An attempt by Notts County Council and waste company Veolia to build an incinerator on the old Rufford Colliery site near Rainworth has been defeated by a combination of Notts Wildlife Trust, Newark & Sherwood District Council and local campaign group PAIN (People Against Incineration).

The planning decision was referred to an Inquiry in March 2009 with delays since then caused mainly by Veolia's failure to properly consider the importance of surrounding heathland within the Sherwood Forest area (see our earlier news story). The decision to reject planning permission was finally published in May 2011.

The Inspector found that the proposed incinerator conflicted with a number of planning policies set at local, regional, national and European levels. In particular it could cause "harm to the integrity of habitat used by breeding woodlark and nightjar" – which are protected species. As there is an existing requirement that the colliery site is restored to heathland and woodland, it should never have been considered for development.

He also found that there had been a failure to consider key national objectives relating to tackling climate change and improving waste management. In selecting suitable sites, no preference had been shown for sites with better rail connections or with better prospects of making use of heat from an incinerator.

Over half of the waste to be incinerated would be recyclable or compostable. But alternatives to incineration had not been considered. The Inspector suggested anaerobic digestion of food waste is likely to have higher efficiency in reducing greenhouse gases. Mechanical biological treatment would perform better than incineration. But the viability of such alternatives had not been assessed. Veolia had also failed to show that the incinerator wouldn't prejudice moving up the waste management hierarchy towards more recycling, etc.

The Inspector also accepted that as incinerators are net producers of 'persistent organic pollutants' it is necessary under European law to consider alternative processes, concluding: "This argument lends weight to the suggestion that the application should be refused so that more waste, which would otherwise be incinerated, could be recycled, composted or fed to an anaerobic digester."

We wait with interest to see whether Veolia will follow his advice and improve source-separation of waste, including food waste, so that an incinerator is not necessary.

See also an article by Shlomo Dowen of PAIN in the Nottingham Post 1 June 2011.