her know of any infringements in future, and she will follow all of them up. Karen can be contacted at karen.sinclair@wales.gov.uk or by phone on 02920 898724. Karen was shown the film of the potato starch incident and said she would contact the EA about this incident.

Karen was asked why it was Janet Ryder and not her who tabled the statement of opinion at the Assembly. Karen said "That's nonsense! Statements of opinion are just bits of paper."

Someone mentioned the quarry issue as a potential vote-loser for Karen and Martyn. Karen said that anyone was welcome to stand against her and try to do a better job. "To be honest, Karen," someone said, "if there was an election tomorrow, they could stand a pig against you, and the pig would win." There was also condemnation by the protesters of the councillors who voted against revocation, and a pledge to campaign on the landfill issue coming up to the next elections, making sure everyone is informed about how their councillor voted.

Martyn felt aggrieved that he had been accused of not attending the demonstrations at the quarry, when he had been there one morning and stood with the protesters. Some of the protesters said they hadn't seen him there. Martyn said that he was sorry that he'd gone on a day when they weren't there. Someone asked what date it was but Martyn didn't have that information. It was suggested that he could find this out and let the group know, but he took exception to this idea. However, to move things along, a printed invitation to visit the quarry was issued by the group to both Karen and Martyn. Martyn said he would be able to attend in a couple of weeks from now as he has other commitments before then. I'm sorry but I can't remember when Karen said she'd go along.

Martyn got himself embroiled in a nasty exchange with one campaigner, whose attitude he said he found "very annoying", a comment she took exception to. He went on: "I'm doing everything I can. The attitude that I'm doing nothing annoys me. I've just said that I'll send copies of all the letters I've written." (Later in the meeting he did apologise for this outburst). Martyn was asked what he had done in Parliament. He said that he did a lot in 1991, and at some time got himself into trouble with the Transport and General Workers Union for opposing landfill. He recently met the Environment Minister. When pressed for more information about what he'd been doing on the quarry issue, Martyn asked what else people wanted him to do. Someone felt that he should have been taking every opportunity to promote the anti-landfill cause and that he should be offering ideas rather than asking the protesters for a lead on what he should be doing.

There was a discussion about the likelihood of Carwyn Jones revoking the permission. Karen said Carwyn has to decide if revocation is the right thing to do, according to the regulations. There was some feeling amongst the campaigners that revocation could be the only right course of action, and that it would depend on Carwyn being brave enough to make the decision to revoke. Karen and Martyn were asked whether they would resign from the Labour Party if Carwyn didn't stop the landfill. They were very scathing of this suggestion, calling it "childish" (Karen) and "pathetic" (Martyn).

Karen was asked if she would help vote the Assembly budget down if this could make sure Carwyn revokes the permission and places money in a contingency fund in case of a successful claim by MWH (which the campaigners would strongly oppose for reasons outlined elsewhere). Karen said "if this is still going on after the budget has been set, then I will still be saying that the Welsh Assembly Government should do everything in its power to ameliorate the financial burden - that's what I said in my amendment to Janet Ryder's statement of opinion. In law, Carwyn is right - the responsibility is on the local authority - but I say that we have a moral responsibility. However, voting a budget down is a different thing. The budget includes money for hospitals, education etc. I won't vote against my Party's budget." Karen went on to describe John Marek's move as "pop politics".

Karen was asked if she would support the protesters taking direct action at the quarry if Carwyn doesn't stop the landfill. She said that she would never support direct action. Karen was asked what action she would recommend the protesters take to protect their health and the health of their children if Carwyn doesn't stop the landfill, given that any action via Europe could take years, during which time everyone will be exposed to nuisance and detrimental effects on their health, and some babies likely to be born with deformities such as cleft palates. Karen skirted round the issue and didn't answer the question. Later she was asked again - what action would you recommend? She ummed and aahed and offered the non-answer: "go to Europe, I suppose."

At the point where the discussion seemed to be going round in circles, Inspector Firth helpfully intervened and suggested that the campaigners could request some definite actions from Martyn and Karen.

It was suggested that Karen and Martyn need to let people know about their actions in relation to the quarry. They will consider producing a regular newsletter with updates. It was agreed that their contact details should be publicised - these are being sent round the Hafod group, Karen's details are above, and Martyn can be contacted at jonesm@parliament.uk and tel: 0207 219 3417, fax: 0207 219 6090. Karen stressed, however, that they did not want any hate mail.

Karen was asked to ask Carwyn to make an unannounced visit to the quarry. Karen said he had already promised that neither protesters nor MWH would have warning. Karen was asked to suggest that Carwyn should attend when landfill operations are likely to be in full swing, and that he should be guided around the outside of the quarry, so he can grasp the scale, and around Johnstown, so he can see how close the houses are to the site.

There may have been more action points but I'm afraid I can't remember what these were - I was losing concentration after two hours. Feel free to put your additions, corrections and opinions under "comments" below.

Protesters meet with Police

2006-10-15T11:37:00.000+01:00

Yesterday, a number of the landfill protesters met with Inspector Paul Firth, who is responsible for policing at the Quarry. This was part of a longer meeting which took place at Martyn Jones' constituency office in Johnstown; the first part of the meeting was with Insp. Firth, the second part was with Martyn Jones MP and Karen Sinclair AM (report to follow).

The only picture I could find of Inspector Paul Firth is copyright, but you can view it here. This web site includes an email link if you need to contact Inspector Firth.

The meeting kicked off with a discussion between Inspector Paul Firth and the campaigners. During a sometimes heated exchange, people expressed their concerns about the policing at Hafod, with most of the issues being about the attitude of officers policing the protest, and instances where people felt officers had overstepped the mark, been disrespectful, aggressive or intimidating etc. One or two incidents have resulted in complaints being made. The discussion didn't get off to a good start, with Inspector Firth often interrupting people who were trying to put their views across, but during the course of the meeting, people did get to say what they thought and the atmosphere gradually calmed down. The Inspector explained how policing at the site at the beginning of the protests was carried out by officers on overtime from across North Wales, whereas now only local officers were involved. He felt that this had improved police/protester relations, but agreed to address the ongoing concerns raised by the protesters, which included some issues about the attitude of certain officers, the need for officers to be seen to be even-handed and the need to follow up traffic offences committed by wagon drivers.

There was some discussion about the difference between what Inspector Firth called peaceful protest and other sorts. Some of the complaints about policing have arisen when protesters have not done exactly what the police have told them to do, at which point officers sometimes become aggressive and angry very quickly. Some protesters expressed very strong feelings, including one who said: "I never understood why people called the police 'pigs' until this protest began, but after the way I've been treated, I can see why." Obviously, it is not good for the police or for local residents if public confidence in the police force is destroyed, and Inspector Firth expressed his wish to ensure that this did not happen. It was suggested that officers could look at the example of Faslane in Scotland, where regular protests take place against the Trident submarine base, including direct action such as blockading, but where the police have nevertheless managed to maintain a good relationship with protesters by behaving (including carrying out arrests) in a calm and respectful manner, and generally ensuring that the wellbeing of the protesters is given due attention. The Hafod campaigners stressed that they did not have an issue with the police per se - the protest is about landfill - but they do expect to be treated properly.

Letters from our politicians - 2 (Bruce Roberts)

2006-10-14T13:16:00.000+01:00

Bruce Roberts, approved Assembly candidate for Wrexham Liberal Democrats, wrote to the Leader this week with a really feeble attempt to excuse councillors who voted against revocation of the 1995 planning permission. He rambles on a bit, but this is the important part:

Wrexham councillors voted not to revoke the planning permission because they had no choice. If they had voted against the advice of the officers (who were following national "guidelines") then they would have left Council Tax payers in Wrexham open to a compensation claim of up to £10m.

Successive governments of whatever party have restricted the power of local government to such an extent that local councils do not have the power to carry out the bidding of their constituents. The power of local government is being constrained more and more by guidelines, funding controls and national legislation...

...Until local democracy is strengthened to allow our locally elected representatives the power to make real decisions on our behalf these sorts of issues will continually crop up and the protests of local people will be fruitless.

Actually, Bruce, Wrexham councillors did have a choice - they had the choice to do the right thing and not to allow an obsolete planning permission to be used by MWH to landfill at Hafod. What they didn't have was moral courage and backbone. Every planning committee meeting I have ever been to has involved officers threatening that "if councillors choose to reject this, we may have to pay compensation". In this case, the advice was particularly misguided.

If the Lib. Dem/Independent Alliance which controls Wrexham council and whose members on the Planning Committee voted against revocation had bothered to do its homework, it would have discovered that MWH were well aware of the doubtful legality of the 1995 permission when they bought the site, and gave written assurance that they would not commence dumping until all planning matters had been resolved. Compensation (and who's decided on £10m, eh? Is it just a nice figure to scare council tax payers with?) should hardly be paid where a company goes ahead and starts dumping in full knowledge that their planning permission might not be allowed.

Aled Roberts is not a popular man in the Johnstown, Ruabon, Rhos and Ponciau areas. Nor are any of the members of his Alliance or other parties which voted against revocation. People won't forget decisions like this; they can't afford to because it will be them, their children and grandchildren who will be suffering the consequences for years to come.

First Hafod, then Penybont?

2006-10-13T21:51:00.000+01:00

Our small part of Wales has, as we're all too aware, had more than its share of landfill. Ruabon, Newbridge, Johnstown...

While our priority is to halt the Hafod landfill, this is not a narrow-minded campaign. We want to reduce landfill, increase recycling and re-use and ensure all councils (whether Murkeyside or Wrexham) do more in this field.

So we were concerned to hear from our Newbridge mole that the Penybont landfill site is almost full and WRG, the company that runs the site for Wrexham council, is looking for a very substantial extension. It could be decades, we understand.

We all know what Howard Moysen, the local councillor in Cefn Mawr and Newbridge, thinks of landfill. He's all for it in Johnstown. We wonder whether he'll be so keen if it's in his back yard with the council elections only 18 months away.

Howard Moysen - one of the Dirty Dozen

Letters from our politicians - 1 (Karen Sinclair)

2006-10-13T19:57:00.000+01:00

Karen Sinclair has been jumping to conclusions... I have it on good authority that Maurice Jones was not the author of a letter to the Evening Leader, written by one of the many other M Joneses who might share such views, in which Karen Sinclair was criticised. Anyway, that aside, this week our Karen has hit back.

In a reply to the Leader, Karen explains how she wrote letters about Hafod ages ago. She says: "It may come as a surprise to Mr Jones to learn that a great deal of hard work has been done by a number of individuals over a long period of time on this issue and not all of it gets to be made public." Karen has made jolly sure that her recent commitment to Hafod has been made public - signing the petition and suchlike.

As far as I am aware, most of the criticism of Karen relates to her lack of concrete involvement in the campaign since the Quarry opened for landfill and since her fellow Labour AM Carwyn Jones was asked to revoke. Hafod campaigners are particularly annoyed because of Karen's fine words about how she was going to support the people of Johnstown. In case anyone has forgotten, she said:

"Make no mistake, I will help ensure a very close eye is kept on them at all times and will work closely with the Environment Agency to make sure that they adhere in every respect to the conditions set out in the licence. The safety of residents is paramount and I will be taking every opportunity to ensure that this comes first and no breaches occur."

The people of Johnstown are wondering why they have been left to stand at the quarry gates every day to monitor the situation and to report repeated breaches to the Environment Agency, the council etc. It's best not to make promises you can't or won't keep, Karen. This is the sort of thing which goes against you at election time.

Look out for the next instalment in this series over the weekend; the Lib Dems have finally broken their silence...

Mass demo needed on Monday

2006-10-13T11:22:00.000+01:00

On Monday (16th Oct) Granada TV are coming down to the landfill site. Pauline has requested that we get as many people there from 7am as we can - can you please spread the word!

This will be seen in Murkeyside, so let's make sure that Murky Waste and Liverpool councils are reminded of their responsibilities.

Public meeting in Johnstown

2006-10-13T11:20:00.000+01:00

Can you also please let everyone know that there is a public meeting on Thursday 19th October at 7:30pm in Johnstown Scout Hut (usual location). Once again, we would like as many people there as we can so everyone can be updated on events of the past week.

Please also keep writing to Carwyn Jones:

Carwyn Jones AM
Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside
Labour Assembly Government
National Assembly for Wales
Cardiff Bay
Cardiff
CF99 1NA

Also, when you are ringing the Environment Agency (0800 80 70 60) and Wxm Council's Planning Dept (01978 292018) can you make sure you register that you have complained with Elaine Crawford who is keeping a record of our complaints. Elaine can be contacted on (01978) 840819 or elainetinapip@aol.com

Wrexham 588 Liverpool 300,000

2006-10-12T16:27:00.000+01:00

This is a reply to an e-mail sent to the First Minister about Hafod... it turns out Wrexham exports 588 tonnes of waste to England while we're expected to take 300,000 in return.

=============

Dear X

Thank you for your e-mail of 31 August to the First Minister regarding Mersey Waste Holdings landfilling waste from England at Hafod Quarry. I have been asked to reply.

Planning permission for Mersey Waste to landfill at Hafod Quarry pre-dates the National Assembly and was granted on appeal by the Secretary of State for Wales in 1995.

I can assure you that local authorities whose waste is handled by Mersey Waste will not avoid any controls on landfilling by sending it to a site in Wales, and Environment Agency Wales has to ensure that it will meet all the required standards to safeguard health and the environment.

To place this issue in context, Welsh local authorities also send waste to be landfilled in England and all of Wales' hazardous waste that needs to be disposed of in landfill is sent to England as well as significant amounts of waste from the industrial/commercial and construction/demolition sectors. According to information submitted by local authorities to the Environment Agency through WasteDataFlow, in 2005-06 Welsh local authorities exported 36,966 tonnes of municipal waste to be deposited into three different landfill site in England. Most of this waste arose in Monmouthshire, with the remaining 588 tonnes from Wrexham and 41 tonnes fromm Denbighshire.

Both the Welsh Assembly Government and Defra have plans in place for local authorities to reduce the amount of waste being sent to landfill and significant improvments have been made year on year.

The Welsh Assembly Government in its National Waste Strategy "Wise about Waste" seeks to promote sustainable waste management and to reduce the amount of waste, including municipal waste sent to landfill. Since 2000-01 local authority recycling and compostingi in Wales has increased from about 6% to nearly 20% in 2004-05, the last year for which data is available. (The way in which the data is collected has changed since 2000-01 but the 6% figure is reasonably comparable with the current way in which we collect the waste management data). Local authorities are expected to reach 25% recycling and composting by 2006-07 and 40% by 2009-10.

Yours sincerely

Cai Jones
Waste Policy Branch
Environment Policy and Protection Division

A day out with our AMs in Cardiff

2006-10-11T22:53:00.000+01:00

Thanks to everyone who came along to Cardiff today and all those people supporting this campaign who weren't able to be there. We left Johnstown at 7am in torrential rain, but everything (including most of our damp funereal clothes) had dried up by the time we arrived in Cardiff and by the afternoon the sun was shining.

Protesters had made a really imaginative array of banners and placards, including this one on a dustbin lid:

and this one, suggesting an alternative landfill material (biodegradeable):

and wonderful sets of posters like these showing exactly what landfill means to the people of Johnstown:

We even had our own grim reaper in attendance:

Several Assembly members came out to speak with us, although notably not the Minister who's going to be making the decision about revocation, Carwyn Jones. Carwyn did however deign to meet with a few of the protesters, who presented him with a 5,000 signature petition and 1,500 Evening Leader Coupons. Carwyn's going to pay a secret visit to the Quarry now, after previously refusing to do so, which is some progress. We sincerely hope that the quarry doesn't get any warning of this visit. When Jill Evans came along, landfill conveniently stopped for the duration of her visit.

John Marek, Wrexham AM, talked to the protesters about the possibility of the minority groups within the Assembly (who together constitute a majority), refusing to agree Labour's proposed budget unless Carwyn agrees to revocation. The minority parties were there to voice their support for this plan, although Eleanor Burnham didn't seem sure at first whether she would be supporting it or not. She said she was "thinking about it" but later returned to say that she would support.

Karen Sinclair, who arrived late and nearly missed all the fun, spent some time trying to explain to the protesters how she had been busy behind the scenes protecting their interests even though no-one had seen her at the Quarry. She's got a file "that thick" in her office to prove it if anyone cares to visit and take a look. Most of the Hafod campaigners took a dim view of this excuse, leading to some angry exchanges after Karen implied that the intricacies of the case were too much for the ordinary residents to appreciate. The ordinary residents insisted that the essence of the campaign was very simple, and someone suggested that Karen might be judged, not on having files "that thick" but on whether she succeeds in getting landfill stopped. Martyn Jones, very sensibly, stayed out of the argument and looked like he was wishing he'd stayed in Westminster.

My constituents - I mean my files - are THAT thick!

Janet Ryder AM, in answer to a question from a protester, said that if Carwyn failed to revoke the permission at Hafod, a vote of no confidence would be a possibility. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

As we were leaving, we laid a wreath at the front of the Assembly Building, mourning the loss of our health, clean air, amenity, property value, democracy and justice. It's up to Carwyn now to put these injustices right.

More photos from today can be found here.

The Monster Mash

2006-10-11T20:54:00.000+01:00

This is the sort of thing that goes on at Hafod: reported by one of the regular protesters.

Tuesday 10^th October 2006

This morning I witnessed a wagon commencing to tip a load of waste into Hafod landfill. The load included a pale powdery substance that threw up big clouds of dust. While continuing to watch and film, the tipping was suddenly stopped and the rear of the wagon was quickly closed up on what remained. When the wagon left the site some of the substance was visible and clinging to the rear, open to the elements and able to leave a trail of contamination in its wake.

I spoke to the site manager and asked him what the substance was that had been tipped. His reply was “ I don’t know. I think it might be glue. He’s (the driver) been sent away to get the right paperwork.” When asked if the tipping would have continued if no one had been watching and filming he denied it (naturally).

We will never learn the truth about how many other loads have been tipped without the right paperwork, or how many lives this unknown substance has contaminated during its journey to and from the site. No doubt a statement will be issued from somewhere telling us next that sniffing glue is harmless!

The incident was reported to the Environment Agency.

Later on...

Following my complaint to the E.A. this morning I am now informed by them that the unknown substance was Potato Starch (yeah!), non toxic and no danger to health etc. (Provides a good feed for the vermin though) They claim that only once the tipping had started did some discrepancy with the paperwork arise. The paperwork was described as ambiguous (very cloak and dagger in my view) hence the load was rejected. So, no point rushing out to sniff the air for a whiff of glue to get high on, we’ll just have to suffer clogged pipes and tubes from inhaling Potato starch instead.

This story illustrates why it's so important that people continue to keep an eye on the site, not just first thing in the morning, but whenever tipping is taking place. A pair of binoculars, camera and, if you have one, a video camera are useful to have with you. A footpath runs around two sides of the site with excellent views down into the tip. Can someone add Karen Sinclair and Martyn Jones to the rota please?

Carwyn to visit Hafod

2006-10-11T16:51:00.000+01:00

You could say this is a victory for the campaign - Assembly minister Carwyn Jones has been forced to do a u-turn and says he will now visit the Hafod site "privately" (we hope this doesn't mean sneaking over the fence when nobody's looking!)

He's also agreed to meet a small delegation of the protesters down in Cardiff, having originally said that even meeting them would "prejudice his opinion".

Being a cynic, I'm inclined to believe that this is a desperate spin by politicians who are seriously concerned about the fallout from Hafod. They have not listened to the people and they know the people will have their say next May. So the spin doctors have decided to try to weave a positive headline for their political masters - sorry, folks, it hasn't worked. Carwyn was wrong to ignore the protest at the start and he's wrong to try to gain political advantage from his u-turn now. If it's a private visit, why announce it?

Hafod protest goes to Cardiff Bay

2006-10-11T16:03:00.000+01:00

A busload of Hafod campaigners livened up proceedings outside the National Assembly in Cardiff Bay today. The campaigners were asking Assembly minister Carwyn Jones to revoke planning permission on the landfill at Hafod quarry, Johnstown.
A fuller report follows, but we thought you'd like to see the pictures now...

A trip to Cardiff for Martyn Jones?

2006-10-10T16:19:00.000+01:00

It seems that our MP Martyn Jones is planning to be at the Welsh Assembly Building to meet Hafod Quarry protesters tomorrow. If this is true, we wonder why Martyn needs to travel all the way to Cardiff to meet us when at least a dozen of his constituents are outside the quarry gates protesting about the landfill every morning except Sunday. No Martyn there even though it's on his doorstep. Nothing to do with the presence of the media and a handy photo opportunity in Cardiff, we hope.

We've heard that various local politicians, from councillors through to MPs and AMs, are starting to worry about their votes next time round if the Welsh Assembly allows landfill to continue at the quarry. It's all very well to make the right noises, but the people of Wrexham won't forget which politicians failed to offer real support when it was most needed.

If the Assembly does the dirty on us and allows landfill to continue at Hafod, we hope that all those Labour politicians who said they supported us will do the decent thing and resign from the Party in protest.

Hafod Quarry makes national news

2006-10-10T13:25:00.001+01:00

I wouldn't normally just reproduce articles here - especially after criticising Nick Colbourne for cutting and pasting those minutes of a Wrexham Council Meeting. :o)
However, this article by Pauline Smout in The Guardian last week deserves to be reproduced. Pauline has been campaigning against landfill in the Ruabon and Johnstown areas for about 20 years. We're off to Cardiff tomorrow to take our case to the Welsh Assembly.

SICK OF TAKING RUBBISH THAT ISN'T EVEN OUR OWN

Pauline Smout
Wednesday October 4, 2006
Guardian

You may know those dense red bricks and floor tiles beloved by the Victorians. They were mostly made from clay dug in the Ruabon area of north-east Wales. The mining has all but stopped but the legacy is a series of deep pits, which are immensely attractive to councils in Liverpool and the north-west for dumping waste in.

Unfortunately, the Victorians and local councils built thousands of houses around these sites, and in this small area south of Wrexham we now have three major landfill sites and a toxic lagoon that is too dangerous to treat.

Gardden Lodge, the smallest of the three landfill sites, has closed, which is just as well because it was the closest in Europe to housing. The second, still functioning, is on a loop of the River Dee - environmentally, a crazy place to site a waste dump. The third, Hafod quarry, had an old permission to allow waste to be dumped there but looked saved after it was designated a special area of conservation (SAC) because of the presence of a large colony of great crested newts.

Other SAC sites have visitor centres, but not this one. Hafod has an earth bund, 37 metres long and 15 metres high, built by Mersey Waste Holdings, a company set up by Merseyside councils. The newts have been moved to allow the city of Liverpool to dump millions of tonnes of rubbish in it for up to 44 years. This has struck a raw nerve.

Liverpool city council recently apologised to north Wales for flooding the village of Tryweryn when it built a giant reservoir there some 50 years ago to supply Liverpool with water. We wrote to the mayor asking for a similar official apology for having dumped city waste on our doorsteps for 19 years. He replied that he was not responsible for where Liverpool's waste goes.

The lorries have started rolling in, even before the legal issues have been resolved, and we, the people who live nearby and who have put up with rubbish dumps for so long, picket the site daily. We are bathed in the foul, warm air emanating from the lorries; already our eyes are sore.

We know what lies ahead - the retching, the smells, the swarms of flies, the dust, the tummy bugs, the asthma. We believe that people in this area have suffered cleft palates, miscarriages, eye problems and hormonal disorders in the past because of the waste dumped in our midst. Now we expect the same again.

But what about the law? The case has been though a planning inquiry and to the high court. In legal terms, it comes down to the waste company trying to justify its old planning permission. We pinned our hopes on the high court case, held last year in London, but the Welsh assembly barrister declined to give evidence and the case collapsed. Because no case was presented, the judge could give no judgment. So although we "won", it was a Pyrrhic victory because we had not legally proved that the 1995 planning permission was unworkable.

Experience has taught us to have no confidence in the authorities. The Environment Agency and its predecessors have consistently failed us. The Countryside Council for Wales - there to protect wildlife - appears to have blessed the desecration of a protected site.

Nobody should be expected to live with landfill all their lives. The quarrymen who mined this clay made millions for the Ruabon brick companies. They would never dream that their descendants would be condemned to live unhealthy lives while waste companies make millions today. We pray that the Welsh assembly, which will soon decide our fate, will now apply natural justice and issue a revocation or discontinuance order.

Stop Landfill at Hafod Now!

2006-10-09T11:37:00.000+01:00

This is what we can look forward to if landfill at Hafod is allowed to continue:

REPORT FROM NORTH WALES WEEKLY NEWS (Colwyn Bay) Thursday 5th October 2006:

Picture from North Wales Weekly News 5/10/06

A stench coming from Llandulas's rubbish tip is the worst for 15 years, say local residents. Authorities have received complaints about methane gases coming from the landfill site, and the Environment Agency says it is taking enforcement action against the company which runs the tip. But villagers say the smell is unbearable and they cannot put up with the whiff any longer. [One villager] says people are literally sick of the smell.

"Llandulas is a lovely place to live but this is spoiling the village... It's an awful problem. It smells of rotten eggs and can be very strong for hours at a time."

...Llandulas councillor Brenda Taylor [said]... "Some people can't even open their windows in their own home."...

In recent weeks unlined side-walls have meant rubbish hs been placed in the centre of the tip, while a gas extraction system couldn't be put in place until the walls were insulated with a plastic and clay lining. After 70 complaints the Environment Agency is taking enforcement action under the Pollution Prevention and Control permit to make sure the landfill is better run, and claim the problem should start to improve within weeks...

[An EA spokesperson said]" In recent weeks there have been odours detected from beyond the site boundary, resulting in a significant number of substantiated complaints... Such odours constitute breaches of WRG's permit."...

Nick Blake, regional operations manager for WRG said... "The recent odour problems from the landfill site are regrettable and the company acknowledges it has caused concern for some local residents," he said.

The amount of rubbish in Hafod at the moment is not huge, but the smell is already significant and unpleasant and extends well beyond the boundary of the site. If it smells like that now...

The quarry today

2006-10-06T18:44:00.000+01:00

Had a stroll round the perimeter fence of Hafod today. As I set off round the tip, a West Pennine Recycling wagon was just arriving with a load of what appeared, through my binoculars, to be building rubble, pallets etc. There was a huge cloud of dust as it was tipped out onto the day's rubbish heap. Here it is after the dust had settled a bit.

West Pennine Recycling is a Buckley firm which is, according to its website, "an environmentally friendly specialist waste management service that effectively disposes of Commercial and Industrial waste in the Chester and North Wales region" and which uses the slogan "Looking After You!" But not us, obviously. Does landfill constitute effective disposal? Is West Pennine near Buckley? Here's the day's rubbish being flattened out as the West Pennine truck leaves the site.

As I reached the top of the site, another truck arrived, this one from Wrexham. Answers and Solutions Wrexham Ltd. boasts that "our customers can be sure that their waste and rubbish is disposed in the most responsible and environmentally friendly manner possible." Yeah? I couldn't see what it was tipping from my vantage point and the truck had left by the time I got back. Presumably that was the last truck of the day (just before 4pm) because as I walked back along the perimeter, the diggers and dumpers were busy covering up the rubbish with soil.

Hafod Quarry is one huge hole. This picture puts the tip in context, with houses and Ruabon Mountain visible in the background.

Click on any of the pictures to see larger versions.

Which side are you on, councillor?

2006-10-05T21:26:00.000+01:00

Councillor Nick Colbourne thinks he's too important to join the people of Ruabon and Johnstown in protesting about the Hafod quarry. His blog makes it clear that he won't be joining the morning protest - because he thinks that there's a conflict of interest between being a magistrate and representing his ward, which happens to include the Hafod landfill site.
Cllr Colbourne has made his choice clear - he rates being a magistrate as more important than being a councillor. He is standing aside from a battle where people's health is being put at risk. If that's the case, councillor, it's time to let someone else take your place who will listen to his electors and stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

Damage Limitation Exercises - Labour Hits Back

2006-10-05T21:02:00.000+01:00

Rumour has it that various New Labour politicians are somewhat ruffled by the comments made on this blog about their actions (or lack thereof) on the quarry issue. The last day or so has seen a flurry of activity in blogland and in the Ruabon veg shop where they've been queuing up to sign the petition against landfill. Here's a picture from Nick Colbourne's blog, showing Karen Sinclair signing.

About 4,000 or so other people have already signed this petition. The Evening Leader would've needed a few extra pages if they'd all issued press releases to announce their happy events as Karen and Nick did. Not quite sure why the Leader article says they were signing the Leader coupons as they clearly aren't. Never mind - perhaps we'll be treated to a picture of them filling in their coupons in tomorrow's edition.

Under the picture, there's about a mile of text. Gosh! He's got a lot of spare time on his hands, but on closer inspection it turns out to be the blogger's cop-out - a cut and paste job. Nick's posted minutes from a full council meeting a year ago (Halloween to be exact), a dismal attempt to prove New Labour's anti-landfill credentials. Sadly, I had the misfortune to be present at this particular council meeting, so I heard the arguments put forward by Labour members. Mostly, they seemed very upset that the Wrexham incinerator was no longer on the cards - it had finally been abandoned as an option a week or two before. One after another, the Labour councillors stood up and announced in various roundabout ways how everything would have been much better if we'd just gone along with the INCINERATION plan. Yeah, right. That would've reduced landfill ok, but we'd all be breathing in dioxins... not that that seemed to worry some Labour councillors, such as ex-leader of the council and OBE Shân Wilkinson, who doesn't believe in any of the scientific evidence about the harmful effects of dioxins and would be perfectly happy for her grandchildren to live next door to an incinerator. So she says.

That was yesterday's blog. On Tuesday, Nick Colbourne posted this explanation for his non-attendance at the quarry protests:

"I can say here and now, that absence will continue due to the potential conflict with my role as a JP on Wrexham Bench. I have taken extensive advice from both the MA and the Clerk to the Justices on the matter and as a result of that advice, I'm not going to partake in any action which could result in embarassment for the Magistracy. If that upsets a minority then so be it. I value my contribution to public service through that sphere and I will continue to make it.
In no way whatsoever does that decision alter, affect or detract from my belief that landfill is WRONG! I shall always argue against landfilling, not just at Hafod, but elsewhere."

Hang on a minute, Nick. You're the elected councillor for this area. What right has the Magistracy to tell you what you can and can't do in your capacity as local councillor or in your free time? Embarrassment for them? That's more important than the health and well-being of your constituents, is it? Get your priorities right! You're right about the conflict of interests though. Clearly you can't continue to be a magistrate and an effective local councillor. So which one is going to go?

Perhaps Nick's constituents could be polled - Should Nick give up being a magistrate so he can represent you properly, or should he give up being your councillor so he won't embarrass his magisterial colleagues being seen standing next to angry residents with banners and placards? What do you think?

Steaming hot pics

2006-10-05T20:10:00.000+01:00

Don't get too excited - this is what the rubbish looks like after it's been fermenting in the wagons over the weekend. Just be grateful they haven't worked out how to transfer smells over the internet yet.

More photos of Hafod can be found here.

Coach to Cardiff on October 11th

2006-10-03T15:03:00.000+01:00

Hafod Environmental Group will be taking a coach to Cardiff to lobby Carwyn Jones at the Welsh Assembly on Wednesday 11th October, leaving from outside the shop on Bangor Road, Johnstown at 6.45am. For more information, or to book your place, call 01978 841335.

Because of a football match, it won't be possible to spend all day in Cardiff (or we might get stuck there!) Please bring food to keep you going on the coach on the way down as we won't have time to stop for a meal en route. We should be in Cardiff before midday. Contributions welcome towards the cost of the coach, whether you're able to come along or not.

New Labour Sinks to New Depths

2006-10-02T14:22:00.000+01:00

OK, what exactly IS going on with our New Labour politicians?

At the planning committee meeting on September 4th, three Labour councillors voted for revocation of the Hafod planning permission; two voted for modification and one said he supported the campaign against landfill at Hafod but he left the meeting before the vote was taken.

GARETH GRIFFITHS

Since then, we have Gareth Griffiths of Coedpoeth, pictured above, (who voted to revoke) having a go at Janet Ryder's statement of opinion in the Welsh Assembly and suggesting that Plaid Cymru won't be campaigning against the next landfill site. Maybe they will and maybe they won't, but if people don't campaign against this one, there's every chance that Wrexham's rubbish will also end up going to Hafod. Landfill per se is bad and we need a lot less of it, but that needs positive campaigning and political action towards zero waste policies. The main point about Hafod as opposed to other landfill sites is that it is the WRONG PLACE for landfill. It might be a nice, big hole, enough for 20 years worth of rubbish, but it is just 150m from local housing, is likely to leach poison into Dee tributaries, includes a protected wildlife site and wouldn't qualify for planning permission under current rules and regulations. Hope to see you at the daily protests soon, Gareth.

NICK COLBOURNE

Then there's Nick Colbourne, above, (who voted to revoke and whose ward covers Hafod) conspicuous by his absence at the Hafod protests since the planning meeting. However, he has been writing criticisms of the planning committee on his blog - he criticises planning committee members, including members of his own party presumably, for refusing to set a precedent and revoke the Hafod permission while, just a fortnight later, they seem to be falling over themselves to set a precedent by allowing building outside the Unitary Development Plan settlement limit. Their excuse for such a radical decision: community benefit. Shame they couldn't see the community benefit of revocation at Hafod. New Labour's policies aren't immune from Colbourne's criticism either. Elsewhere in his blog he blasts New Labour for charging tuition fees which have caused his daughter to abandon her university studies. So, where are you, Nick? We need your continuing support for the Hafod fight.

What about our Members of Parliament?

MARTYN JONES

There's Martyn Jones, who seems rather confused by the whole issue. In last Friday's Evening Leader, he was quoted as saying "I would rather this hadn't have gone ahead at all but unfortunately the 1995 permission is still in existence and it would cost a lot of money to the council tax payers in Wrexham if the council were to revoke it. [Bit late for that thought, Martyn, even if it were correct which it isn't.] I believe therefore it is now the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly to step in and revoke this planning permission." Therefore? Does that mean it won't cost council taxpayers any money if the Assembly revoke? That's not what Carwyn Jones thinks. We don't believe that MWH would be entitled to any compensation in any of these circumstances, and for Martyn Jones to make statements in the press to say that they would is really not terribly helpful. What's more, it isn't unfortunate that the 1995 permission still stands - it's a scandal! Is Jonesy trying to distance himself from the Assembly decision in case it affects his popularity with the 28% of his constituents who voted for him at the last election?

ian lucas

What about Wrexham MP Ian Lucas, who doesn't seem to have said very much at all about landfill at Hafod? You may be interested to learn that Ian is a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Packaging Manufacturing Industry. The aim of this group is "to create a better understanding of UK packaging manufacture; to address issues facing industry from regulation; and to promote the UK as a centre of excellence for packaging manufacture." The packaging manufacturing industry is a rather powerful lobby - more packaging means more profit for the packaging industry of course, but more landfill waste for us to dispose of. Perhaps Ian's constituents might ask him to lobby the industry on the issue of over-packaging and to urge companies to develop ecological alternatives to current non-reusable and unrecyclable packaging.

KAREN SINCLAIR

Labour AM Karen Sinclair appears to have given up the Hafod fight very early on. She has been totally silent on the issue on her web site since August, before the planning decision not to revoke was made. But back in August she said: “The planning permission tragically [tragically? - that's even worse than Martyn Jones' unfortunately] goes back to 1995 when it was granted on appeal. The Local Authority were opposed to it and so too were the local community. However, the planning inspectors went against the wishes of the community and unfortunately there was no right of appeal... The issue that is of greatest importance now is that the operator, Mersey Waste Holdings, are meticulous in complying with the terms of their licence as it is laid down. Mersey Waste must follow the conditions in the licence to the letter, the community will accept nothing less. Make no mistake, I will help ensure a very close eye is kept on them at all times and will work closely with the Environment Agency to make sure that they adhere in every respect to the conditions set out in the licence. The safety of residents is paramount and I will be taking every opportunity to ensure that this comes first and no breaches occur. Any such breach of the strict licence conditions that does occur should and will be punished by the relevant authorities."

Fine words, Karen, but where have you been all these weeks? How exactly are you ensuring that a very close eye is kept on MWH? What opportunities have you taken to ensure safety of residents comes first (which can only really be achieved by stopping landfill) and that no breaches occur? If you'd been doing this self-appointed job, we wouldn't have had to report breaches to the Environment Agency nearly every day.

RHODRI MORGAN

First Minister of the Welsh Assembly Rhodri Morgan was in Flintshire opening a new kiln at Padeswood Cement Works last Friday (29th September). No-one had mentioned space or the afterlife, but just in case anyone present might have been thinking of possible other-worldly solutions to our pollution problems, Rhodri was quick to bring them back down to earth. Questioned about safety concerns over the new kiln he said: "Cement does not arrive from some convenient line in space to our building sites. It has to come from cement works." When asked about the landfill he said: "There will always be an issue about where waste will go because there is no convenient line to Heaven where it can go." Er... right... rather implies that he'd like Heaven to be a giant landfill site if he had the choice, doesn't it?

He also said: "We always have to find the right balance between people's emotions and the correct ways of dealing with waste." Wrong, Rhodri. What we're talking about here is a council which has found the wrong balance between people's health and the incorrect ways of dealing with waste. Wrexham Council has opted to support business interests and the interests of Merseyside council administrations over your own party's policy on landfill and over the health and well-being of Wrexham people. How did you get to become First Minister with crass statements like this, eh?

CARWYN JONES

Last but not least, what has Carwyn Jones, Minister for the Environment, Planning and Countryside got to say about all this? In his Cabinet Written Statement, Carwyn chooses to ignore the issue of the distance the waste is travelling to get to Hafod (even though the proximity principle is government policy). He also states that "the local authority decided against revoking or discontinuing the permission. They decided instead to make a Modification Order to ensure that the landfill does not effect [surely "affect", Carwyn] the nearby Special Area of Conservation." Pull the other one! A Modification Order might satisfy the council, the Environment Agency and the Welsh Assembly, but it's not going to do anything for the newts, the Special Area of Conservation or the people of Johnstown who are going to have to live with landfill on their doorstep.

Let's hope Carwyn doesn't forget this part of his statement: The WAG's "policy is to consider such action , [rescinding the planning consent or Discontinuance presumably] only where the original decision is judged to be grossly wrong, so that damage would be done to the wider public interest." So long as the "wider public interest" doesn't include big business interests, the case for closing Hafod is very strong, but Carwyn goes on with a veiled threat: "If the Assembly intervened, compensation might be payable and this would be met by the local authority."

Just in case we missed this bit of Carwyn's statement, replies from the Welsh Assembly Planning Division to letters from members of the public about this issue say it again: "Compensation is payable on the making of an Order but this will not be one of the issues which is considered in the decision making process." The WAG has already decided that Mersey Waste would be entitled to compensation, has it? We're not so sure about that!

So, what does all this point to? Is Carwyn going to dump us in it (literally), leaving all the other Labour politicians to try and distance themselves from this vote-losing decision? What do you think? Why not write to one or more of these Labour politicians and ask them a question or two about Hafod?

To contact your local councillor, MP, AM or MEP, click here.

Councillor Colbourne

2006-10-02T10:22:00.000+01:00

Nick Colbourne, the Ruabon councillor, posted this on his blog on Sept 22:

Here's a copy of an email sent to me by the Chief Planning officer:

On the 19th September the Assembly (via a 'Motion of Opinion' put down by Janet Ryder AM) 'asked' the Minister for Planning to revoke the Hafod landfill permission. This motion has no status as such other than to raise the issue with the Minister.

Separately the Minister has been asked to revoke the permission by at least one AM/MP.

The officers at the Planning Division have indicated that the Minister will issue a press release to the Daily Post and/or Western Mail on this issue in the middle of next week. This press release will not issue a decision on the matter, or express an opinion on whether it should be revoked, but will explain the (rare) circumstances under which such action can be taken.

The Minister will take a decision on the matter probably some time in October, which is likely to be when our Modification Order is served on Mersey Waste Holdings. (This order is presently being prepared using specialist lawyers).

I have sent this to you in case you receive reports that the Assembly has 'decided' to revoke.

Regards, Lawrence
Lawrence Isted
Chief Planning Officer

A few questions arise:
• Why is Lawrence Isted, supposedly neutral, so eager to belittle the Statement of Opinion?
• Why is Carwyn Jones waiting until the Modification Order is served on Murky Waste?
• Indeed, who needs a Modification Order if the Assembly is going to revoke?
• How closely are the council and Assembly working to pull the wool over people's eyes?
• Why does this e-mail smell worse than the average landfill site?

Oh, and if anyone sees Nick Colbourne, can you tell him that the Hafod quarry is in his ward and he's welcome to come on the daily picket by the gate at any time. Unlike some councillors, who are listening to their constituents, Mr Colbourne seems to have decided that all is lost over the Hafod.

Street stall in Wrexham

2006-09-30T20:05:00.000+01:00

Protesters fighting against landfill at Hafod Quarry took their campaign into Wrexham town centre today with a stall in Hope Street. Johnstown residents and members of Hafod Environmental Group including Councillors Dave Bithell and Mark Pritchard were joined by Assembly Member Janet Ryder and a number of other supporters.

Over 600 people stopped at the stall to sign the campaign's petition to the Welsh Assembly and many promised to write individual letters to the Welsh Assembly too.

Apart from a couple of people who said they worked at the landfill site, there was virtually universal condemnation of the council's decision to allow the 1995 planning permission for landfill to stand with modification. "Shocking", "disgraceful", "spineless" and "corrupt" were some of the words used to describe the decision.

Many people were extremely angry that Mersey's waste is being dumped here in Wrexham, blaming Merseyside councils and the directors of Mersey Waste Holdings, along with Wrexham council, for the decision to dump. Several people commented that the needs of councils and big business would always be put before the well-being of ordinary people... which is probably true unless we take matters into our own hands to stop this happening.

There were many comments about the need to provide better recycling services (Liverpool and Wirral are amongst the five worst authorities for recycling in the country, with the other Mersey authorities and Wrexham not far behind). One suggestion for waste minimisation and improving recycling is that shoppers could return all unnecessary packaging (stuff which can't be recycled by Michael - like margarine tubs, yoghurt pots, plastic bags) from whence it came, placing pressure on shops and supermarkets to sell goods with less packaging or recyclable packaging and to provide recycling facilities on their premises for anything which can't be recycled by the local scheme.

There was also anger at comments made by various politicians (including Martyn Jones MP and leader of the council Aled Roberts) in the last few days about the possible cost to Wrexham council tax payers of any compensation claim by Mersey Waste Holdings if their licence was revoked. The Welsh Assembly (Carwyn Jones) has also said that Wrexham council would have to bear the cost of any compensation. Many people felt that this was a cyncial attempt to quash protest about the quarry. If this was the aim of such comments, then it has failed miserably and has probably been counter-productive. We heard many exclamations along the lines of "How dare they try to threaten us with higher council tax bills!" and "The council might put finances before people's health, but we don't! This just shows how corrupt they are." A number of people were aware of MWH's promise not to start landfill until all the planning matters had been resolved, so felt they weren't entitled to compensation anyway.

Lastly, there were many references to future elections and the likely fate of politicians who had supported the decision to landfill at Hafod. As one man said to me: "We have long memories. We haven't forgotten Tryweryn and we're not going to forget the people who let us down over Hafod."

More Hafod photos can be seen here.

Action for Hafod

2006-09-29T13:16:00.000+01:00

Tomorrow morning (Saturday 30th Sep) campaigners for Hafod will have a stall by Marks & Spencer's in Wrexham town centre from 10am. They are looking for volunteers to help them for a couple of hours where they will be gathering signatures for the petition. If it is raining and the group are not by M&S, then you'll find them under the archway opposite the Horse & Jockey.

The Action Sub-Committee meets on Monday (Oct 2nd) at 8pm in Johnstown Scout Hut. If you are not on this committee, please still feel free to come along; it's not too late to join!

Can everyone write personal letters to Carwyn Jones -f illing in a coupon with the Evening Leader is great, but the letters are important and we MUST write those! His details again:

Carwyn Jones AM
Minister for Environment, Planning & Countryside
National Assembly for Wales
Cardiff Bay
Cardiff
CF99 1NA

Let's get cynical...

2006-09-29T13:08:00.000+01:00

Call me a cynic, but why has it taken three weeks for Welsh Assembly Government minister Carwyn Jones to announce he's going to make an announcement in a month's time about Hafod?

Call me a cynic, but why did it take the same amount of time to discover that the Assembly government can apparently go for a "Discontinuation Order" rather than a revocation. No good saying that Murky Waste has started dumping - it has started dumping before the council planning permission!

Call me a cynic, but all this talk of compensation is just that - talk. Murky Waste would never be allowed to dump its waste if it applied for planning permission today. It's likely that EU regulations will stop it dumping in the near future and that's before we turn our attention to the Murkeyside councils that have so badly let their own people down, not to mention the people of this area, over recycling and landfill. £10 million - you're 'avin a laff!

Call me a cynic, but is all this politicking just a chance to waste more time and let people down gently, in the hope that they forget the guilty parties before the next Assembly elections?

Don't worry, cynics have long memories!

Assembly statement on Hafod

2006-09-27T10:35:00.000+01:00

Carwyn Jones, the Assembly minister for the environment, planning and countryside, has just issued this announcement about Hafod:

The Assembly Government has been asked to quash the planning consent for landfill at Hafod Quarry in Wrexham.

Planning permission to allow the use of Hafod Quarry for landfill was given in 1995 by the then Secretary of State for Wales as a result of an appeal.

Many locals are opposed to the development and they asked the local planning authority to use powers available to it to quash the planning consent and thus stop the use of the quarry for landfill.

On 4 September the local authority decided against revoking or discontinuing the permission. They decided instead to make a Modification Order to ensure that the landfill does not effect the nearby Special Area of Conservation.

The National Assembly has powers to rescind planning consents. In order to stop landfill operations a Discontinuance Order would be necessary. I will consider the case for making such an order and will announce a decision next month. The Assembly Government's policy is to consider such action only where the original decision is judged to be grossly wrong, so that damage would be done to the wider public interest. If the Assembly intervened, compensation might be payable and this would be met by the local authority.

One of the issues of concern to local residents is the fact that the quarry is taking waste from across the border. In the last year for which we have data, Welsh local authorities exported nearly 36,966 tonnes of municipal waste to landfill sites in England. In the same year 9,340 tonnes of municipal waste was imported from England. The cross border movement of waste will not be a consideration in the decision before the Assembly Government.

Coach to Cardiff

2006-09-26T07:56:00.000+01:00

Have you written to Carwyn Jones yet? See the next entry for more details...

Here's his email address too: Carwyn.Jones@Wales.gsi.gov.uk.

If you feel strongly about the Hafod Quarry landfill issue, then it's important to write to Carwyn Jones to let him know how you feel. Every letter is important. If you have pictures of the site or the protest, you might like to send some of these too.

You can also come to Cardiff with us to lobby Carwyn Jones and the Welsh Assembly. The date isn't set yet, but if you contact: hafodenvirogroup@hotmail.com, they'll be able to send you the details once it's organised. It won't all be work - there may be time to have a wander round Cardiff too!

Write to the Welsh Assembly now if you oppose landfill at Hafod

2006-09-22T13:58:00.000+01:00

Your letters are needed NOW. Please write and tell the Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside, Carwyn Jones, what you think about the landfill site at Hafod. Tell him why you want him to overturn the decision of Wrexham County Borough Council to allow dumping to go ahead at the site. Please write the letter in your own words. Something short and powerful will be fine. Even if you don't live in the area, your letter to the Welsh Assembly Government will count. Please support us.

If the site affects you directly, you could say how and why.
If you have concerns about safety, pollution, health effects from the site, tell the Minister what these are.
If you are opposed to landfill, say why.
Ask the Minister to rescind the planning permission for the site.

Facts and figures, some of which you may like to include in a letter:

The 1995 planning permission is obsolete and should not have been allowed to stand.
The Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation mean that the 1995 planning permission is no longer valid.
New guidelines under the National Waste Strategy for Wales are incompatible with the 1995 permission. Local residents have a landfill on their doorstep which does not meet current landfill guidelines.
The site is too close to local houses (150m).
The site is within the Dee Protection Zone, with a risk of pollution to local watercourses.
Sites should be close to the source of waste, not be importing waste from 30-50 miles away (although no landfill should take place at Hafod, wherever it comes from).
Merseyside is failing miserably to meet recycling and re-use targets for its waste, a large proportion of which is still landfilled.
Wagons pulling on and off the Bangor Road is causing a traffic hazard.
The smell from the site is already dreadful.
There are health risks associated with landfill, as cocktails of substances react with unpredictable results.
There are already two other landfill sites very close by which have caused misery to local residents for years. These too promised that there would be no pollution, nuisance or ill-effects on local people, but the reality was very different.

Send your letters to:

Carwyn Jones, AM
Minister for the Environment, Planning and Countryside
Labour Assembly Government
National Assembly for Wales
Cardiff Bay
Cardiff CF99 1NA

Nottingham Victory against Incinerator Expansion

2006-09-21T23:40:00.000+01:00

An inspiring report from Nottingham about their campaign against landfill and incinerator. Read all about it here.

Pressure for Assembly action

2006-09-18T17:49:00.000+01:00

North Wales Plaid AM Janet Ryder has today put down a Statement of Opinion (the Assembly equivalent of a Westminster Early Day Motion) calling for Carwyn Jones, the relevant minister, to revoke the planning permission at Hafod. He has to have the final say because of the history of the tip.

Tomorrow the National Assembly will be debating water and Janet Ryder says she intends to raise the issue of the Hafod during that debate.

Lobby your AMs to support this Statement of Opinion now - if you live in Clwyd South it's karen.sinclair@wales.gov.uk or in Wrexham it's john.marek@wales.gov.uk

If you live elsewhere, go to www.theyworkforyou.co.uk to find out your Assembly Member.

Hafod Group Open Meeting on Thursday (21st)

2006-09-16T16:41:00.000+01:00

An open meeting of the Hafod group takes place at 7.30pm this Thursday. It's at the Johnstown scout hut on the Moreton estate. Please come with your suggestions for taking the campaign further.

The gate picket continues... a good turnout this morning of about twenty people on the gate. There were seven lorries between 7-9am.

The police informed us that they are removing their permanent presence and reducing surveillance to a patrol.

Why Wrexham still landfills 90% of its waste

2006-09-16T14:58:00.000+01:00

It is clear from Wrexham's Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 1996 - 2011, which was only adopted by the council on 14th February 2005, that the council doesn't understand any of the ethical or environmental issues around landfill. We don't want landfill because it's smelly, noisy, polluting, dangerous, wasteful, makes people's lives a misery etc. Wrexham council is only looking at alternatives to landfill because there aren't enough big holes to chuck our rubbish in, because landfill tax is costly and because the council has to meet European Directives and the National Strategy. See for yourself in this extract from the UDP:

11.13 Waste Management in Wrexham has traditionally focused on landfilling. However, sites suitable for landfilling are becoming scarcer and the costs imposed by the landfill tax are likely to make this form of waste management less attractive in any event. A more sustainable approach towards waste management is also required in order to conform with the relevant European Directives and with the National Waste Strategy for Wales. Accordingly there is now a need to take a more comprehensive view of waste management.

But Hafod Quarry is one huge hole. It has an estimated capacity of 5.5 million cubic metres, considerably larger than all other remaining landfill capacity in North Wales put together. Given the above, it is fair to assume that Wrexham council's reasoning for letting dumping go ahead at the quarry goes like this:

it's a great big hole with plenty of room
someone else (whoever's dumping there) has to pay the landfill tax
compliance with the European Directives is Merseyside's problem
It's English waste, so doesn't affect the National Waste Strategy targets for Wales

In theory (although very probably not in practice), council officers only do what the councillors tell them to do, and the councillors are elected by us and answerable to us. We need to make sure all our councillors are in no doubt that:

landfill at Hafod is unacceptable to the people of Wrexham
landfill at Hafod will cause misery for local people with noise, smell, traffic etc.
landfill at Hafod Quarry will pollute the local environment
Merseyside should sort out its recycling and re-use schemes (as should Wrexham) so it doesn't need to export its unsorted waste to other places

The Recycle with Michael scheme has made some improvements to the situation in Wrexham, but it is still far too little. The Merseyside schemes are generally just as poor. What is needed is a comprehensive policy to work towards zero waste. Other councils are doing this, but what it needs is political will.

Every single letter in this week's Wrexham weekly Leader was about and opposed to landfill at Hafod. Keep up the pressure.

You can contact your councillor and other elected representatives by clicking here.

Murky Waste goes on the offensive (and it is very offensive!)

2006-09-15T09:10:00.000+01:00

The last two editions of the Evening Leader suggests that the editor's made a conscious decision to back Murky Waste's view of events. On Wednesday we had the headline news that councillors who voted against revocation had been called late at night. It's unclear how this is connected to the Hafod, as councillors make unpopular decisions all the time. But it was presented by the Leader as a menace by a minority of campaigners.
Last night's Leader (Thursday) had an even more ridiculous scare story. It claimed - on the basis of a single very biased source - that a white van had attempted to force a Murky Waste lorry off the by-pass. This was accepted as part of a harassment campaign by protesters and, more specifically, sought to divide campaigners between the "acceptable" majority and the "militant" minority. I'm sure we've all been cut up by white vans in our time and would have appreciated being in a 30-tonne truck - how many white vans would take them on?
Murky Waste is a big business and operates accordingly. Big business when it's in trouble turns to crisis management PR firms and these stories have all the hallmarks of a Public Relations firm planting stories in a gullible (or unthinking) media.
Our united campaign to stop the immoral dumping at the Hafod will go on regardless of these scare stories.

Murky facts and figures for you

2006-09-13T18:24:00.000+01:00

According to Councillor John Fletcher, (St Helens) chair of Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority until June 2006, in his introduction to the Joint Municipal Waste Strategy for Merseyside, the area produces 800,000 tonnes of waste every year, of which 700,000 tonnes goes to landfill.

Elsewhere, the report notes that "Recycling and composting targets have been set out in the Government’s ‘Waste Strategy 2000." This stipulates that Authority’s should recycle or compost 25% of household waste by 2005 and 30% by 2010." One of the objectives of the strategy is "To landfill waste only where actions higher up the waste hierarchy [things like waste reduction, re-use, recycling and recovery] are not possible." They're not doing very well on that target, are they?

The 2005 figures show 22% recycling and 78% to landfill in 2005, with no re-use and no residual waste recovery. So have things improved in the last year? I've had a quick look on the internet at the various Merseyside council recycling schemes. Knowsley, "Improving people's lives" (although possibly not the lives of its residents), does no kerbside recycling collections at all, and the only reference to plastics at "recycling centres" is Tesco's plastic bag recycling. Sefton appears to collect no plastics, even at recycling centres. St Helens - "Think Smart, Take Part" - collects no plastics at the kerbside, and it appears that its plastic recycling is only for customers of Asda and Tescos. Wirral collects paper and garden waste at the kerbside, but there's no mention of the website of how you can go about recycling anything else. Liverpool City Council collects no plastics at the kerbside or at its bring-banks, but has just rolled out a new "green bin" scheme.

None of the above will go very far to reaching the strategy targets. But then, why should they bother when they have the whole of Hafod Quarry to fill up with their rubbish?

2006-09-11T22:14:00.000+01:00

Plaid Cymru's Euro-MP Jill Evans got a rousing reception from 150 local protesters when she visited Hafod quarry today. She explained that, under European law, a landfill site can be declared illegal if it interferes with people's lives.
The campaign goes on with a number of different avenues being explored.

Check out a new website condemning Wrexham councillors here

Murkyside facing £30m fine for landfill

2006-09-11T00:27:00.000+01:00

New EU restrictions on landfill dumping mean that the five councils in Murkyside face fines of up to £30 million if they fail to reduce their landfill by 2010, according to the National Audit Office.

The regulations will get progressively tighter until, by 2020, the expectation will be that only a third of current landfill is sent to be dumped.

This places Mersey Waste in an interesting position. In 2003-4 it landfilled 512,000 tonnes of biodegradable municipal waste. This is meant to reduce to 310,848t by 2010 - by neat coincidence that's about the annual capacity of the licence granted for Hafod.

But by 2013, the allowance will be down to 207,047t, so there will be room for a hundred thousand tonnes of other people's rubbish at the Hafod. Mersey Waste could end up profiting from other people's misery, ill health and pollution.

Full National Audit Office report on landfill here

Half Mersey's waste goes to Hafod

2006-09-10T23:58:00.000+01:00

Hafod Quarry, near Johnstown, Wrexham, is licensed to be the dumping ground for almost half of the annual household landfill waste generated by the five Merseyside local authorities.

The authorities' contractor, Mersey Waste Holdings (MWH), is licensed to dump a staggering 300,000 tonnes of waste each year in Hafod Quarry.

The total amount of Merseyside waste generated last year stood at 770,124 tonnes.

Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority had been "named and shamed" by the National Audit Office for having failed to make plans to send waste to treatment plants or incinerators instead.

This will mean Merseyside faces the toughest fines in the country, up to £30m, under government plans to end Britain's shameful landfill re-cord.

(taken from Daily Post 16/8/06)

Knowsley council's slogan is "green, clean and proud of it"...

2006-09-09T21:55:00.000+01:00

Taken from Liverpoolnews.net
The idiots of Knowsley council had a slogan a while back that stated ‘Green, Clean and proud of it”. One might struggle to see just how this noble statement actually develops in the real world. In fact, breath in the air of Kirkby, near the infamous polluting dump of Sonae (a factory which makes chipboard) and you might well choke on that particular slogan.

The Wrexham landfill site of Hafod Quarry, Johnstown is now the host to rubbish disposed by Knowsley council. The site is or was protected, and is a ‘Site of Special Scientific Interest’ (SSSI) and plays host to great crested newts as well as being a place of beauty for local people. Homes are situated nearby. Local residents have been campaigning for years against the plans, but Wrexham council, like Knowsley council is prepared to ignore local people and give a warm welcome to polluting businesses.
The landfill protests are continuing, and if the people of Wales just sit back and let the English throw their rubbish in their land, things must be bad.
In reality, Knowsley council have wasted hundreds of millions of pounds which might have been put into a more comprehensive rubbish disposal system. Burying in landfills is cheap – that’s why Knowsley council have voted to continue along this road to environmental vandalism. Make no mistake; this is Knowsley council crapping on the people of Wales, treating them like second class citizens. The same council that has giant banners draped over the civic suite in Kirkby is now throwing the filth from Kirkby into another country. The same council that has handed out 2 separate bins and a plastic container to residents here now seems to have more rubbish than it can dispose of and dumps it in Wales.
It is tempting to suggest that we open up a landfill site for hypocritical councillors. Bury the polluters and stop the pollution maybe. Too be serious though, many councillors in Knowsley are making decisions but will dodge the consequences of them because they are not spring chickens. Regardless of whether any of us are here or not in 2050, the golden rule of any generation ought to be to make sure we leave the planet nice and clean for future generations.
New Labour, having wasted hundreds of billions on war and madcap schemes, are a party funded by sly corrupt devious rich people, who will have their hand in the rubbish disposal industry and will manipulate the law to make sure that working class people are forced to endure polluting industries from Sonae in Kirkby to this landfill site in Johnstown, Wrexham. The mafia ran/runs the lucrative rubbish disposal industry in the USA. All over the UK, the little people are bullied and harried by the combination of corrupt councils and devious businesses and we see our communities ‘developing’ with less green land and more pollution.
The Liverpool Times cannot stress the importance of environmental issues enough. Never mind the media myth about environmental campaigners being nutters, odds are a lot will be very well educated, more so that than the ranks of uneducated councillors who voted for this decision.

What's being dumped on our doorstep?

2006-09-09T19:40:00.000+01:00

Serious allegations about other landfill sites in the Wrexham area being used illegally being made on football forum. We reproduce it here to widen the debate.

http://red-passion.com/wales

Who checks what Mersey waste drivers are dumping @ Hafod?
Why should the Children of Johnstown, Rhos, Ruabon, Bangon on Dee, Rhostyllen etc, etc be put in danger depending on which way the wind is blowing?

There is a local chap to Johnstown who a few years ago in Cheshire, openly admitted making over £150,000 in six weeks by turning a blind eye as to what was being dumped at a site he worked, the money was coming from a few drivers who were picking up "toxic and other dirty waste" from dodgy sources in the Mersey/ Manchester area. It seems it's common practice. He was one of a few who turned a blind eye to there own friendly wagon drivers. Although this came on top for the local man he never faced charges nor did the drivers or owners of the site, it was all hushed up to stop any investigation. He moved from site to site and made himself a fortune without a care for what he was doing to the environment or people's lives. Sites are full of men like this and some drivers seem to retire early with massive houses and fantastic lifestyles.

What’s to stop this happening @ Hafod?
There needs to be independent checks of each truck

The planning only voted in favour of it because a chief planning officer leaked a report to members saying it would cost Wrexham Council between £5 and £10m in compensation if it was revoked (what price is our children's lives?), the older planning officers shit their pants, there was to a planning officer Edwards (mike?) who went in hard to vote in favor of Mersey waste, bet he don't live near Hafod and what's in it for him?

WHY WOULD HONEST COUNCILLORS VOTE TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE'S SHITE DELIVERED TO THEIR DOORSTEPS? AND ENDANGER THE PEOPLE OF THEIR OWN COMMUNITY? THE WHOLE THING STINKS (pardon the pun)

Councilor Dave Bithel did his very best for to save us from disaster waiting to happen, I knew he was a good bloke once he saw the light (and stuck to it) & fcuked Marek and Co off.
Well done Dave a Good honest Councilor and a Wrexham Fan.

No lorries, one arrest, two protesters and three police cars: Saturday morning at Hafod Quarry

2006-09-09T12:42:00.000+01:00

Two protesters blockaded the gates of Hafod Quarry this morning, 9th September, arriving at around 9.30am and tying a large LANDFILL STINKS! banner to the fence. Apparently, no dumping is taking place today; instead work is being done on the site ready for more tipping next week. Here is the protesters’ account:

As we arrived, two vehicles left the site, one pulled up to the stop sign at the road edge before turning, while the white van sailed out on the wrong side of the road with scant regard for road safety. If anything had been coming into the site, there could easily have been a head-on collision. Road safety at the site is a major conceern, as lorries hurtle in and out. Site approach road pictured below, showing van leaving on wrong side of road.

We tied our banner to the fence and the security guard came over to chat to us and to agree that landfill is unpleasant, although he felt that everyone working there was “just doing it to feed themselves and their families, and you wouldn’t want to see them starve, would you?” We pointed out that, while we understood that jobs are important to people, all the people who work at the landfill site and help Mersey Waste in any way are contributing to the poisoning of the local community. Same as people who work in bomb factories. We talked about some of the health risks and he seemed genuinely concerned about his own health and keen to go away and find out more.

Then one of the vehicles arrived back at the site. The two of us stood between the vehicle and the gate, with our “RECYCLE WASTE OR BURN IN HELL” placard. The security guard was quite upset. “He’s only gone out to get his butties. He’s just the electrician.”

“Even just the electrician is helping this site operate.”

The electrician got on his phone to the police...

Another car drew up at the gates to drive out of the site. The driver got out of his car to walk past our blockade and talk to the other driver. He left his keys in the ignition and the engine running.

“Please will you turn off your engine.” He replied with an obscenity. “Oh well, I’ll go and do it for him then.” One of us started to walk towards his car, which prompted a somewhat disproportionate response in our view.

“Stay away from my f***ing car or I’ll kill you. I mean it!”

“OK, just turn the engine off. You shouldn’t leave it running when you’re not in it. It’s dangerous and illegal.”

“What you’re doing is illegal. This is private property. F*** off.”

He raced past us and turned off the engine and removed the keys.

“Thank you. That’s all we were asking. There’s an oil crisis, you know.” We went back to standing in front of the other car. The eff off driver asked the security guard to open the other gate, which he did, leaving us rather a wide area to cover with two people, and we didn’t trust this guy not to mow us down so we let him past. The security guard shut the other side of the gate again and the electrician stayed in his car behind our blockade, obviously looking forward to the police arriving and sorting us out.

After another ten minutes or so, the police had still not arrived and we wanted to have a wander round the perimeter of the site, so we packed up our banner and placard, waved the electrician into the site in a friendly manner, and set off on foot along the road. As we did so the police arrived. They spoke with the guys at the gate, then came after us up the road. The policeman (pictured rather hazily below) seemed to have forgotten his helmet.

“Please stay on the pavement. Can we talk to you for a minute?”

“We weren’t planning to leave the pavement.”

The first police officer was trying to be very nice and reasonable. He explained that there had been a complaint made of attempted theft of keys from a car at the quarry and that one of us was the alleged perpetrator. We explained what had happened. The police said that the driver could do what he liked on private property. I said I still felt it was dangerous and damaging to the environment, but in any event I had no intention of stealing this man's keys or his car or anything else – I was only concerned to switch off the engine, and as soon as he'd started to come over to do it himself, I'd stopped. The police officer said that alleged victim of the alleged attempted theft wasn’t actually at the site at that moment – his mates were trying to contact him – and in the meantime the police officer just needed a few details from us.

“Are you going to arrest me?”

“No, that won't be necessary," then, after some more discussion. "I'll let you carry on then, but I'll just take your name and details.”

“Well, as you know, I don’t have to give those unless you arrest me.”

“I don’t want to arrest you. It’s not necessary. Just give me your details and then you can go.”

He went off a little way to consult on his cancer-inducing Tetra police radio. The WPC with him, who was much more aggressive, continued the conversation with comments like:
“If you won’t give your details, we’ll just have you locked up.” I pointed out that the first police officer had just told me that he wasn't going to arrest me. "That was if you give him your details."

"That's not what he said. Now he's going to arrest me because I won't give my details, but a second ago he said he didn't need to arrest me."

She went ballistic when one of us decided to take some photos of the scene while we were waiting for the first officer to get advice from above. I get really fed up with police cameras filming gratuitously at demos, so although I felt sympathetic towards her argument that I was infringing her human rights by taking her picture, I didn’t feel inclined to delete it from the camera. The police must have miles of footage of us doing harmless things like walking along roads and holding banners. She continued to shout at us until her colleague returned and announced that I would after all be arrested for alleged attempted theft. There was a scurrilous suggestion that we were intent on "becoming martyrs" for the quarry cause. We chuckled. If we'd wanted to martyr ourselves, we certainly wouldn't have done it by trying to turn off a car engine. Anyway, it was a sunny day. We wanted to be out in the hills by lunchtime.

Just at the moment of the arrest, a member of the Hafod Environmental Group happened to pass by in her car. She stopped. The police cars were already blocking one lane of this narrow road. Now both directions were blocked. We tried to explain what was happening while the WPC continued to shout, this time about the road being blocked. The car was moved on, I was cautioned and we blocked the road some more while we discussed what I could hand over before being thrown in the cells. I passed over my bag but still had the camera round my neck, so once I'd been shoved into the car the police woman came over and screamed some more about her picture. "She hasn't deleted it! It's still on her camera phone."

"I don't have a mobile phone; it's a camera." She was by this time getting dangerously angry. It isn’t my camera and I was worried about it being trashed, so I eventually offered to delete the offending picture, a silhouette of the WPC and my mate chatting. This took a while with the car door open and the road still blocked, while I carefully explained each stage of the deletion process and checked that the WPC could see that the picture was indeed being deleted.

I was then driven back to the site gates where a third police car had now arrived and where the victim of the alleged crime had turned up shaking his head. He didn’t want to make a complaint after all, so after some hanging around and discussion, and after I gave my name and address as required once arrested, I was de-arrested and allowed to go.

If things carry on like this, they’re going to need to bring in police reinforcements from other forces on double time to keep the quarry open. Three police vehicles called to the scene to deal with two protesters is a lot of resources.

So, please take your protests down there whenever you can, even if it’s only two or three people for a short time. You don't need to get yourselves arrested! Whatever you can contribute will all add up to help stop this illegal dumping.

2006-09-09T00:14:00.000+01:00

Some photos from Hafod Quarry and Wrexham Guildhall:

Lawrence Isted is Wrexham's Chief Planning Officer. While councillors spoke for a minute or two each at the planning meeting, Mr Isted took it upon himself to answer every comment at length, usually with an exhortation for councillors not to revoke the planning permission. We have to ask ourselves - what's in it for him? And we bet he doesn't have a landfill site on his doorstep.

Two protesters with placards; the site is behind them with diggers in view.

Protesters at an early morning protest at the site.

Landfill is not a good option for anyone, including the people of Merseyside. Much of the waste being dumped at Hafod could be locally recycled and reused and raise revenue for Merseyside, instead of which Merseysiders are paying through the nose, or at least through their council taxes, to transport and dump their waste at a site which will be a toxic health hazard for years.

Exactly!

For anyone who wants to know what a Mersey Waste Transport wagon looks like, here is a picture of one.

Remember Tryweryn, the valley near Bala which was flooded to provide a supply of drinking water to the people of Merseyside. Liverpool has apologised for this, albeit 40 years late. Johnstown people don't want an apology for the landfill in 40 years time. They want it to stop now.