IN PICTURES: Is St Paul's Cray the worst place to live in Britain thanks to Waste4Fuel's mountain of rubbish?

This Is Local London: The Waste4Fuel recycling plant in Cornwall Drive, St Paul's Cray The Waste4Fuel recycling plant in Cornwall Drive, St Paul's Cray

With Waste4Fuel's High Court hearing set to reach a long-awaited conclusion next Tuesday (July 1), these pictures remind us what nearby residents in St Paul's Cray have lived with for the last two and a half years.

This Is Local London:

The problems at Waste4Fuel started in December 2011 when the Cornwall Drive site was on fire for three days, causing nearby Sevenoaks Way to be closed.

This Is Local London:

This escalated in 2013, with ten fires recorded over the course of the year - including the longest running fire in Bromley's history, which lasted nine days in March.

The fumes coming from the site have caused significant stress among local residents: some claim they haven't opened a window in two years; others say the continuous stench has made them physically sick - and to make matters worse house prices in the area have reportedly plummeted.

This Is Local London:

This year fire services have continued to be called out to the site as the situation shows no signs of improving.

This is despite the Environment Agency acquiring a High Court order in November last year requiring all combustible waste to be removed from the site by May 1 - Waste4Fuel failed to comply.

This Is Local London:

The EA is now seeking contempt charges against the recycling company, former company director Bryan Hughes, new company director Shelley Hurst and site manager Jonathan Beckson.

A High Court hearing is set to reach its conclusion on Tuesday next week.

This Is Local London:

Meanwhile in February this year Waste4Fuel was fined £8,960 after it was prosecuted by the London Fire Brigade for stacking flammable materials 12 times in excess of the size legally allowed.

This Is Local London:

This didn't stop Waste4Fuel putting forward, in March, an application to increase the amount of waste being brought into the site, from 75 tonnes per week to 200 tonnes per week.

The application is being dealt with as part of the ongoing High Court hearing.

This Is Local London:

In April Bromley Council said it was seeking a court injunction to stop Waste4Fuel illegally dumping waste on green belt land.

The council claimed the recycling plant has been dumping rubbish more than a metre high on the adjoining land without planning permission.

This Is Local London:

And although a study into the toxicity of air close to the site in May said emissions posed no significant risk to public health, local residents' lives continue to be made a misery.

This Is Local London:

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:26pm Thu 26 Jun 14

concerned.erith says...

I feel sorry for the people that have had to put up with this. Surely there's something must be done about this. Can't the Environment Agency do more?
I feel sorry for the people that have had to put up with this. Surely there's something must be done about this. Can't the Environment Agency do more? concerned.erith
  • Score: 26

3:28pm Thu 26 Jun 14

ksc says...

Beautiful little road, with a handful of expensive houses, yet Waste4Fuel is somehow doing this, why can't the authorities do something, I really don't get it, people have been fined for dropping a dog end or an apple core on the floor, so why can't they be stopped, could it be as simple as a few brown paper envelopes being quietly passed to a select few, surely not. Someone must be able to help these people,this is just plain nasty.
Beautiful little road, with a handful of expensive houses, yet Waste4Fuel is somehow doing this, why can't the authorities do something, I really don't get it, people have been fined for dropping a dog end or an apple core on the floor, so why can't they be stopped, could it be as simple as a few brown paper envelopes being quietly passed to a select few, surely not. Someone must be able to help these people,this is just plain nasty. ksc
  • Score: 30

7:46pm Thu 26 Jun 14

white rabbit9 says...

Reminds me of the film, 'idiocracy'. A world full of zombies. Yes we have aplanet full of zombies.
Reminds me of the film, 'idiocracy'. A world full of zombies. Yes we have aplanet full of zombies. white rabbit9
  • Score: 15

8:03pm Thu 26 Jun 14

SidcupResident says...

The Environment Agency is just another useless quango full of professional tea drinkers on six-figure salaries.

Scrap the environment agency, which will save the taxpayer £millions. Let the police deal with criminal proceedings for any breaches of environmental safety, and give people doing community service a proper task by making them clear up this mess!
The Environment Agency is just another useless quango full of professional tea drinkers on six-figure salaries. Scrap the environment agency, which will save the taxpayer £millions. Let the police deal with criminal proceedings for any breaches of environmental safety, and give people doing community service a proper task by making them clear up this mess! SidcupResident
  • Score: 17

9:02pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Harold_Monk says...

Now, if this was in Keston.......
Now, if this was in Keston....... Harold_Monk
  • Score: 16

10:57pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Gypo.Joe says...

Harold_Monk wrote:
Now, if this was in Keston.......
Yea what about it ?
[quote][p][bold]Harold_Monk[/bold] wrote: Now, if this was in Keston.......[/p][/quote]Yea what about it ? Gypo.Joe
  • Score: 19

8:55am Fri 27 Jun 14

right-writes says...

I take it from the name of the company, that it exists to collect and prepare waste material for incineration...

Whilst I am not at all surprised that local people don't like it, the company is providing a service which in this country should be more or less unnecessary.

This is yet another area where the dead hand of the EU is hard at work. It's various environmental directives are making a massive impact on the way we deal with this sort of thing.

Before the EU and after the Beatles sang "4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire", we used to chuck our rubbish into landfill... And there is plenty of this, this country is absolutely covered in disused quarries and mines. Unfortunately we in this country are not allowed to use them without the councils having to pay massive fines for doing so... Landfill tax, it's called.

In some of the other EU member states they don't have these holes... So for the sake of a "one size fits all" policy, all waste must be incinerated, but no incinerators get built, because nobody wants them in their back yard... For the sake of what the EU laughingly calls the level playing field.

So we get little companies like this, apparently causing a menace and distressing local people, we get a worse refuse service than we used to, because the council have to pay taxes and fines, rather than provide the service.

But of course, the EU is well down the list of people's concerns... :)

If only they realised that from immigration (number 1) all the way down to the EU itself (usually about No.10), all policies are either completely controlled, or there is a significant and increasing level of EU influence involved.
I take it from the name of the company, that it exists to collect and prepare waste material for incineration... Whilst I am not at all surprised that local people don't like it, the company is providing a service which in this country should be more or less unnecessary. This is yet another area where the dead hand of the EU is hard at work. It's various environmental directives are making a massive impact on the way we deal with this sort of thing. Before the EU and after the Beatles sang "4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire", we used to chuck our rubbish into landfill... And there is plenty of this, this country is absolutely covered in disused quarries and mines. Unfortunately we in this country are not allowed to use them without the councils having to pay massive fines for doing so... Landfill tax, it's called. In some of the other EU member states they don't have these holes... So for the sake of a "one size fits all" policy, all waste must be incinerated, but no incinerators get built, because nobody wants them in their back yard... For the sake of what the EU laughingly calls the level playing field. So we get little companies like this, apparently causing a menace and distressing local people, we get a worse refuse service than we used to, because the council have to pay taxes and fines, rather than provide the service. But of course, the EU is well down the list of people's concerns... :) If only they realised that from immigration (number 1) all the way down to the EU itself (usually about No.10), all policies are either completely controlled, or there is a significant and increasing level of EU influence involved. right-writes
  • Score: 8

9:43am Fri 27 Jun 14

The Fozziest of Bears says...

right-writes wrote:
I take it from the name of the company, that it exists to collect and prepare waste material for incineration...

Whilst I am not at all surprised that local people don't like it, the company is providing a service which in this country should be more or less unnecessary.

This is yet another area where the dead hand of the EU is hard at work. It's various environmental directives are making a massive impact on the way we deal with this sort of thing.

Before the EU and after the Beatles sang "4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire", we used to chuck our rubbish into landfill... And there is plenty of this, this country is absolutely covered in disused quarries and mines. Unfortunately we in this country are not allowed to use them without the councils having to pay massive fines for doing so... Landfill tax, it's called.

In some of the other EU member states they don't have these holes... So for the sake of a "one size fits all" policy, all waste must be incinerated, but no incinerators get built, because nobody wants them in their back yard... For the sake of what the EU laughingly calls the level playing field.

So we get little companies like this, apparently causing a menace and distressing local people, we get a worse refuse service than we used to, because the council have to pay taxes and fines, rather than provide the service.

But of course, the EU is well down the list of people's concerns... :)

If only they realised that from immigration (number 1) all the way down to the EU itself (usually about No.10), all policies are either completely controlled, or there is a significant and increasing level of EU influence involved.
Let us know where you live buddy, and we will get W4F to move the pile of rubbish away from the street and school where it is now, and put it at the end of your garden.

I'm sure you realise that landfill is not the answer - as we live on an island, and the contaminated land cannot be used for 30+ years after it has been filled and restored.

There is another waste transfer station about 2 miles from W4F and you never hear of any problems there, or see any mounds of rubbish rotting away.

The odd thing about this case is that you don't hear anything from any of the authorities/councill
ors/MP on the matter.
[quote][p][bold]right-writes[/bold] wrote: I take it from the name of the company, that it exists to collect and prepare waste material for incineration... Whilst I am not at all surprised that local people don't like it, the company is providing a service which in this country should be more or less unnecessary. This is yet another area where the dead hand of the EU is hard at work. It's various environmental directives are making a massive impact on the way we deal with this sort of thing. Before the EU and after the Beatles sang "4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire", we used to chuck our rubbish into landfill... And there is plenty of this, this country is absolutely covered in disused quarries and mines. Unfortunately we in this country are not allowed to use them without the councils having to pay massive fines for doing so... Landfill tax, it's called. In some of the other EU member states they don't have these holes... So for the sake of a "one size fits all" policy, all waste must be incinerated, but no incinerators get built, because nobody wants them in their back yard... For the sake of what the EU laughingly calls the level playing field. So we get little companies like this, apparently causing a menace and distressing local people, we get a worse refuse service than we used to, because the council have to pay taxes and fines, rather than provide the service. But of course, the EU is well down the list of people's concerns... :) If only they realised that from immigration (number 1) all the way down to the EU itself (usually about No.10), all policies are either completely controlled, or there is a significant and increasing level of EU influence involved.[/p][/quote]Let us know where you live buddy, and we will get W4F to move the pile of rubbish away from the street and school where it is now, and put it at the end of your garden. I'm sure you realise that landfill is not the answer - as we live on an island, and the contaminated land cannot be used for 30+ years after it has been filled and restored. There is another waste transfer station about 2 miles from W4F and you never hear of any problems there, or see any mounds of rubbish rotting away. The odd thing about this case is that you don't hear anything from any of the authorities/councill ors/MP on the matter. The Fozziest of Bears
  • Score: 10

10:38am Fri 27 Jun 14

right-writes says...

The Fozziest of Bears wrote:
right-writes wrote:
I take it from the name of the company, that it exists to collect and prepare waste material for incineration...

Whilst I am not at all surprised that local people don't like it, the company is providing a service which in this country should be more or less unnecessary.

This is yet another area where the dead hand of the EU is hard at work. It's various environmental directives are making a massive impact on the way we deal with this sort of thing.

Before the EU and after the Beatles sang "4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire", we used to chuck our rubbish into landfill... And there is plenty of this, this country is absolutely covered in disused quarries and mines. Unfortunately we in this country are not allowed to use them without the councils having to pay massive fines for doing so... Landfill tax, it's called.

In some of the other EU member states they don't have these holes... So for the sake of a "one size fits all" policy, all waste must be incinerated, but no incinerators get built, because nobody wants them in their back yard... For the sake of what the EU laughingly calls the level playing field.

So we get little companies like this, apparently causing a menace and distressing local people, we get a worse refuse service than we used to, because the council have to pay taxes and fines, rather than provide the service.

But of course, the EU is well down the list of people's concerns... :)

If only they realised that from immigration (number 1) all the way down to the EU itself (usually about No.10), all policies are either completely controlled, or there is a significant and increasing level of EU influence involved.
Let us know where you live buddy, and we will get W4F to move the pile of rubbish away from the street and school where it is now, and put it at the end of your garden.

I'm sure you realise that landfill is not the answer - as we live on an island, and the contaminated land cannot be used for 30+ years after it has been filled and restored.

There is another waste transfer station about 2 miles from W4F and you never hear of any problems there, or see any mounds of rubbish rotting away.

The odd thing about this case is that you don't hear anything from any of the authorities/councill

ors/MP on the matter.
Why would I want their rubbish at the end of my garden... and more to the point what have I said that makes you want to see their rubbish at the end of my garden?

Perhaps you misunderstand...

I was just pointing out that the reason that that pile of rubbish is there, is because this is the way that the EU want it, and the government and council are doing what they are told...

I didn't say that I thought that it was a great idea that there was a pile of dangerous toxic, inflammatory waste, ever ready to ignite and in some way pollute and or poison the local residents, indeed I hope that there will be a satisfactory resolution, and that if the owners are found wanting... that they be punished.
[quote][p][bold]The Fozziest of Bears[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]right-writes[/bold] wrote: I take it from the name of the company, that it exists to collect and prepare waste material for incineration... Whilst I am not at all surprised that local people don't like it, the company is providing a service which in this country should be more or less unnecessary. This is yet another area where the dead hand of the EU is hard at work. It's various environmental directives are making a massive impact on the way we deal with this sort of thing. Before the EU and after the Beatles sang "4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire", we used to chuck our rubbish into landfill... And there is plenty of this, this country is absolutely covered in disused quarries and mines. Unfortunately we in this country are not allowed to use them without the councils having to pay massive fines for doing so... Landfill tax, it's called. In some of the other EU member states they don't have these holes... So for the sake of a "one size fits all" policy, all waste must be incinerated, but no incinerators get built, because nobody wants them in their back yard... For the sake of what the EU laughingly calls the level playing field. So we get little companies like this, apparently causing a menace and distressing local people, we get a worse refuse service than we used to, because the council have to pay taxes and fines, rather than provide the service. But of course, the EU is well down the list of people's concerns... :) If only they realised that from immigration (number 1) all the way down to the EU itself (usually about No.10), all policies are either completely controlled, or there is a significant and increasing level of EU influence involved.[/p][/quote]Let us know where you live buddy, and we will get W4F to move the pile of rubbish away from the street and school where it is now, and put it at the end of your garden. I'm sure you realise that landfill is not the answer - as we live on an island, and the contaminated land cannot be used for 30+ years after it has been filled and restored. There is another waste transfer station about 2 miles from W4F and you never hear of any problems there, or see any mounds of rubbish rotting away. The odd thing about this case is that you don't hear anything from any of the authorities/councill ors/MP on the matter.[/p][/quote]Why would I want their rubbish at the end of my garden... and more to the point what have I said that makes you want to see their rubbish at the end of my garden? Perhaps you misunderstand... I was just pointing out that the reason that that pile of rubbish is there, is because this is the way that the EU want it, and the government and council are doing what they are told... I didn't say that I thought that it was a great idea that there was a pile of dangerous toxic, inflammatory waste, ever ready to ignite and in some way pollute and or poison the local residents, indeed I hope that there will be a satisfactory resolution, and that if the owners are found wanting... that they be punished. right-writes
  • Score: 11

10:51am Fri 27 Jun 14

right-writes says...

Oh and BTW Mr. Bear, your criticism of landfill, could just as easily be a benefit of landfill.

Namely, we are on an island, so getting back what was formerly a disused mine or quarry is a benefit... even if you do have to wait 30 years for it. The Dutch did this around the Zuider Zee and reclaimed loads of land.

The point about one size fits all regional policy like the Landfill Directive, apart from the total lack of any democratic oversight, is that it doesn't suit every situation.

Perhaps we should build an EU incinerator at the bottom of YOUR garden.
Oh and BTW Mr. Bear, your criticism of landfill, could just as easily be a benefit of landfill. Namely, we are on an island, so getting back what was formerly a disused mine or quarry is a benefit... even if you do have to wait 30 years for it. The Dutch did this around the Zuider Zee and reclaimed loads of land. The point about one size fits all regional policy like the Landfill Directive, apart from the total lack of any democratic oversight, is that it doesn't suit every situation. Perhaps we should build an EU incinerator at the bottom of YOUR garden. right-writes
  • Score: 10

1:30pm Fri 27 Jun 14

The Fozziest of Bears says...

right-writes wrote:
Oh and BTW Mr. Bear, your criticism of landfill, could just as easily be a benefit of landfill.

Namely, we are on an island, so getting back what was formerly a disused mine or quarry is a benefit... even if you do have to wait 30 years for it. The Dutch did this around the Zuider Zee and reclaimed loads of land.

The point about one size fits all regional policy like the Landfill Directive, apart from the total lack of any democratic oversight, is that it doesn't suit every situation.

Perhaps we should build an EU incinerator at the bottom of YOUR garden.
Feel free - I live next door to you !

Don't get me wrong - I am no fan of the EU, be assured of that.

But this particular case is irritating and boils down to one simple question:

Does a Local Authority have the power to take immediate prohibitive action when the safety or health of the public is put at risk ?

If the answer is yes - then why haven't they ?
If the answer is no - then why don't they ?

The way Bromley Council has behaved in this saga is truly amazing, claiming that the EA is responsible for dealing with the site - which is total nonsense.

If anyone doubts what I say - then just light a huge bonfire in your garden, invite people to bring their rubbish round in trucks for you to burn, and keep it going for a few weeks - see what happens.......Bromle
y will be down on you like a ton of bricks, with every kind of "cease and desist" order and injunction you can think of.
[quote][p][bold]right-writes[/bold] wrote: Oh and BTW Mr. Bear, your criticism of landfill, could just as easily be a benefit of landfill. Namely, we are on an island, so getting back what was formerly a disused mine or quarry is a benefit... even if you do have to wait 30 years for it. The Dutch did this around the Zuider Zee and reclaimed loads of land. The point about one size fits all regional policy like the Landfill Directive, apart from the total lack of any democratic oversight, is that it doesn't suit every situation. Perhaps we should build an EU incinerator at the bottom of YOUR garden.[/p][/quote]Feel free - I live next door to you ! Don't get me wrong - I am no fan of the EU, be assured of that. But this particular case is irritating and boils down to one simple question: Does a Local Authority have the power to take immediate prohibitive action when the safety or health of the public is put at risk ? If the answer is yes - then why haven't they ? If the answer is no - then why don't they ? The way Bromley Council has behaved in this saga is truly amazing, claiming that the EA is responsible for dealing with the site - which is total nonsense. If anyone doubts what I say - then just light a huge bonfire in your garden, invite people to bring their rubbish round in trucks for you to burn, and keep it going for a few weeks - see what happens.......Bromle y will be down on you like a ton of bricks, with every kind of "cease and desist" order and injunction you can think of. The Fozziest of Bears
  • Score: 9

5:27pm Fri 27 Jun 14

molsey says...

The Express, Wednesday 25th June 2014
Waste4fuel High Court

5 CommentsRSS|Subscrib
e

Gordon2 days ago
An Environment Agency spokesman said: “We will continue to act in accordance with our power to bring the site back into regulation.”
In other words "we will not bother our backsides as it is not in our street".
Reply +1

molsey2 days ago
molsey says... 12.45pm Sat 30th Nov 13
AN OPEN LETTER TO COUNCILLOR COLIN SMITH

Dear Cllr Smith,

You have claimed and stated many things in your comments above, including that you and the Council has gone far beyond what it can control itself, I BEG TO DIFFER. You need have gone no further than your own Bromley Council Legal Department to find the LAW and the weapon in the Council's existing Enforcement Armoury that will deal with the Waste4Fuel fiasco once and for all. It is called a DISCONTINUANCE ORDER and I provide it below.

Discontinuance Orders
Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a local planning
authority to make an order requiring that any use of land shall be discontinued, or
continued subject to conditions (s102(1)(a)), or that any buildings or works shall be
altered or removed (s102(1)(b)). An order may also grant planning permission for
development subject to conditions specified in the order.
An order under s102 can be made if the local planning authority is satisfied that it is
appropriate in the interests of the proper planning of the area (including the
interests of amenity and any present or future detriment to amenity). The decision
to make a discontinuance order must take account of the development plan and
other material considerations.
Discontinuance orders are made to deal with the use to which land is being put.
An order can discontinue any existing use of land (whether lawful or unlawful) or,
alternatively, can impose conditions on the continuance of a use of land. It may
also require any buildings or works to be altered or removed.
A claim for compensation may be made to the local planning authority under s115
of the Act if it is shown that a person having an interest in the land has suffered
damage in consequence of the order. Other persons may be entitled to
compensation in respect of disturbance in their enjoyment of the land or for
carrying out works in compliance with the order.
Unlike unopposed revocation and modification orders, discontinuance orders need
to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. He has power to modify the submitted
order, including power to grant planning permission or to modify the order’s grant
of planning permission. Before confirming an order, the Secretary of State must
provide an opportunity to be heard to any person on whom the order has been
served.

I trust now you will bring this to the attention of your Legal Dept and report back here that you have done so?

Molsey
Reply 3 replies+3

Thepensioner2 days ago
You really think they will do this...! ! ? ?
Reply 0

Gordon2 days ago
"A claim for compensation may be made to the local planning authority under s115
of the Act if it is shown that a person having an interest in the land has suffered
damage in consequence of the order."
This why the council are doing sweet FA, they do not have to pay compensation if they do not close it down.
Reply 1 reply0

molsey1 day ago
Precisely, but they do have the power and could do it. If the site was in Chislehurst, Bickley, or Farnborough etc things might be different.
Reply 0
The Express, Wednesday 25th June 2014 Waste4fuel High Court 5 CommentsRSS|Subscrib e Gordon2 days ago An Environment Agency spokesman said: “We will continue to act in accordance with our power to bring the site back into regulation.” In other words "we will not bother our backsides as it is not in our street". Reply +1 molsey2 days ago molsey says... 12.45pm Sat 30th Nov 13 AN OPEN LETTER TO COUNCILLOR COLIN SMITH Dear Cllr Smith, You have claimed and stated many things in your comments above, including that you and the Council has gone far beyond what it can control itself, I BEG TO DIFFER. You need have gone no further than your own Bromley Council Legal Department to find the LAW and the weapon in the Council's existing Enforcement Armoury that will deal with the Waste4Fuel fiasco once and for all. It is called a DISCONTINUANCE ORDER and I provide it below. Discontinuance Orders Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a local planning authority to make an order requiring that any use of land shall be discontinued, or continued subject to conditions (s102(1)(a)), or that any buildings or works shall be altered or removed (s102(1)(b)). An order may also grant planning permission for development subject to conditions specified in the order. An order under s102 can be made if the local planning authority is satisfied that it is appropriate in the interests of the proper planning of the area (including the interests of amenity and any present or future detriment to amenity). The decision to make a discontinuance order must take account of the development plan and other material considerations. Discontinuance orders are made to deal with the use to which land is being put. An order can discontinue any existing use of land (whether lawful or unlawful) or, alternatively, can impose conditions on the continuance of a use of land. It may also require any buildings or works to be altered or removed. A claim for compensation may be made to the local planning authority under s115 of the Act if it is shown that a person having an interest in the land has suffered damage in consequence of the order. Other persons may be entitled to compensation in respect of disturbance in their enjoyment of the land or for carrying out works in compliance with the order. Unlike unopposed revocation and modification orders, discontinuance orders need to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. He has power to modify the submitted order, including power to grant planning permission or to modify the order’s grant of planning permission. Before confirming an order, the Secretary of State must provide an opportunity to be heard to any person on whom the order has been served. I trust now you will bring this to the attention of your Legal Dept and report back here that you have done so? Molsey Reply 3 replies+3 Thepensioner2 days ago You really think they will do this...! ! ? ? Reply 0 Gordon2 days ago "A claim for compensation may be made to the local planning authority under s115 of the Act if it is shown that a person having an interest in the land has suffered damage in consequence of the order." This why the council are doing sweet FA, they do not have to pay compensation if they do not close it down. Reply 1 reply0 molsey1 day ago Precisely, but they do have the power and could do it. If the site was in Chislehurst, Bickley, or Farnborough etc things might be different. Reply 0 molsey
  • Score: 7

8:10pm Fri 27 Jun 14

right-writes says...

The Fozziest of Bears wrote:
right-writes wrote:
Oh and BTW Mr. Bear, your criticism of landfill, could just as easily be a benefit of landfill.

Namely, we are on an island, so getting back what was formerly a disused mine or quarry is a benefit... even if you do have to wait 30 years for it. The Dutch did this around the Zuider Zee and reclaimed loads of land.

The point about one size fits all regional policy like the Landfill Directive, apart from the total lack of any democratic oversight, is that it doesn't suit every situation.

Perhaps we should build an EU incinerator at the bottom of YOUR garden.
Feel free - I live next door to you !

Don't get me wrong - I am no fan of the EU, be assured of that.

But this particular case is irritating and boils down to one simple question:

Does a Local Authority have the power to take immediate prohibitive action when the safety or health of the public is put at risk ?

If the answer is yes - then why haven't they ?
If the answer is no - then why don't they ?

The way Bromley Council has behaved in this saga is truly amazing, claiming that the EA is responsible for dealing with the site - which is total nonsense.

If anyone doubts what I say - then just light a huge bonfire in your garden, invite people to bring their rubbish round in trucks for you to burn, and keep it going for a few weeks - see what happens.......Bromle

y will be down on you like a ton of bricks, with every kind of "cease and desist" order and injunction you can think of.
Yeah... OK got you Mr. Bear.

I agree, and the last thing that you will hear will be any local council or MP tell you that the reason for their behaviour is entirely down to the EU... Both local and national government speaks as a member of and for the EU, and the most important part of that is not telling the truth to the people that pay them (and the EU).

They are silent because they are guilty of obfuscation at best, and downright lies at worst.
[quote][p][bold]The Fozziest of Bears[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]right-writes[/bold] wrote: Oh and BTW Mr. Bear, your criticism of landfill, could just as easily be a benefit of landfill. Namely, we are on an island, so getting back what was formerly a disused mine or quarry is a benefit... even if you do have to wait 30 years for it. The Dutch did this around the Zuider Zee and reclaimed loads of land. The point about one size fits all regional policy like the Landfill Directive, apart from the total lack of any democratic oversight, is that it doesn't suit every situation. Perhaps we should build an EU incinerator at the bottom of YOUR garden.[/p][/quote]Feel free - I live next door to you ! Don't get me wrong - I am no fan of the EU, be assured of that. But this particular case is irritating and boils down to one simple question: Does a Local Authority have the power to take immediate prohibitive action when the safety or health of the public is put at risk ? If the answer is yes - then why haven't they ? If the answer is no - then why don't they ? The way Bromley Council has behaved in this saga is truly amazing, claiming that the EA is responsible for dealing with the site - which is total nonsense. If anyone doubts what I say - then just light a huge bonfire in your garden, invite people to bring their rubbish round in trucks for you to burn, and keep it going for a few weeks - see what happens.......Bromle y will be down on you like a ton of bricks, with every kind of "cease and desist" order and injunction you can think of.[/p][/quote]Yeah... OK got you Mr. Bear. I agree, and the last thing that you will hear will be any local council or MP tell you that the reason for their behaviour is entirely down to the EU... Both local and national government speaks as a member of and for the EU, and the most important part of that is not telling the truth to the people that pay them (and the EU). They are silent because they are guilty of obfuscation at best, and downright lies at worst. right-writes
  • Score: 3

8:19pm Fri 27 Jun 14

right-writes says...

molsey wrote:
The Express, Wednesday 25th June 2014
Waste4fuel High Court

5 CommentsRSS|Subscrib

e

Gordon2 days ago
An Environment Agency spokesman said: “We will continue to act in accordance with our power to bring the site back into regulation.”
In other words "we will not bother our backsides as it is not in our street".
Reply +1

molsey2 days ago
molsey says... 12.45pm Sat 30th Nov 13
AN OPEN LETTER TO COUNCILLOR COLIN SMITH

Dear Cllr Smith,

You have claimed and stated many things in your comments above, including that you and the Council has gone far beyond what it can control itself, I BEG TO DIFFER. You need have gone no further than your own Bromley Council Legal Department to find the LAW and the weapon in the Council's existing Enforcement Armoury that will deal with the Waste4Fuel fiasco once and for all. It is called a DISCONTINUANCE ORDER and I provide it below.

Discontinuance Orders
Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a local planning
authority to make an order requiring that any use of land shall be discontinued, or
continued subject to conditions (s102(1)(a)), or that any buildings or works shall be
altered or removed (s102(1)(b)). An order may also grant planning permission for
development subject to conditions specified in the order.
An order under s102 can be made if the local planning authority is satisfied that it is
appropriate in the interests of the proper planning of the area (including the
interests of amenity and any present or future detriment to amenity). The decision
to make a discontinuance order must take account of the development plan and
other material considerations.
Discontinuance orders are made to deal with the use to which land is being put.
An order can discontinue any existing use of land (whether lawful or unlawful) or,
alternatively, can impose conditions on the continuance of a use of land. It may
also require any buildings or works to be altered or removed.
A claim for compensation may be made to the local planning authority under s115
of the Act if it is shown that a person having an interest in the land has suffered
damage in consequence of the order. Other persons may be entitled to
compensation in respect of disturbance in their enjoyment of the land or for
carrying out works in compliance with the order.
Unlike unopposed revocation and modification orders, discontinuance orders need
to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. He has power to modify the submitted
order, including power to grant planning permission or to modify the order’s grant
of planning permission. Before confirming an order, the Secretary of State must
provide an opportunity to be heard to any person on whom the order has been
served.

I trust now you will bring this to the attention of your Legal Dept and report back here that you have done so?

Molsey
Reply 3 replies+3

Thepensioner2 days ago
You really think they will do this...! ! ? ?
Reply 0

Gordon2 days ago
"A claim for compensation may be made to the local planning authority under s115
of the Act if it is shown that a person having an interest in the land has suffered
damage in consequence of the order."
This why the council are doing sweet FA, they do not have to pay compensation if they do not close it down.
Reply 1 reply0

molsey1 day ago
Precisely, but they do have the power and could do it. If the site was in Chislehurst, Bickley, or Farnborough etc things might be different.
Reply 0
Any news Molsey?

Any comment Mr. Smith?
[quote][p][bold]molsey[/bold] wrote: The Express, Wednesday 25th June 2014 Waste4fuel High Court 5 CommentsRSS|Subscrib e Gordon2 days ago An Environment Agency spokesman said: “We will continue to act in accordance with our power to bring the site back into regulation.” In other words "we will not bother our backsides as it is not in our street". Reply +1 molsey2 days ago molsey says... 12.45pm Sat 30th Nov 13 AN OPEN LETTER TO COUNCILLOR COLIN SMITH Dear Cllr Smith, You have claimed and stated many things in your comments above, including that you and the Council has gone far beyond what it can control itself, I BEG TO DIFFER. You need have gone no further than your own Bromley Council Legal Department to find the LAW and the weapon in the Council's existing Enforcement Armoury that will deal with the Waste4Fuel fiasco once and for all. It is called a DISCONTINUANCE ORDER and I provide it below. Discontinuance Orders Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a local planning authority to make an order requiring that any use of land shall be discontinued, or continued subject to conditions (s102(1)(a)), or that any buildings or works shall be altered or removed (s102(1)(b)). An order may also grant planning permission for development subject to conditions specified in the order. An order under s102 can be made if the local planning authority is satisfied that it is appropriate in the interests of the proper planning of the area (including the interests of amenity and any present or future detriment to amenity). The decision to make a discontinuance order must take account of the development plan and other material considerations. Discontinuance orders are made to deal with the use to which land is being put. An order can discontinue any existing use of land (whether lawful or unlawful) or, alternatively, can impose conditions on the continuance of a use of land. It may also require any buildings or works to be altered or removed. A claim for compensation may be made to the local planning authority under s115 of the Act if it is shown that a person having an interest in the land has suffered damage in consequence of the order. Other persons may be entitled to compensation in respect of disturbance in their enjoyment of the land or for carrying out works in compliance with the order. Unlike unopposed revocation and modification orders, discontinuance orders need to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. He has power to modify the submitted order, including power to grant planning permission or to modify the order’s grant of planning permission. Before confirming an order, the Secretary of State must provide an opportunity to be heard to any person on whom the order has been served. I trust now you will bring this to the attention of your Legal Dept and report back here that you have done so? Molsey Reply 3 replies+3 Thepensioner2 days ago You really think they will do this...! ! ? ? Reply 0 Gordon2 days ago "A claim for compensation may be made to the local planning authority under s115 of the Act if it is shown that a person having an interest in the land has suffered damage in consequence of the order." This why the council are doing sweet FA, they do not have to pay compensation if they do not close it down. Reply 1 reply0 molsey1 day ago Precisely, but they do have the power and could do it. If the site was in Chislehurst, Bickley, or Farnborough etc things might be different. Reply 0[/p][/quote]Any news Molsey? Any comment Mr. Smith? right-writes
  • Score: 4

11:53am Sat 28 Jun 14

molsey says...

right-writes wrote:
molsey wrote:
The Express, Wednesday 25th June 2014
Waste4fuel High Court

5 CommentsRSS|Subscrib


e

Gordon2 days ago
An Environment Agency spokesman said: “We will continue to act in accordance with our power to bring the site back into regulation.”
In other words "we will not bother our backsides as it is not in our street".
Reply +1

molsey2 days ago
molsey says... 12.45pm Sat 30th Nov 13
AN OPEN LETTER TO COUNCILLOR COLIN SMITH

Dear Cllr Smith,

You have claimed and stated many things in your comments above, including that you and the Council has gone far beyond what it can control itself, I BEG TO DIFFER. You need have gone no further than your own Bromley Council Legal Department to find the LAW and the weapon in the Council's existing Enforcement Armoury that will deal with the Waste4Fuel fiasco once and for all. It is called a DISCONTINUANCE ORDER and I provide it below.

Discontinuance Orders
Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a local planning
authority to make an order requiring that any use of land shall be discontinued, or
continued subject to conditions (s102(1)(a)), or that any buildings or works shall be
altered or removed (s102(1)(b)). An order may also grant planning permission for
development subject to conditions specified in the order.
An order under s102 can be made if the local planning authority is satisfied that it is
appropriate in the interests of the proper planning of the area (including the
interests of amenity and any present or future detriment to amenity). The decision
to make a discontinuance order must take account of the development plan and
other material considerations.
Discontinuance orders are made to deal with the use to which land is being put.
An order can discontinue any existing use of land (whether lawful or unlawful) or,
alternatively, can impose conditions on the continuance of a use of land. It may
also require any buildings or works to be altered or removed.
A claim for compensation may be made to the local planning authority under s115
of the Act if it is shown that a person having an interest in the land has suffered
damage in consequence of the order. Other persons may be entitled to
compensation in respect of disturbance in their enjoyment of the land or for
carrying out works in compliance with the order.
Unlike unopposed revocation and modification orders, discontinuance orders need
to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. He has power to modify the submitted
order, including power to grant planning permission or to modify the order’s grant
of planning permission. Before confirming an order, the Secretary of State must
provide an opportunity to be heard to any person on whom the order has been
served.

I trust now you will bring this to the attention of your Legal Dept and report back here that you have done so?

Molsey
Reply 3 replies+3

Thepensioner2 days ago
You really think they will do this...! ! ? ?
Reply 0

Gordon2 days ago
"A claim for compensation may be made to the local planning authority under s115
of the Act if it is shown that a person having an interest in the land has suffered
damage in consequence of the order."
This why the council are doing sweet FA, they do not have to pay compensation if they do not close it down.
Reply 1 reply0

molsey1 day ago
Precisely, but they do have the power and could do it. If the site was in Chislehurst, Bickley, or Farnborough etc things might be different.
Reply 0
Any news Molsey?

Any comment Mr. Smith?
Yeh, Cllr Smith has gone on the missing list and is not returning calls.
[quote][p][bold]right-writes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]molsey[/bold] wrote: The Express, Wednesday 25th June 2014 Waste4fuel High Court 5 CommentsRSS|Subscrib e Gordon2 days ago An Environment Agency spokesman said: “We will continue to act in accordance with our power to bring the site back into regulation.” In other words "we will not bother our backsides as it is not in our street". Reply +1 molsey2 days ago molsey says... 12.45pm Sat 30th Nov 13 AN OPEN LETTER TO COUNCILLOR COLIN SMITH Dear Cllr Smith, You have claimed and stated many things in your comments above, including that you and the Council has gone far beyond what it can control itself, I BEG TO DIFFER. You need have gone no further than your own Bromley Council Legal Department to find the LAW and the weapon in the Council's existing Enforcement Armoury that will deal with the Waste4Fuel fiasco once and for all. It is called a DISCONTINUANCE ORDER and I provide it below. Discontinuance Orders Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a local planning authority to make an order requiring that any use of land shall be discontinued, or continued subject to conditions (s102(1)(a)), or that any buildings or works shall be altered or removed (s102(1)(b)). An order may also grant planning permission for development subject to conditions specified in the order. An order under s102 can be made if the local planning authority is satisfied that it is appropriate in the interests of the proper planning of the area (including the interests of amenity and any present or future detriment to amenity). The decision to make a discontinuance order must take account of the development plan and other material considerations. Discontinuance orders are made to deal with the use to which land is being put. An order can discontinue any existing use of land (whether lawful or unlawful) or, alternatively, can impose conditions on the continuance of a use of land. It may also require any buildings or works to be altered or removed. A claim for compensation may be made to the local planning authority under s115 of the Act if it is shown that a person having an interest in the land has suffered damage in consequence of the order. Other persons may be entitled to compensation in respect of disturbance in their enjoyment of the land or for carrying out works in compliance with the order. Unlike unopposed revocation and modification orders, discontinuance orders need to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. He has power to modify the submitted order, including power to grant planning permission or to modify the order’s grant of planning permission. Before confirming an order, the Secretary of State must provide an opportunity to be heard to any person on whom the order has been served. I trust now you will bring this to the attention of your Legal Dept and report back here that you have done so? Molsey Reply 3 replies+3 Thepensioner2 days ago You really think they will do this...! ! ? ? Reply 0 Gordon2 days ago "A claim for compensation may be made to the local planning authority under s115 of the Act if it is shown that a person having an interest in the land has suffered damage in consequence of the order." This why the council are doing sweet FA, they do not have to pay compensation if they do not close it down. Reply 1 reply0 molsey1 day ago Precisely, but they do have the power and could do it. If the site was in Chislehurst, Bickley, or Farnborough etc things might be different. Reply 0[/p][/quote]Any news Molsey? Any comment Mr. Smith?[/p][/quote]Yeh, Cllr Smith has gone on the missing list and is not returning calls. molsey
  • Score: 4

8:34pm Sun 29 Jun 14

londonlive says...

Councillor Colin Smith's home address isn't too difficult to track down. How about we all go round and knock on his door? It's a shame our representatives have to be threatened before they engage but that seems to be the world we live in....
Councillor Colin Smith's home address isn't too difficult to track down. How about we all go round and knock on his door? It's a shame our representatives have to be threatened before they engage but that seems to be the world we live in.... londonlive
  • Score: 4

1:54am Mon 30 Jun 14

molsey says...

Cllr Colin Smith & his wife are both full time councillors, ie no other jobs or income. (Bromley website)
Address, 'Merryn', Warren Road, Bromley (Very posh, upmarket & expensive)

Loves publicity but only when it suits him.

Currently still on the missing list and keeping his head down.
Cllr Colin Smith & his wife are both full time councillors, ie no other jobs or income. (Bromley website) Address, 'Merryn', Warren Road, Bromley (Very posh, upmarket & expensive) Loves publicity but only when it suits him. Currently still on the missing list and keeping his head down. molsey
  • Score: 6

9:11am Mon 30 Jun 14

Slonik says...

It doesn't get a lot more serious than the High Court.
It doesn't get a lot more serious than the High Court. Slonik
  • Score: 2

12:53pm Mon 30 Jun 14

nanny wizzard says...

The site is closed at present by Health & Safety because a JCB toppled over it should never open again ther is a boys School opposite this site and boys will be boys is it going to take something like that begfore we are all listened to...
The site is closed at present by Health & Safety because a JCB toppled over it should never open again ther is a boys School opposite this site and boys will be boys is it going to take something like that begfore we are all listened to... nanny wizzard
  • Score: 3

10:34am Tue 1 Jul 14

EverardEdbutt says...

SidcupResident wrote:
The Environment Agency is just another useless quango full of professional tea drinkers on six-figure salaries.

Scrap the environment agency, which will save the taxpayer £millions. Let the police deal with criminal proceedings for any breaches of environmental safety, and give people doing community service a proper task by making them clear up this mess!
Yeah, let the police deal with it. Like they don't have enough to do as it is. You will all soon complain if this was to become the case!
[quote][p][bold]SidcupResident[/bold] wrote: The Environment Agency is just another useless quango full of professional tea drinkers on six-figure salaries. Scrap the environment agency, which will save the taxpayer £millions. Let the police deal with criminal proceedings for any breaches of environmental safety, and give people doing community service a proper task by making them clear up this mess![/p][/quote]Yeah, let the police deal with it. Like they don't have enough to do as it is. You will all soon complain if this was to become the case! EverardEdbutt
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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