Huge incinerator given planning permission to built at Ford

The incinerator plans

The incinerator plans

First published in News
Last updated
by

A waste incineration plant has been approved in a rural area – despite strong opposition from residents and councillors.

Proposals to build the “energy from waste” facility at Ford Airfield Industrial Estate, between Arundel and Littlehampton, were approved by West Sussex County Council’s planning committee.

The plan will see more than 200,000 tonnes of commercial and industrial waste incinerated at the 6.5 hectare site each year. Road safety fears were raised over the estimated 108 HGV and 72 car movements per day at the site.

Trevor Ford, chairman of Ford Parish Council, said: “It’s not safe. This is a family recreation area. It’s not a motorway for goodness sake.”

Colin Humphris, chairman of Clymping Parish Council, said: “It will have a negative impact on the roads in Clymping and a negative impact on the lives of residents of Yapton Road and Rollaston Park.”

In total, 537 letters opposing the plans were received from members of the public and only five in support.

Grundon Waste Management’s circular technology block will include a materials recovery facility for recycling and an advanced thermal treatment facility to convert residual waste into energy.

About 200 construction jobs and 60 director roles are expected to be created from the development.

The plant will use ‘gasification’ to incinerate commercial and industrial waste to provide energy to the equivalent of 29,000 homes.

Grundon said the proposals would help West Sussex to meet its target of sending no waste to landfill sites by 2030.

About 600,000 tonnes of commercial and industrial waste is produced in West Sussex each year, the company said.

Gasification involves heating waste so it breaks down and reforms into a gas, which is used to run a turbine and produce electricity.

Grundon said emissions were limited – but campaigners said the environmental implications were unclear.

Andrew Short, estates director for Grundon, said: “By giving consent at Ford, West Sussex County Council has provided the opportunity for Grundon to develop a strategically important facility in the county, which will be able to meet the council’s ambition of zero to landfill.”

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:25am Tue 29 Jul 14

rogerthefish says...

Just shows how no notice is taken of complainers, not saying this time ....but normally somewhere down the line you find out that one of the directors is a brother of a Councillor or they all went on holiday to Barbados to read the plans. Look at the eyesore of Newhaven why was that not hidden away in the old chalk pits instead of being the welcome to the town sign when coming from the north by car or train.

It all stinks !
Just shows how no notice is taken of complainers, not saying this time ....but normally somewhere down the line you find out that one of the directors is a brother of a Councillor or they all went on holiday to Barbados to read the plans. Look at the eyesore of Newhaven why was that not hidden away in the old chalk pits instead of being the welcome to the town sign when coming from the north by car or train. It all stinks ! rogerthefish
  • Score: 24

8:00am Tue 29 Jul 14

simps46 says...

rogerthefish wrote:
Just shows how no notice is taken of complainers, not saying this time ....but normally somewhere down the line you find out that one of the directors is a brother of a Councillor or they all went on holiday to Barbados to read the plans. Look at the eyesore of Newhaven why was that not hidden away in the old chalk pits instead of being the welcome to the town sign when coming from the north by car or train.

It all stinks !
and it probably will stink even more when it's fired up !!!!
[quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: Just shows how no notice is taken of complainers, not saying this time ....but normally somewhere down the line you find out that one of the directors is a brother of a Councillor or they all went on holiday to Barbados to read the plans. Look at the eyesore of Newhaven why was that not hidden away in the old chalk pits instead of being the welcome to the town sign when coming from the north by car or train. It all stinks ![/p][/quote]and it probably will stink even more when it's fired up !!!! simps46
  • Score: 2

8:52am Tue 29 Jul 14

mackeson says...

"Trevor Ford, chairman of Ford Parish Council, said: “It’s not safe. This is a family recreation area. It’s not a motorway for goodness sake.”"

Yes its such a lovely family recreation area, with the sewage farm / water treatment plant right next door. and being on the site on the old Tarmac manufacturing site. Perhaps the council should be asking for the Arundel bye-pass to be built and the Ford Road be improved at Grundon's cost.
"Trevor Ford, chairman of Ford Parish Council, said: “It’s not safe. This is a family recreation area. It’s not a motorway for goodness sake.”" Yes its such a lovely family recreation area, with the sewage farm / water treatment plant right next door. and being on the site on the old Tarmac manufacturing site. Perhaps the council should be asking for the Arundel bye-pass to be built and the Ford Road be improved at Grundon's cost. mackeson
  • Score: 22

9:17am Tue 29 Jul 14

Morpheus says...

There is nothing wrong with waste incineration. Sweden has used it for years, and in residential areas. They have so much plant that they need to import waste to keep them running and provide low cost electricity. The UK is just a country of Nimbys so obsessed with meaningless green objections that it has almost become a religion not interested in facts.
There is nothing wrong with waste incineration. Sweden has used it for years, and in residential areas. They have so much plant that they need to import waste to keep them running and provide low cost electricity. The UK is just a country of Nimbys so obsessed with meaningless green objections that it has almost become a religion not interested in facts. Morpheus
  • Score: 21

10:15am Tue 29 Jul 14

s_james says...

Gasification is very different to normal incineration, and there will also be a materials recovery facility for recycling. Both much better than landfill - typical Argus putting a negative spin on a good news story.
Gasification is very different to normal incineration, and there will also be a materials recovery facility for recycling. Both much better than landfill - typical Argus putting a negative spin on a good news story. s_james
  • Score: 23

10:37am Tue 29 Jul 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Morpheus wrote:
There is nothing wrong with waste incineration. Sweden has used it for years, and in residential areas. They have so much plant that they need to import waste to keep them running and provide low cost electricity. The UK is just a country of Nimbys so obsessed with meaningless green objections that it has almost become a religion not interested in facts.
Exactly. It was the same with the Newhaven incinerator. I could accept it if the protestors didn't atually use electricity themselves, but as they do it's the same old story: Yes we want the electricity, but generate it somewhere else. Here's our set of reasons: some have a grain of truth but most are spurious and are driven purely by our narrow self-interest.

Well done to the Council for approving this.
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: There is nothing wrong with waste incineration. Sweden has used it for years, and in residential areas. They have so much plant that they need to import waste to keep them running and provide low cost electricity. The UK is just a country of Nimbys so obsessed with meaningless green objections that it has almost become a religion not interested in facts.[/p][/quote]Exactly. It was the same with the Newhaven incinerator. I could accept it if the protestors didn't atually use electricity themselves, but as they do it's the same old story: Yes we want the electricity, but generate it somewhere else. Here's our set of reasons: some have a grain of truth but most are spurious and are driven purely by our narrow self-interest. Well done to the Council for approving this. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 18

10:49am Tue 29 Jul 14

s&k says...

Why do you think WSCC would listen to residents? They have multi million contracts to worry about.
Why do you think WSCC would listen to residents? They have multi million contracts to worry about. s&k
  • Score: 0

11:16am Tue 29 Jul 14

Newhavenles says...

Take it from some one who knows,no one is going to take any notice of the local residents as ,it was all settled a long time ago.No one wanted the one in Newhaven but after a couple of years of petitions there it is in all it's glory, blot on the landscape and probably sending us all to an early grave
Take it from some one who knows,no one is going to take any notice of the local residents as ,it was all settled a long time ago.No one wanted the one in Newhaven but after a couple of years of petitions there it is in all it's glory, blot on the landscape and probably sending us all to an early grave Newhavenles
  • Score: -2

11:59am Tue 29 Jul 14

nosolution says...

True, all this waste generated from an exploding population needs to go somewhere and not in landfill but surely away from residential areas and places of high tourism value. Ignoring residential objections makes a farce of local democracy.These incinerators would be better placed on brownfield sites next to motorway networks where objections and disruption would be minimal...
True, all this waste generated from an exploding population needs to go somewhere and not in landfill but surely away from residential areas and places of high tourism value. Ignoring residential objections makes a farce of local democracy.These incinerators would be better placed on brownfield sites next to motorway networks where objections and disruption would be minimal... nosolution
  • Score: 4

12:13pm Tue 29 Jul 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

Why are there going to be 60 directors of this incinerator?! Any councillors due to become a director or friends of theirs?
Why are there going to be 60 directors of this incinerator?! Any councillors due to become a director or friends of theirs? getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 6

12:51pm Tue 29 Jul 14

SpadgeUK says...

Why does this need to be built in Sussex?

Grundons are based in London and already have an incinerator overlooking Heathrow airport on the opposite side of the M25, why do they need an incinerator in Sussex?

Viridor are contracted to the Council, Biffa run several household collection services. Why are Grundons even involved in this?

And why was this built if we need another incinerator?

http://www.theargus.
co.uk/news/8249955.C
ouncil_signs___1bn_w
aste_deal/

DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF MY COUNCIL TAX!!!
Why does this need to be built in Sussex? Grundons are based in London and already have an incinerator overlooking Heathrow airport on the opposite side of the M25, why do they need an incinerator in Sussex? Viridor are contracted to the Council, Biffa run several household collection services. Why are Grundons even involved in this? And why was this built if we need another incinerator? http://www.theargus. co.uk/news/8249955.C ouncil_signs___1bn_w aste_deal/ DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF MY COUNCIL TAX!!! SpadgeUK
  • Score: -3

1:07pm Tue 29 Jul 14

s_james says...

SpadgeUK wrote:
Why does this need to be built in Sussex?

Grundons are based in London and already have an incinerator overlooking Heathrow airport on the opposite side of the M25, why do they need an incinerator in Sussex?

Viridor are contracted to the Council, Biffa run several household collection services. Why are Grundons even involved in this?

And why was this built if we need another incinerator?

http://www.theargus.

co.uk/news/8249955.C

ouncil_signs___1bn_w

aste_deal/

DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF MY COUNCIL TAX!!!
Because Sussex also produces waste.
[quote][p][bold]SpadgeUK[/bold] wrote: Why does this need to be built in Sussex? Grundons are based in London and already have an incinerator overlooking Heathrow airport on the opposite side of the M25, why do they need an incinerator in Sussex? Viridor are contracted to the Council, Biffa run several household collection services. Why are Grundons even involved in this? And why was this built if we need another incinerator? http://www.theargus. co.uk/news/8249955.C ouncil_signs___1bn_w aste_deal/ DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF MY COUNCIL TAX!!![/p][/quote]Because Sussex also produces waste. s_james
  • Score: 4

2:19pm Tue 29 Jul 14

sussexram40 says...

Oh dear. Anyone for lung cancer or other health problems.
Oh dear. Anyone for lung cancer or other health problems. sussexram40
  • Score: -6

4:24pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Nikski says...

sussexram40 wrote:
Oh dear. Anyone for lung cancer or other health problems.
Far more likely to get lung cancer from traffic pollution or cigarettes. Smoking is one of only two proven causes of cancer, the other being sun - fact! There are many things that can increase the risk but only these two which actually cause it.
We wouldn't need incinerators if we didn't produce so much waste; can't keep filling the land with it can we? Recycling should also be compulsory.
[quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: Oh dear. Anyone for lung cancer or other health problems.[/p][/quote]Far more likely to get lung cancer from traffic pollution or cigarettes. Smoking is one of only two proven causes of cancer, the other being sun - fact! There are many things that can increase the risk but only these two which actually cause it. We wouldn't need incinerators if we didn't produce so much waste; can't keep filling the land with it can we? Recycling should also be compulsory. Nikski
  • Score: 4

4:28pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Worriedofbrighton says...

Where's Clymping I thought it was Climping.
Where's Clymping I thought it was Climping. Worriedofbrighton
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Nikski says...

Clymping is what people do in Climping.
Clymping is what people do in Climping. Nikski
  • Score: 1

7:48pm Tue 29 Jul 14

twonk says...

Clymping can be spelled either way. Like Haringey.
Clymping can be spelled either way. Like Haringey. twonk
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Tue 29 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

Morpheus wrote:
There is nothing wrong with waste incineration. Sweden has used it for years, and in residential areas. They have so much plant that they need to import waste to keep them running and provide low cost electricity. The UK is just a country of Nimbys so obsessed with meaningless green objections that it has almost become a religion not interested in facts.
Not interested in facts? A bit rich coming from someone posting articles last week from a climate sceptic PR organisation.
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: There is nothing wrong with waste incineration. Sweden has used it for years, and in residential areas. They have so much plant that they need to import waste to keep them running and provide low cost electricity. The UK is just a country of Nimbys so obsessed with meaningless green objections that it has almost become a religion not interested in facts.[/p][/quote]Not interested in facts? A bit rich coming from someone posting articles last week from a climate sceptic PR organisation. HJarrs
  • Score: -2

8:12pm Tue 29 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

Like most things, incinerators can be done well or badly. My worry is the long term contracts that tie councils to having to provide large quantities of waste and movement if waste to incinerator.

Incinerators also encourage business as usual rather than challenging why we make so much waste.
Like most things, incinerators can be done well or badly. My worry is the long term contracts that tie councils to having to provide large quantities of waste and movement if waste to incinerator. Incinerators also encourage business as usual rather than challenging why we make so much waste. HJarrs
  • Score: -1

8:52pm Tue 29 Jul 14

David523 says...

I see the usual corporate posters are out in force today.

You know ANYONE can now get hundreds of social network posts seemingly supporting any view they want for a mere Fifty quid and a few minutes spent online?

Now ask yourself this-why would a rich Corporation, mentioned in the article, POSSIBLY want social networking sites or popular opinion manipulated for such a cheap price, in such an easy way.

No, instead I'll choose to believe the majority or posters WANT another source of air pollution-to breathe in toxic air in order to make profit.

Even though the article mentions that the VAST majority of letters were against, I'll choose to beleive that the easily-bought-and-ma
nipulated few posts here claim air pollution is a good thing. Such posts always bear the hallmark of faked, common sense contradiction.

As for everyone else - unlike the bought-and-paid-for posts - I'll leave it up to you to choose what you feel most people believe, about this gigantic incinerator.

Especially when its built, and we all have to choke on it's fumes. Every one of which would hand its Corporate owners more profit.
I see the usual corporate posters are out in force today. You know ANYONE can now get hundreds of social network posts seemingly supporting any view they want for a mere Fifty quid and a few minutes spent online? Now ask yourself this-why would a rich Corporation, mentioned in the article, POSSIBLY want social networking sites or popular opinion manipulated for such a cheap price, in such an easy way. No, instead I'll choose to believe the majority or posters WANT another source of air pollution-to breathe in toxic air in order to make profit. Even though the article mentions that the VAST majority of letters were against, I'll choose to beleive that the easily-bought-and-ma nipulated few posts here claim air pollution is a good thing. Such posts always bear the hallmark of faked, common sense contradiction. As for everyone else - unlike the bought-and-paid-for posts - I'll leave it up to you to choose what you feel most people believe, about this gigantic incinerator. Especially when its built, and we all have to choke on it's fumes. Every one of which would hand its Corporate owners more profit. David523
  • Score: -1

11:08pm Tue 29 Jul 14

JeevesMcMontague says...

Wonderful news.
Wonderful news. JeevesMcMontague
  • Score: 3

12:40am Wed 30 Jul 14

wippasnapper says...

When you think we have to find other ways of disposing of our rubbish and bearing in mind that this incinerator will create electrical power for the local community and other parts of Sussex I hardly think it’s a bad thing and lets be honest emissions coming from the chimney are far less these days than they where 20 years ago and I dote think this company really wants to be paying out millions of ponds in compensation and finds from government from braking the emissions Law read more:
http://www.defra.gov
.uk/industrial-emiss
ions/eu-internationa
l/wid/
And frankly no matter were you put this incinerator there will always completes from the local community’s.
When you think we have to find other ways of disposing of our rubbish and bearing in mind that this incinerator will create electrical power for the local community and other parts of Sussex I hardly think it’s a bad thing and lets be honest emissions coming from the chimney are far less these days than they where 20 years ago and I dote think this company really wants to be paying out millions of ponds in compensation and finds from government from braking the emissions Law read more: http://www.defra.gov .uk/industrial-emiss ions/eu-internationa l/wid/ And frankly no matter were you put this incinerator there will always completes from the local community’s. wippasnapper
  • Score: 3

9:49am Wed 30 Jul 14

s_james says...

HJarrs wrote:
Like most things, incinerators can be done well or badly. My worry is the long term contracts that tie councils to having to provide large quantities of waste and movement if waste to incinerator.

Incinerators also encourage business as usual rather than challenging why we make so much waste.
Seems like this one will cater for commercial waste so nothing to do with any council waste contracts.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Like most things, incinerators can be done well or badly. My worry is the long term contracts that tie councils to having to provide large quantities of waste and movement if waste to incinerator. Incinerators also encourage business as usual rather than challenging why we make so much waste.[/p][/quote]Seems like this one will cater for commercial waste so nothing to do with any council waste contracts. s_james
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Sheeples says...

Nikski wrote:
sussexram40 wrote:
Oh dear. Anyone for lung cancer or other health problems.
Far more likely to get lung cancer from traffic pollution or cigarettes. Smoking is one of only two proven causes of cancer, the other being sun - fact! There are many things that can increase the risk but only these two which actually cause it.
We wouldn't need incinerators if we didn't produce so much waste; can't keep filling the land with it can we? Recycling should also be compulsory.
Only two known carcinogens!!! Fact!

Your confusing opinion with fact.......still it is the internet, the virtual world of ignorance!
[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: Oh dear. Anyone for lung cancer or other health problems.[/p][/quote]Far more likely to get lung cancer from traffic pollution or cigarettes. Smoking is one of only two proven causes of cancer, the other being sun - fact! There are many things that can increase the risk but only these two which actually cause it. We wouldn't need incinerators if we didn't produce so much waste; can't keep filling the land with it can we? Recycling should also be compulsory.[/p][/quote]Only two known carcinogens!!! Fact! Your confusing opinion with fact.......still it is the internet, the virtual world of ignorance! Sheeples
  • Score: 0

9:37pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

David523 wrote:
I see the usual corporate posters are out in force today.

You know ANYONE can now get hundreds of social network posts seemingly supporting any view they want for a mere Fifty quid and a few minutes spent online?

Now ask yourself this-why would a rich Corporation, mentioned in the article, POSSIBLY want social networking sites or popular opinion manipulated for such a cheap price, in such an easy way.

No, instead I'll choose to believe the majority or posters WANT another source of air pollution-to breathe in toxic air in order to make profit.

Even though the article mentions that the VAST majority of letters were against, I'll choose to beleive that the easily-bought-and-ma

nipulated few posts here claim air pollution is a good thing. Such posts always bear the hallmark of faked, common sense contradiction.

As for everyone else - unlike the bought-and-paid-for posts - I'll leave it up to you to choose what you feel most people believe, about this gigantic incinerator.

Especially when its built, and we all have to choke on it's fumes. Every one of which would hand its Corporate owners more profit.
My opinions are my own. Pity as It sounds like I could have made £50! And I have these opinions as I've thought about the problems we're going to face in the future. I've thought about the need for more houses, factories, schools, hospitals, etc (and the energy they'll all use) . And when you've thought about things you'll realise that there are no ideal solutions and we often have to choose the 'least worst' option - not that this project is necessarily one of them.

But hey, we're not going to agree. You carry on with your kneejerk opposition to every plan unless it has zero environmental impact. In the meantime have you got the address of one of these organisations that will pay me for writing 'inconvenient truths'? :-)
[quote][p][bold]David523[/bold] wrote: I see the usual corporate posters are out in force today. You know ANYONE can now get hundreds of social network posts seemingly supporting any view they want for a mere Fifty quid and a few minutes spent online? Now ask yourself this-why would a rich Corporation, mentioned in the article, POSSIBLY want social networking sites or popular opinion manipulated for such a cheap price, in such an easy way. No, instead I'll choose to believe the majority or posters WANT another source of air pollution-to breathe in toxic air in order to make profit. Even though the article mentions that the VAST majority of letters were against, I'll choose to beleive that the easily-bought-and-ma nipulated few posts here claim air pollution is a good thing. Such posts always bear the hallmark of faked, common sense contradiction. As for everyone else - unlike the bought-and-paid-for posts - I'll leave it up to you to choose what you feel most people believe, about this gigantic incinerator. Especially when its built, and we all have to choke on it's fumes. Every one of which would hand its Corporate owners more profit.[/p][/quote]My opinions are my own. Pity as It sounds like I could have made £50! And I have these opinions as I've thought about the problems we're going to face in the future. I've thought about the need for more houses, factories, schools, hospitals, etc (and the energy they'll all use) . And when you've thought about things you'll realise that there are no ideal solutions and we often have to choose the 'least worst' option - not that this project is necessarily one of them. But hey, we're not going to agree. You carry on with your kneejerk opposition to every plan unless it has zero environmental impact. In the meantime have you got the address of one of these organisations that will pay me for writing 'inconvenient truths'? :-) Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree