Myriam Lawson
"I am totally against Covanta proposal. This proposal will blight the quality of live for local people as well as impact on tourism ans property prices. I have 2 young children and feel very strongly about their health and the environment they live in. This planned monstruosity by a company with a dubious record on excess level of toxic emission in the USA is irresponsible. I fully understand the need to recycle our waste in an efficient way. But this monster proposal is not green, is not needed, will not prove efficient and will not help."

David Cooper on behalf of OUR MARSTON VALE
"OUR MARSTON VALE is an organisation comprised of members supported by Parish Councils, Town Councils, National environmental groups and concerned individuals in and around the Marston Vale. It is our belief that Covanta have provided a comprehensive case why the project should be permitted but have failed, in many respects, to address concerns raised by local residents whom we represent. It is our intent therefore to examine and comment on all aspects of the submission."

Mr Karl James Pountney
"I am a member of Stewartby Water Sports Club and as such the development will be adjacent to the lake upon which I sail a dinghy. The development proposes to aquire rights to part of the club's premises and will also see significant increase in vehicle traffic to the proposed development site. Leaving aside the visual impact, my main representation is that the development will have a material impact on the sport of sailing on the adjacent land/lake. In particular the development will reduce the extent to which members may be able to continue to enjoy weekend events with camping or safely come to and from the club grounds."

Tammy L Field
"There can be no justification for a development of this nature in our beautiful county. There are more environmentally friendly methods of dealing with waste than a polluting development like this. Furthermore, this development would lead to the destruction of a naturally formed haven for plants, birds and wildlife. If such a development were to go ahead, our country would become a 'dustbin' for other authorities. Other areas would see no reason to invest in environmentally friendly methods of dealing with waste all the time they have an incinerator to which to send their waste. The increase in traffic on our roads that will be caused by use of this development is unacceptable. Our local roads are already heavily congested and the extra traffic involved in the use of this devleopment can only make things worse."

Mrs Kirsty Warner
"As a local resident I strongly object to this proposal having attended the local roadshows, and having reviewed the plans on the Covanta website. I object based on the following points: - the proximity of the site to Stewartby, local housing, and the Marston Forest Centre - the prominence of the proposed building and stack - the redevelopment of the site. This area was suppose to be part of the local plan for rural regeneration - the community does not want waste to be imported in to the area - there is no need for such a large waste management facility when there are others being proposed by the local councils (Central Beds and Bedford) in the area - the ruining of the rural landscape, including the views from the historic Ampthill Park and Houghton House - concerns about the temperature inversions - how emissions from the stack may impact the local area. - concerns about the massive increase in traffic by HGVs going in and out of the site from 5am every day. The roads have not been planned for this increased usage - concerns of the increased CO2 emissions created by the huge number of trucks and from the stack"

Paul Rolfe
"I have the following concerns: That Covanta has demonstrated elsewhere an inability to adequately control toxic emissions and is the subject of court action in this respect. That any toxic emissions will be concentrated in the immediate area due to atmospheric and geographic conditions and that Covanta are fully aware of this but have presented misleading data. That in the event of breaches of toxic levels, the immediate closure of operation is not feasible and the result would be a series of commercial penalties rather than ceasing emissions. That the value of any electricity produced has been greatly exaggerated by Covanta and that there is not a process for passing on the proposed discount to the local consumers. That the storeage of residual waste on a site with a history of flooding will result in leakage of contamination into the underlying water table. That the size and siting of the proposal will have huge impact on the area as it will dominate the view from all of the local sites of historic interest along with areas set aside for amenity, tourism, nature & wildlife and other areas which impact both tourism and the ability of local perople to enjoy their environment. That national policy would seem to recommend that waste issues should be dealt with on a local level and the importation of waste across counties would result in increases in pollution including substatially increased traffic movements. That the location is not suitable because of the natural restriction caused by the local infrastructure which will be worsened by the number of vehicle movements. That the number of vehicle movements proposed and the routes indicated have not been sufficiently researched and have been presented in a misleading way. That operation of this facility would mitigate against the current successful recycling benefits in Bedfordshire as the commercial demands of Covanta would require that the largest possible quantities of all waste be incinerated rather than recycled. That the site is in the middle of an area for which planning has already been granted for over 4,000 homes."

Mrs S Woodcock
"The issues I am most concerned about are: - the size of the facility and its impact on the look of the area, this is a very rural setting. - the emissions from the plant, their impact on peoples' health and how far reaching they will be. - vehicle movements to and from the plant, Green Lane is a country road, and is not in good condition now. - the proposed area has been fully taken over by nature. This is an important habitat for wildlife (including the Hobby, a falcon and summer visitor to Britain), which would be lost forever. - the effect on house prices in the immediate area. - this will be a facility for burning waste, surely this is an out-of-date solution these days. We should be looking to recycle more, finding greener ways to deal with our waste, and be working with industry to reduce the amount of materials that can't be recycled from being produced in the first place."

Caroline Fortune
"There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life. The sheer size of the building will dominate the skyline - most of which will be visible above the existing edge of Rookery Pit. The sheer size of the Covanta plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and will materially impair the views from the Vale to the surrounding Greensand Ridge and the panoramic views from the ridge across the entire Vale, especially those seen from Ampthill Park and Cranfield. Noise has only been considered in terms of ‘average’ levels so no adequate account been taken of intermittent noise such as that from rattling of empty HGV’s which lead to huge disturbance. The Covanta proposal will override attempts to deal with waste locally. A fundamental question is whether there should be permission for one local authority to discharge its responsibility for waste management by entering into an agreement with a private contractor to build a plant for the sole management of that authority’s waste in another local authority’s area. We believe that the construction of the site utilizing 300+ jobs will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily. There can be no guarantee that the jobs, ongoing or in consideration, will be offered to local people. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity. The Covanta proposal is at odds with the stated desire of local people to be a leisure destination and not somewhere they send their rubbish. Significant vehicle movements to and from the site – arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week on Bank Holiday weekends will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community The new A421 was designed to cope with existing traffic problems. The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road. The transportation of upwards of 585,000 tonnes of rubbish per year will take place along the de-trunked old A421. The waste to be is to be transported using HGV’s and many of which will use the new M1 Junction 13. Evidence submitted by the Highways Agency during the Public Inquiry into the duelling of the A421 from Bedford to J13 indicated that the new junction layout would at peak times have just sufficient capacity to handle the anticipated peak traffic flows, excluding the projected traffic from the Covanta site. Further the adequate functioning of the new J13 is dependent on the further duelling of the A421 from J13 to Milton Keynes and funding for this future project must now be in doubt given needed cutbacks in public spending."

Gary Fortune
"The proposed site is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale. An oversize Energy from Waste plant is will fundamentally undermine that purpose. The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life. The sheer size of the building will dominate the skyline - most of which will be visible above the existing edge of Rookery Pit. The sheer size of the Covanta plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and will materially impair the views from the Vale and the panoramic views from the ridge across the entire Vale. Noise has only been considered in terms of ‘average’ levels so no adequate account been taken of intermittent noise such as that from rattling of empty HGV’s which lead to huge disturbance. The Covanta proposal will override attempts to deal with waste locally. A fundamental question is whether there should be permission for one local authority to discharge its responsibility for waste management by entering into an agreement with a private contractor to build a plant for the sole management of that authority’s waste in another local authority’s area. We believe that the construction of the site utilizing 300+ jobs will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily. There can be no guarantee that the jobs, ongoing or in consideration, will be offered to local people. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity. The Covanta proposal is at odds with the stated desire of local people to be a leisure destination and not somewhere they send their rubbish. Significant vehicle movements to and from the site – arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week on Bank Holiday weekends will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community The new A421 was designed to cope with existing traffic problems. The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road. The transportation of upwards of 585,000 tonnes of rubbish per year will take place along the de-trunked old A421. The waste to be is to be transported using HGV’s and many of which will use the new M1 Junction 13. Evidence submitted by the Highways Agency during the Public Inquiry into the duelling of the A421 from Bedford to J13 indicated that the new junction layout would at peak times have just sufficient capacity to handle the anticipated peak traffic flows, excluding the projected traffic from the Covanta site. Further the adequate functioning of the new J13 is dependent on the further duelling of the A421 from J13 to Milton Keynes and funding for this future project must now be in doubt given needed cutbacks in public spending."

Mr Andrew Shenton
"With a projected waste material fuel of 585,000 Tonnes per year, the project is extremely large, requiring continual delivery of waste material by road. According to Covanta themselves this will equate to one heavy goods vehicle every 30 seconds. The incinerator is designed to operate 24 hours a day and therefore the requirement for fuel will be massive. With some nearby councils now not committing to provide waste, Covanta will be forced to attract deliveries from further away across the South East England. All by road. The new Wixams housing development, the largest new town currently being built, to the immediate north east of the project, will take the population within 2 miles of the incinerator to over 30,000. The development being marketed as Eco Friendly, will lie downwind and in the shadow of a chimney stack twice the height of Big Ben. Covanta's emissions violations record in the USA is unnerving to say the least. In 2009 the Utility Workers Union of America produced a fact sheet listing numerous emission and labour violations. A copy is available online. As are numerous other reports of violations. There is scepticism of the claims of how much power the plant will generate. However much power it generates, it can hardly be called Clean Energy !! The local Councils are currently looking at 30 alternative proposals to handle our waste in an environmentally friendly way. They are all much smaller than this proposal and many would be welcomed by the local community. A Wembley sized incinerator will have a detrimental effect on tourism. Which is vital to the economy of the region."

Carole Yates
"Serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. Reports that Covanta have been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Marston Vale there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. Noise and pollution from HGV’s passing alongside the village of Marston Moretaine, estimated at one every 36 seconds, 6 days a week from 5am until 11pm. This proposal overrides dealing with waste locally as waste will be brought in from other areas, and some distance away, to ‘feed’ this huge plant. The concerns of the villagers need to be heard at a time when the Prime Minister has said that it is right that decisions should be made locally. The local authority has its own waste management project ‘ The BEaR Project’ - which is currently evaluating the first stage of the tender process so they can shortlist bidders to come forward with solutions that will best meet local needs. This area has a very good recycling rate. The proposed site is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest Marston Vale. An oversize Energy from Waste plant will undermine that purpose. Since the closure of the brick works and a land fill site, this area has taken on a new lease of life with cleaner air, less traffic pollution and wildlife making a comeback. There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. The sheer size of the Covanta plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. It is estimated that the site will be about the size of Wembley."

jayne bishop
"I have none The air around mid beds has just become clean due to NO chimneys working at the brick works, and if Covanta go ahead the pollution from the chimneys will go even further afield pollution wise. Also we do not want 100+ lorries coming through our village every hour, the infrastructure would not cope with it. I have just had twins and I do not want hundreds of lorries coming through the village and polluting the air with the exhaust fumes. You will be able to see the chimneys from miles around and will become a "blot" on the landscape, it's bad enough that the old brick chimneys are still standing, but this one will be three/four times bigger. I know the villages of Stewartby would rather have the Nirah project than Covanta on our doorstep. Also house prices will take a tumble"

Ian Fleet
"I've just become a father and my concerns are the level of polution this would bring to the are and the increase in health related problems such lukemia, cancers and respritory problems to my family and the the people in the area. I feel that Covanta are happy to make a profit off of other peoples long term misery and suffering. I'm concerened that I've heard that Covanta have failed to keep polution levels within acceptable levels and have been taken to court on these matters on several occasions. This would sure have and impact on the surrounding environment and local wildlife. I would like to express my deep concern that the volume of traffic coming through the village would increase to an unacceptable level at an unreasonable time in the morning considering that Stewartby only has light traffic at the moment. With the Waste Generating Station up and running the amount of lorries coming through the viliage would be 1 every minute from 5 am. Lorry's would possibly drop thier waste in the viliage some which could be toxic ash waste."

FRANCIS PILBEAM
"I completely object to the proposal on a number of grounds including the following: Representation I have concerns including but not limited to - The sheer scale and size of the development and its impact on the surroundings - My enjoyment of the Millennium Country Park. - The precedence that granting permission for the plant would have in terms of increasing size of the plant / future surrounding developments. - Potential adverse health impacts of the plant - The effect on house prices - The long term nature of the plant and the effect it will have on the people of Bedfordshire, Marston, Stewartby and surrounding areas for future generations. - The views across the Marston Vale from - The effects on wildlife - The effect on the local community during construction of the plant - Pollution from the plant - Transport access to and from the plant during use and construction"

James Graham-Young
"I oppose the EFW proposal for the following reasons: I live very close to the old A421, which is the road that the majority of lorries will have to use, I will be affected by the noise and also pollution from the diesel fumes. I will also be affected by waste that escapes from the vehicles prior to delivery. There will be a negative impact on the area, affecting my potential to sell my house in the future. The Vale that we live in has an unusual way of trapping airborne pollutants - as seen with the old chimneys and when the wind does blow it is normally towards my house. When there was an open inquiry about the health effects of this, the "party agnostic" man who ran it treated us like idiots. He refused to accept findings from experts instead preferring to accept Covanta's findings as gospel, he was belittling and rude - hardly independent. The energy created will not be enough for the number of houses Covanta state, unless they all only use 300W each, the average 3 bed, 2 story house uses over 3 times that - more disinformation. Bedfordshire recycles, this furnace needs things to burn and will encourage that over recycling. The buildings will dominate the skyline which is out of keeping with the area. There have been no statements about the disposal of the flyash, a toxic substance and carcinogen. The chimney will also be releasing toxins which the W.H.O. have stated are carcinogenic, these will not be monitored at the physical size that affects human lungs. Covanta also have a history of disregard for pollution emission levels, why will this one site be any different. The site will also be lit up 24x7, causing upset to me and also wildlife. Finally, there are so many unknowns that I fear for the health of my 7 year old son who will grow up so close to this beast."

Nigel Milway on behalf of Revamp Ampthill Ltd
"In essence our views are that whilst a smaller facility is needed in the broad area: 1. The proposed development is too large for both the area and the site 2. The proposed development is unreasonably intrusive in an attractive natural landscape (Marston Vale Forest). It may have been an industrial site once but is now an important leisure area. 3. The view from the historic Ampthill Great Park - designed by Capability Brown - will be badly affected. The design is unattractive and will scar the landscape. 4. The huge level of planned Heavy Goods traffic will have an unreasonable impact on a small rural area. 5. The facility would be better sited in an existing industrial area - not next to a Nature reserve. 6. Covanta have not seen fit to offer adequate social compensation to local residents for this huge intrusion intended to consume waste produced over a wide area. 7. Insufficient consideration has been given to the use of rail for all movements of site inputs and outputs. 8. All the above points have been made during the consultative process and have not been adequately addressed. In essence our views are that whilst a smaller facility is needed in the broad area: 1. The proposed development is too large for both the area and the site. 2. The proposed development is unreasonably intrusive in an attractive natural landscape (Marston Vale Forest). It may have been an industrial site once but is now an important leisure area. 3. The view from the historic Ampthill Great Park - designed by Capability Brown - will be badly affected. The design is unattractive and will scar the landscape. 4. The huge level of planned Heavy Goods traffic will have an unreasonable impact on a small rural area. 5. The facility would be better sited in an existing industrial area - not next to a Nature reserve. 6. Covanta have not seen fit to offer adequate social compensation to local residents for this huge intrusion intended to consume waste produced over a wide area. 7. Insufficient consideration has been given to the use of rail for all movements of site inputs and outputs. 8. All the above points have been made during the consultative process and have not been adequately addressed. 9. The consultative process has been completely unsatisfactory. As a member of the Consultative Liaison Panel (CLP) I've had to come to the conclusion that the CLP is pointless. I cannot recollect a single occasion where the many points raised by the CLP have made any difference to Covanta's plans. The chairmanship and organisation has been fine. Covanta have been assiduous in answering questions and presenting detail, but in the final analysis there has been no dialogue, no flexibility and therefore no consultation. Have your say Thank you for registering Your registration was successful. Your registration ID is  "

M STARKESS
"Grave concerns as to health wellbeing from pollution,Size of project too large for area Will adversely affect the amount of re-cycling carried out.Traffic concerns as to extra large lorries on allready over subscribed roads & unsuitable country road from A421 to Stewartby causing danger to public & extra upkeep to road fabric."

Kirsty Richardson
"The use of land near Stewartby for a waste incinerator is out of the question there are many families who live in this area and an eyesore of this proportion will not be welcome not only regarding the emissions from the incinerator the cost to the local wildlife and how much are the house prices going to drop in the villages surrounding this incinerator as a concerned homeowner I would be very pleased not to see this eyesore come to this area."

Barbara Fleet
"I think having the incinerator in this area will cause added noise and air pollution due to the increase in lorries transporting waste that will come through the village. It will spoil the quality of the area and cause a drop in value to my house."

Norman Jones
"I object to the installation of your proposed incinerator. • Bedfordshire has the right to deal with its own waste and not to, yet again, become the dumping ground of everybody else’s waste. • Sat between two railway lines, Covanta’s need for share holder profit means that no attempt will be made to transport waste by rail. It will all arrive by road. • Following Covanta’s initial comments on lorry traffic, they have now admitted that the facility would have 450 lorries a day (900 lorry movements A DAY) arriving and departing between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. 6 days a week and 7 days a week on Bank Holiday weekends. Experience of Brogborough Landfill is that lorries in fact arrive earlier and ‘stack up on surrounding roads awaiting opening time. • The lorries will use and gridlock the new Marston junction of the new A421 and heavily congest the new bypass defeating the purpose of the road. • If you live around the Arundel Road estate, Lower Shelton Road (within Marston Moreteyne), Roberts Drive etc. you will have heavy lorries thundering past you home at least between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. Remember these are proposed opening times. Again from experience of Brogborough Landfill, very quickly there becomes an ‘operational need’ to extent opening times and become seven days a week permanently. • I am also concerned as to how the fumes are going to escape from such a deep pit. • For many years we have been plagued with fumes from the brickfields and then the rubbish tips. So when we at last had our own Park and new forest we never expected to become a dumping ground for other counties yet again. Enough is enough."

Mrs Jane Tasker
"I am opposed to this development on environmental grounds and despite the arguments put forward by Coventa consider it will be detrimental to local people and the local area. Solutions to waste are not to be found in these large scale industrial facilities but in local developments that meet the needs of local people"

Celia Lai
"1 I am concerned about the pollution caused by emissions from the proposed Covanta plant which could have detrimental health implications and is very likely to affect people with breathing problems such as asthmatics. 2 I feel that siting the Covanta incinerator at the bottom of the Vale will cause emissions from the chimney to affect people at the top of the hill eg., in Cranfield aswell as hang over and descend upon the whole Vale trapping the pollutants in particularly in certain weather conditions. This has been shown in the past by smells and cloud formations from the brickworks and smells from the Stewartby landfill site."

Mark OReilly
"My family & I are totally opposed to the Covanta proposals for the following reasons; We have serious concerns regarding the emissions & the health implications of the whole Covanta proposal, especially with what is being incinerated – I have 3 young children who are at early stages in their development. I am extremely worried about the effect this will have in respect to their health especially due to the actions of Covanta in the US where they have been served Legal Notices in respect to their US plants We made a conscious decision to move to & bring up our family in a rural village landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life – We do not want to live near an Incinerator – how can this be considered a healthy option? We understand that the plant will be receiving vehicles from 05.00 to 22.00 - 6 days a week. This will represent an unsustainable increase in traffic through J13 & could significantly increase congestion at the junction at peak times which would in turn give rise to increased traffic flows through neighboring villages and congestion further a field at key junctions in Milton Keynes The Covanta proposal is totally at odds with the stated desire of local residents for Marston to be a leisure destination, with the maturing Millennium Park & the forthcoming Centre Parcs for the County - NOT somewhere they send rubbish. The Covanta proposal is an outdated & unwanted step back in refuse management where we should be concentrating efforts on recycling rather than destruction of valuable resource – The waste from energy is a moot argument as this never been explained how residents (82,500 homes) will directly benefit from this green electricity and how this figure of 82,500 is arrived at? Bedford has its own local waste management project - The BEaR Project - which is currently evaluating the first stage of the tender process so they can short-list the bidders to come forward with solutions that will best meet local needs which do not include incineration but offer a true green waste management proposal."

Jeremy Pestell
"- Concern about the size of the proposed development due to the fact that it will be for waste from other counties, not just Bedfordshire, and that a development of this size will be a visible blight on the surrounding area - Concern about the environmental impact owing that road haulage from the wide catchment area into the facility is exclusively proposed despite the site being bordered by two railways. Additionally, that the sheer frequency of road transport will be detrimental to the village of Marston Moretaine at the new junction with the A421. - Concern about the potential health risk that emissions from incineration may cause. - Concern at the record of Covanta at breaching regulations in existing facilities elsewhere (eg Essex County, NJ, USA)"

Miss M Lawrence
"I am a resident in the Marston Vale. I wish to make representations about the impact the proposed incinerator will have on a beautiful landscape that has already been marred by other industries. This area is ripe for tourist development not a huge incinerator. I have major concerns about the pollution this will bring into the Marston Vale not just by the incinerator burning 24 hours per day, but also the logistics of bringing the waste to the incinerator from far and wide. The lorries are going to use local roads congesting our county, our villages and putting our children at greater risk. How will the lorries access the incinerator? Will it be through Marston Moretaine or another local village? Will a new road be created (just what we do not need - another road work project). Will the local tourist spots be compulsorily purchased? What land is earmarked for compulsory purchase? I welcome Centre Parcs to the region - what impact will the incinerator have on the tourist trade? A giant incinerator is not the way forward to tackle human consumption and waste - this is a "cop-out". The Local Authority's have made a fantastic effort on recycling but we need to look straight to the route of the problem - namely the suprermarkets and the brand packaging. It concerns met that to build the incinerator will gloss over the problem for a few years without getting to the fundamental cause. Will the incinerator generate noise pollution? It is a factory of sorts it must create noise. Will the incinerator create light pollution - presumably if it is running 24/7 it will be lit up night and day. How will impact on local wildlife and habitat?"

Kevin Porter
"I understand that Covanta have submitted an application to build a Resource Recovery Facility (Energy from Waste - mass burn incinerator) at Rookery Pit South near Stewartby, Bedfordshire. As a local resident I strongly object to this proposal based on the following points: - the proximity of the site to Stewartby, my family home in Marston Moretaine, and the Marston Vale millenium park. - the prominence of the proposed building and stack - Our community does not want waste to be imported in to the area - Buckinghamshire cannot abdicate its disposal obligations by exporting its waste to Bedfordshire! I understand that there have been historical proposals regarding EFW plants at both Bletchley and Calvert Landfill sites, both of which are in Buckinghamshire - why have Buckinghamshire not explored these options further, rather than exporting their waste to Bedfordshire? - there is no need for such a large waste management facility if we are only dealing with residual waste arisings from OUR community (Bedfordshire county, including Bedford Borough/Central Beds/Luton) - concerns regarding the negative impact on the lives of my family and I with the proposed 24 hour/364 day working of the plant and the noise, atmospheric and light pollution that this will bring. - concerns about the massive increase in traffic by HGVs going in and out of the site from 5am every day. The roads have not been planned for this increased usage. If this facility is approved, imported waste from London and Buckinghamshire would lead to extra traffic which would exit the new A421 at Marston and pass the rear of my property to gain access to the new facility. - With the landfill site and former brickworks (opposite the proposed EFW and all accessed from Green Lane) both serviced by good quality rail links, WHY are the proposers NOT including rail-borne waste in their proposal, rather than inputs by road? Road borne input would affect the local community far more than rail would do. This is clearly a major flaw in their proposal, along with submitting a plan for such an unnecessary maximum capacity (in the hope that WE may compromise on a site accepting half that, I imagine). The new road development has caused inconvenience to our community during its construction, however, I could see the benefits of reduced local traffic once the construction is completed. If the proposed incineration plant is approved, not only will our community have suffered temporary inconvenience through the construction phase, but we will suffer further ongoing inconvenience from the additional traffic generated by this plant. This would directly affect my family and I in a negative way. - I am concerned about the increased CO2 emissions created by the huge number of trucks and from the stack - particularly as we are all tasked with reducing our carbon footprint. Can you please clarify Local Authorities obligation under the proximity principle regarding their residual waste disposal. I would be disgusted if Buckinghamshire are allowed to dump their waste into my community, when that county has landfill capacity, not least at Calvert (30+ years life) and Bletchley (10+ years) and has disregarded proposals to site EFW at those landfill sites. - Royal Windsor and Maidenhead are also cited as potential exporters to Rookery - why can they not dispose of their waste into the Lakeside EFW, which is FAR closer than Rookery Pit?. - Oxfordshire have now approved EFW at Ardley - Why can't Buckinghamshire export their waste to that facility, which is better located for their County than Rookery Pit? - Hertfordshire have the potential to cater for their own waste arisings at the proposed EFW at Westmill (Ware) - Currently a Biffa operated Landfill. Notwithstanding the above points, the visual amenity will be severely affected, but not by as much as the effects on wildlife flora and fauna and the fragile economics of the Bedfordshire and specifically, Marston Vale, area. What compensation will be made available to local communities for the severe reduction in asset value caused by a dirty great incinerator in our back yard!?! I would like to be kept informed of future developments as part of the consultation."

Mrs Julia Burkett
"Incineration on this scale will lead councils to relax their commitment to reuse and recycle waste materials and reduce waste production in the first place. The data given by Covanta on the electricity that will be produced and made available to the grid doesn’t seem to match the number of homes that are likely to benefit. It seems that Covanta has under-estimated typical household electricity use. There are likely to be highly toxic materials such as dioxins produced during the incineration process, for which there is no known safe level and which therefore may not even be measured in the products released by the chimneys. The number of lorries which will be required to bring in the waste will add substantially to local road congestion, impacting negatively on business and leisure travel in the area. The lorries will may also substantially add to both chemical and noise pollution. The scale of the proposed incineration plant will make a huge negative visual impact in that area which has been gradually developed as a forest nature area with a welcome expansion in habitat for local wildlife as well as an amenity for locals and visitors to the region. Solutions are needed to the problem of landfill but this proposed incinerator will generate more problems than it will solve."

Charles Royden
"I wish to register that I will make representations concerning The size of the proposed facility being inappropriate involving a large geographic area The emissions which the facility will produce, there has been a lack of information about this, there have been prosecutions of this company for this. Previous emissions from this area have affected a wide area of Bedford Borough due to prevailing winds. Covanta have not made the public sufficiently aware of their historic failings and have indicated that this will not be a problem, this has mislead the public during the consultation process. The vehicular movements which will be detrimental to the local community, there have been conflicting statement concerning The visual intrusion of this facility which will be inappropriate to the area The methodology of incineration is poor and has now been reduced down the hierarchy of waste treatment processes, this is a poor sustainable solution."

Melanie Bryer
"My concerns are as follows: 1. Negative Impact on the landscape and quality of life in rural Bedfordshire 2. A huge and unsightly development which will spoil views from local beauty spots eg ampthill park and houghton house 3. A significant increase in traffic volumes as waste is transported to the site from outside the county 4. Emissions from the plant which may be damaging to the health of local residents 5. The development may lead to local policy makers giving lower priority to innovative schemes to reduce and recycle waste"

Daniel Vass
"- Health Issues to the local and surrounding environments - Why ruin a prefectly good landscape in a rural quiet area - The increase in traffic which is simply not necessary -         does not care about the locals                     . - The increase in noise - The emissions coming out of the stack, yeah the selfish   say that what comes out is ok but why for such a high stack."

Mark Burr
"I sent the below email to local councilors and MP's back in March. Since then I note that the Millennium Country Park next to the planned Incinerator has been nominated for a national lottery award for good use of funding. The Incinerator would detract from the whole area let alone the award winning park itself. I would like to register my objection to any kind of incinerator in the Marston Vale Area. This area has surely had enough of this kind of thing with the brickworks and the landfill over the last few decades. We are a rural area and are making efforts to keep it that way; I cannot believe there is even a question of changing this environment again. Despite the landfill and the emissions from the brickworks over the years we are just about clinging on to our rural heritage partly by creating the Marston Vale Park and new Woodlands at Marston Thrift/Cranfield. The incinerator would be another blot on this landscape that just may put people off living in the area and makes all the positive efforts for nothing. The amount of extra traffic and noise created by the incinerator would make the new A421 duel carriageway worthless as this was designed to cope with the existing traffic. We already may have the extra traffic caused by new developments and the new Centre Parcs. The incinerator will be a step too far. Also there are the obvious health issues caused by any fumes coming from the incinerator. Again, has the area not had enough of this already? There surely must be somewhere that an incinerator can be built that is either further away from towns/villages or in an area that is primarily industrial already? We pay a premium to live in a rural area and would like to keep it that way. I thought we were all making an effort to be recycling and lowering our emissions? I realise that waste has to go somewhere but again, this area has had its fill. Literally. The Marston Vale Park and Millennium Woodland in Cranfield have been a great addition to the area. We regularly cycle down route 51 from Cranfield to the Vale Park and pass many families and dog walkers every day enjoying the area. The landfill does stretch right out into this landscape and these parks do feel like a bit of a sweetener already. Again, another negative addition will be a step too far for the area. The new incinerator being built here may well stop people from utilising these parklands. I do not like the idea of cycling along next to a huge factory breathing in the fumes as I go around what is currently a great place for both public and wildlife. I and surely everyone in the area, extending to visitors from further afield, would like to keep in as it is now."

Iain Clapham
"This land was granted planning aproval in 1947 with the condition that the site would be restored to agricultural land - no restoration has ever been planned. It must therefore be assumed that the land owners have no regard for planning conditions and given the ownership of the plant VERY SPECIAL conditions and VERY large cash bonds must be considered as mandatory conditions to avoid another round of despoilation and desertion. The Review of Old Mineral Permissions is still active. There are many rights of ways that have been illegally interfered with and no consultation on a widespread compensation scheme has taken place. This landowner has failed to honour planning conditions on the nearby Lidlington Pit and this must be completed prior to further grants of planning unless a total diregard of British Law is acceptable to the IPC and this Government. I reserve the right to add to this list as further evidence becomes available as a result of the public outrage caused by this plan."

Linda Bulled
"I live in a village close to the Rookery pit and have an interest in the effect of the project on the environment."

Audra Ryan
"I would like to give you my full support for this project to go ahead. I work within the waste industry and know only too well of the increasing issues that we face with the disposal of waste produced by the ever demanding society we live in. There is only good that can come from projects such as this and I think that the bigger picture needs to be observed by the public. Technology these days is making it possible for the emissions to be clean and safe and with regards to some people's worries about the increased number of waste vehicles, the infrastructure is being built to support it. Besides, they have being hauling waste through this area since the 70's, are people not used to this by now? Best of luck with the venture and I sincerely hope that the local public can open their eyes."

Robert Humphreys
"This development will dominate and blight the surrounding area. It will adversely affect the standard of living of people living in the Marston Vale increasing traffic and pollution. With recycling on the increase it is not needed."

Clive Yates
"The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life.? The concerns of the villagers need to be heard at a time when the Prime Minister has said that it is right that decisions should be made locally. ? Serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications.? Reports that Covanta have been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA.? In the sky above the Marston Vale there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Vale and eventually drop into the Vale.? Noise and pollution from HGV’s passing alongside the village of Marston Moretaine, estimated at one every 36 seconds, 6 days a week from 5am until 11pm.? This proposal overrides dealing with waste locally as waste will be brought in from other areas, and some distance away, to ‘feed’ this huge plant. The local authority has its own waste management project ‘ The BEaR Project’ - which is currently evaluating the first stage of the tender process so they can shortlist bidders to come forward with solutions that will best meet local needs.? This area has a very good recycling rate. The Covanta proposal will override attempts to deal with waste locally.? The sheer size of the Covanta plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. It is estimated that the site will be about the size of Wembley.? The proposed site is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest Marston Vale. An oversize Energy from Waste plant will undermine that purpose.? Since the closure of the brick works and a land fill site, this area has taken on a new lease of life with cleaner air, less traffic pollution and wildlife making a comeback.? will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7.?"

Bob King
"(No Information Supplied)"

Mathew Durkin
"I have serious concerns about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I am concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Marston Vale there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. When inversion is not occurring the prevailing wind is south westerly. I have serious concerns that there will be a cumulative impact over the 30 year + life cycle of the plant either within the Marston Vale and/or Bedford and Kempston The proposed site is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale. An oversize Energy from Waste plant is will fundamentally undermine that purpose. Since clay extractions ceased Rookery Pit, situated adjacent to the Millennium Country Park are now both an ecologically integrated and co-joined wild life site. The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life. The Covanta proposal would be a retrograde step ecologically and ultimately lead to the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. (13) The site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss."

Lizzie Barnicoat on behalf of Borough of Bedford Local Access Forum
"Regarding information and impact relating to public rights of way and recreational activities."

Andrew Penn
"The proposed development is unnecessary, will be hugely detrimental to the local area and should not be allowed to proceed. My specific points are - Detrimental effects on the environment including - severe light pollution as the site will be lit 24/7; the size and ugliness of the plant (the same size as Cardington Hangars built to house huge airships) and chimney (almost twice the size of Big Ben); threat to wildlife havens and country parks; air pollution and the long term health implications from Toxins and possibly carcinogens from chimney emissions (Covanta has a documented history of breaching safe emission levels - see Bedfordshire On Sunday, 26.09.10) Bedfordshire’s waste will not be enough to feed this beast so much more will be imported from outside the area. Bedfordshire itself is pursuing a separate and environmentally sounder strategy through its BEaR project Trucks will not be checked on arrival, leading to the possibility of all manner of hazardous waste being imported and burnt - no one will know until it is too late. Likewise ‘Fly Ash’ or ‘Bottom Ash’ which needs to be removed will be transported through our communities along our country roads and lanes An estimated 900 trucks per day trundling along the new A421, and our local roads, causing congestion, air pollution, excessive noise and wear and tear on local roads not designed for such heavy traffic The impact on tourism. This is an area which the county is promoting and developing, e.g. through the proposed Center Parc at Millbrook. This and local tourism dependent businesses will be adversely affected by the Covanta monster. Covanta's claims for the amount of electricity generation from the incinerator are, most experts agree, wildly overstated. This is 1 of only 2 possible positives from the proposal and is at best misleading. The second potential positive is job creation. 70 is a quoted figure which will have a minimal effect on local unemployment and will almost certainly be offset by job losses through the adverse effect on other businesses such as the Marston Vale Millennium Country park when visitor numbers drop off. This part of the the county suffered 70 years of pollution from the brickworks (which at least provided considerable employment) followed by Landfill. It is time that this rural community was allowed to regenerate as it has been doing through projects like the Millennium forest. Do not approve this application - please!"

Mr Steven Lonsdale
"Wrong solution, wrong provider, waste from outside the county, hazard to health - short and long term, local people do not want it and marston vale has done it's bit with 30 years of landfill and 100 years of brick polution which showed the effect of the topography on smog, detrimental effect on quality of life, house prices, damage to,if not loss of a burgeoning tourist industry, noise, loss of jobs and potential jobs, further plants, Conventas' record and reputation, effect on agriculture, negative economic and health effect on surrounding adjacent and remote areas, noise, dust and traffic levels. CO2 production and global warning. Toxic waste produced by the plant and dioxins."

Vicky Gladstone on behalf of Stewartby Parish Council
"The Parish Council represent and have instructions from the Residents of Stewartby the neighbouring village and such residents object to the proposed development of the land with regard to possible health risks from fumes from the 60ft chimney, the chimneys impact on the surrounding land. They had always understood that there is a restrictive covenant on the land to prevent the land being used for waste which the residents had relied upon. The residents are also extremely concerned about the large amount of vehicles proposed which would to use Green Lane and possibly go through the village causing congestion and health risks through the vehicle emissions. (understood to be more than 1 vehicle per min.)"

Hugh Morley
"I am appalled that they want to build this incinerator. This incinerator is due to be built by a company with an appalling health and safety record. It will be producing unknown toxins. These toxins will linger over the area due to temperature inversion. Lorries arriving every 26 seconds cannot be good for the environment, local transport infrastructure. How can burning be ecologically sound?"

DCooper on behalf of Against rookery pit incineration
"yes Environmental impact Traffic congestion Disruption with-in our commumity Crime rate could potentially go up Our health, potentially Deterioration of our roads with the additional useage My property devaluation Noise pollution traffic, incinerator etc 'Eye sore' on our village landscape and to surrounding villages"

Jeff Bulled
"The proposed development is too large scale, it suits the developer not the local people or the environment. The development would create an eyesore in what is an attractive area, it would be adjacent to the country park.. It will result in large numbers of HGV movements which will outweigh the supposed environmental benefits. There is a more attractice BEAR proposal for energy from waste."

Tim Mason
"I object to the application on the grounds of: Visual blight - the building will dwarf the Vale and everything in the surrounding area. Increased traffic - the increase in lorry movements will significantly detract fom the experience of the Millenium Park as well as undermining the reductions in local road use that are hoped for through the building of the new A421 Toxic emissions - though the plant is no doubt designed to run without toxic emissions, I understand that Covanta has a track record of problems with emissions at its US plants. Further, these problems are being dumped on the residents of the Marston Vale even though Bedfordshire only produces a small fraction of the waste needed to keep it running. I object to an application which will transport waste in to the area from considerable distances around the region, rather than dealing with it locally."

Gwen Brown
"I wish to add my protest to the proposals made by covanta."

lynn somerfield
"I object to the proposal on the grounds that this area has had more than its fair share of development with new housing. We also already accommodate a huge landfill site. The area is increasingly congested with traffic due to the new housing developments which are continuing apace. Stewartby is a reclaimed area of some beauty and its landscape will be forever spoiled by the proposed ugly feature. I object in the strongest possible terms."

Deryck Irons on behalf of Campton & Chicksands and Silsoe Parish Councils
"The Parish Councils may wish to make representations at a later date about the planning merits of the proposal and the impact which the development may have on the amenities/ environment of the area."

STUART D HAMILTON
"I fuuly support Covanta's application. This incinerator offers technical solution to the problem of the disposal of non-recyclable domestic refuse , whilst at the same time generating a considerable amount of electrical power. The process is a proven technology which will ensure that off-site emissions from the exhaust discharge chimney do not contain levels of toxic or hazardous materials which are harmful to human, animal or plant health. The proposed location of the main plant building structure in an existing former clay pit will reduce he visual impact of the facility. The facility will also generate local and regional employment opportunities. The local disposal of domestic refuse will also reduce the current level of out-of-county road transport of waste, and thus reduce the carbon footprint of this operation. The electric power( energy) produced can be considered a "renewable source" and thus help to meet Government/ EC targets. I live about 2 miles east of the proposed facility and do not expect to be aware of its existance, and certainly do not anticipate seeing clouds of smoke as used to be the case with the former brickworks which operated with the clay produced from Rookery Pit isposal"

John King
"I object to this plan on the grounds that it would blight the landscape with its massive chimney and site buildings. There would be a massive increase of heavey lorry traffic at all times of the day to and from the site, adding to the pollution and noice. Let alone congestion on village roads. The disruption would far away any benifits and we would become the dumping ground for the South of England. Massive amounts of money and time have been spent in making the area a great place to live and now this proposal will negate all that has gone before. So I say No to Covanta Energy. I believe that the construction of the processing plant will be an eye sore on the enviroment. Also there will be a dramatic increase in pollution, let alone traffic caused by the lorries carrying the waste to and from the site. The increase in heavey lorry traffic will have to come through the village and would negate an improvements the new bypass has proffered. Also there is no satisfying report on the pollution emitted from the chimmeny that would elay any fear of what type of pollution and its long term effects on the local area. I truely believe this propasal will not only contibute further to pollution by the sheer number of vehicles using the site on a daily basis.It will also be an eyesore with the large stack dominating an area of natural beauty. A bypass is underway to take heavey goods vechiles away from the villages and the introduction of so many extra lorries a day will only negate this. There has been no confirmed details of pollution from the waste or ashe. J.M. King"

Christopher Gautier
"LOCATION - This is a highly inappropriate proposal due to the close proximity with Marston Vale Community Forest and Stewartby village. Villagers, people at leisure and children do not mix well with the frequent commercial transport needed to bring waste to the site. Reducing the size of the vehicles as proposed will logically only increase the frequency of deliveries and therefore the risk of accident, environmental impact and further deterioration of already inadequate LOCAL roads. SAFETY - The plant will produce allegedly "safe" ash pellets. What happens when these are turned to dust by vehicle wheels and the famously strong Marston Vale wind picks this dust up for everyone in the area including Ampthill, Flitwick, Marston, Woburn, Houghton Conquest, Kempston and Bedford to breathe? Official guidance warns that breathing dust resulting from drilling holes in building blocks made from this by product is unacceptably hazardous, so where is the difference between that and exposure over a lengthy period to windborne dust? OPERATION - The proposed plant is of an older design than newer plants based on plasma technology. Fully researched and supported information indicates that this design suffers deterioration in efficiency with age and it is also prone to operational issues that result in sub-optimal processing and combustion of waste which in turn leads to emissions that exceed safety guidelines. Again there is ample evidence from the UK alone that operational incidents and failures are more common than they should be in similar plants. If approved, what are we condemning our environment to for decades to come? ALTERNATIVES - Technology has moved on and there are alternative, commercially viable, less impactful, more effective and environmentally sympathetic alternatives to waste incineration that are more compatible with Bedfordhire's needs and EU guidelines for waste management and disposal. Why can these not be considered? REPUTATION - The proposing organisation has a less than enviable track record in its home country concerning the operation of similar plants."

R W A Franceys
"Inappropriateness of capacity - regional rather than county/local Inappropriateness of location - de-industrialising vale, reinstating area of natural beauty Inappropriateness of access - burden of traffic on local residents Inappropriateness of design - failing all possible aesthetic tests/good practice, particularly the impact from Greensand Ridge Impact on local communities - health risks and nuisance risk and aesthetic failure Impact on community economic development strategy - aimed at tourism, not re-industrialising Inappropriate level of compensation for residents relative to the burden of hosting a regional/national facility"

Richard Gillard
"I believe that the area in which the Covanta Incinerator is proposed is currently very beautiful. I believe it would be spoiled by the presense of this incinerator. Further, I believe the air quality, both in Stewartby which currently contains wonderful parklands, open spaces and nature reserves and also in my home town of Bedford, would be seriously damaged by this incinerator. Burning is a chemical process. Burning waste is an indiscriminate chemical process. One cannot know what will be contained in the waste. That is the nature of waste. If one does not know what one is putting into a chemical reaction one certainly does not know what one will be getting out. However much Covanta might talk about scrubbing the waste, it will not be possible to prevent harmful and noxious substances entering the air. Covanta have been fined twice in three years at just one of their operations in the USA. Please see, for example: the article at web page: http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/08/24/business/cc1_convanta0819082410.txt, which is taken from the New Haven Register for Tuesday 24 August, this year (2010). If Covanta are conducting themselves in this way in the USA, we have no reason to suppose they will behave any better here. The facility will also be huge and it will spoil a fabulous view. It will compromise the sailing club, the wetlands centre and the proposed Centre Parks development. It will even spoil the view across the valley from Ampthill Park. The incinerator will also have an extremely detrimental effect of jobs in the area. The mid Bedfordshire MP, Nadine Dorries, is currently engaged in bringing jobs to Bedfordshire via the tourist industry. The area around Ampthill and Stewartby has tremendous potential for tourism as well as for the relaxation and reinvigoration of the residents of Bedfordshire. There is sailing and water sports, the nature reserve of the wetlands centre, the history of Ampthill, one time home of Henry VIII's first bride, Katherine of Aragon, the marvellous views of Stewartby Lake and the views across the valley from Ampthill Park. All of these features could contribute to a fabulous tourist industry in central Bedfordshire. All of these features will be massively compromised if Covanta are allowed to build a huge, dark satanic mill, spewing filth into the atmosphere, right in the heart of this wonderful resource. The whole proposal is complete and utter madness. In summary therefore. I object to the incinerator on the followin grounds: 1) It will poison the air we breath and damage our health, causing cancer, bronchitus and other respiratory illnesses, some of which will result in the early death of the residents. 2) It will cause unemployment by compromising Bedford's tourist industry and driving away tourism. 3) It will compromise and spoil some wonderful recreational facilities, such as the views of the lakes, the sailing club, the wetlands centre, the forest of Marston Vale and Ampthill Park. 4) It will be extremely unsightly. 5) It will generate a large quantity of toxic ash, which will need to be disposed of. 6) It will clog and damage our roads. Finally, what are the benefits of this incinerator? A very few jobs - much less in number than the jobs which will be lost due to the loss of tourism to the area and 65 Megawatts of electricity. 65 Megawatts of power is nothing. It could not adequately heat 20,000 family homes in winter. A standard electric show takes 9 kilowatts. A kettle takes 3 kilowatts. A standard fan heater takes 2 or 3 kilowatts. The power generated by this huge and dangerous structure is pitiful. The Covanta Incinerator provides no end of problems and all but zero benefits. For that reason I do not want it. Here is an example of what one can do with 65 Magawatts of electricity: Run 7,222 bathroom showers Or Boil 21,666 kettles Or Run 21,666 fan heaters, in 21,666 student or old age pensioner bedrooms. I must confess, I rather like the 666, which occurs at the end of the fan heater and kettles calculation. 666 - the number of the Evil Covanta Beast! Seriously, though. Are we really going to ruin our lovely county for the sake of such a pitiful amount of energy?"

Mrs Lynne Parry
"I object to Covanta building an incineration plant at Rookery South Pit on the following key points: * the sheer scale of the scheme is detrimental to an area of recovering beauty * the large number of waste lorries will have a huge impact on our road network which has recently been improved at enormous cost * the prospect of large quantities of waste coming into our part of Bedfordshire from other parts of the country is a retrograde step when we are only just reclaiming the land at Brogborough and Stewartby landfill sites * the visual impact of a 105 metre chimney in the beautiful Marston Vale will have a knock-on effect for local tourism and trade * a long continuous plume of smoke dispersing questionable emissions across the Vale will be disastrous for the local ecology * in America Covanta has been found guilty on 2 occasions of the dispersal of poisonous emissions so can we trust such a company?"

Mr Cedryn Parry
"I object to Covanta building an incineration plant at Rookery South Pit on the following key points: * the sheer scale of the scheme is detrimental to an area of recovering beauty * the large number of waste lorries will have a huge impact on our road network which has recently been improved at enormous cost * the prospect of large quantities of waste coming into our part of Bedfordshire from other parts of the country is a retrograde step when we are only just reclaiming the land at Brogborough and Stewartby landfill sites * the visual impact of a 105 metre chimney in the beautiful Marston Vale will have a knock-on effect for local tourism and trade * a long continuous plume of smoke dispersing questionable emissions across the Vale will be disastrous for the local ecology * in America Covanta has been found guilty on 2 occasions of the dispersal of poisonous emissions so can we trust such a company?"

Mark Trussell
"I am a householder quite near to the propsed site and have concerns regarding health issues, value of my property [which will decrease if the plant is built], the fact that Covanta have had serious issues with similar plants they have in the USA, Traffic- increase of, I will also be able to see the plant from my property, currently I look over fields & farmland. In conclusion I do not feel this plant is in the right location."

Lynne Boshier
"I do not want Covanta to build in this area. It's a beautiful spot in a small village and if built it will cause appalling problems with traffic, fumes and general disruption. It will be situaded in a small village with narrow roads and will cause untold problems for commuters as well as those living in or close to the village. The health hazard with toxic fall-out is also a very serious risk, particluarly for the young and elderly (of which tehre are many in this area) and is unacceptable. This is a peaceful, beautiful area with a lake used by locals for leaisure pursuits whcih will be completely riuned!"

Michele Griffith
"Concern about emissions from the stack and long term health implications Covanta have been served legal notices because of emissions at its USA plants Emissions not dispersing because of local conditions-temperature inversion Direct and indirect habitat and wildlife loss Massive traffic increase causing noise and air pollution Light pollution and adverse visual impact on the local landscape Change in the planning regime so original guidelines no longer applicable/appropriate Only local waste should be dealt with, I do not understand how other counties can shirk their responsibility to deal with their own waste by dumping it on us-how can that possibly be acceptable and eco friendly? If an authority can just shove it somewhere else that will surely affect recycling rates as destruction and it's associated pollution are usually cheaper and less visible in the short term."

Kate Frost
"apposed to this project as I feel it will be detrimental to people who live locally - as I do."

Roy Tebbutt
"Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) IPC Reference ENO010011/Preapp/COR373 The EIA fails to deal fully with how the waste is transported to the Site and ALL the waste products from the Incinerator. Incinerators produce large quantities of heat and CO2 that must be dissipated into the atmosphere via air or water cooling systems. The production of electricity is perhaps the only useful by product and is barely 12-15% efficient of the total energy dissipated, less than modern fired coal stations, which are subject to strict EU regulation. Incineration is the least environmental friendly way of disposing of domestic waste and leads to a far greater production of CO2 than other waste processing methods. The residual furnace ash is also toxic and needs to be disposed of in landfill without leakage into the water course. The exhaust gas scrubbing systems also produce dangerous liquid waste. The atmospheric/topological conditions of the Marston Vale are well know but not fully addressed by the EIA and Incinerator design. Even if the 100m chimney enables the exhaust gases to escape over the top of the Vale/ Ampthill Hill, the inversion effect in the winter will hold down the water vapour/steam released at lower heights from cooling systems Reference is drawn to the previous Stewartby Chimneys (65M) and the Didcott power station If the furnace temperature fall below the recommended temperatures to volatilise dioxins and other products will the emergency shutdown procedures be effective, and will the area of the Marston Vale be monitored for pollution? The prevailing winds blow approximately 60% of the time towards Bedford. The large number of vehicle movements is also environmentally unsound, increasing the impact on the immediate locality in terms of noise, light and vehicle exhausts pollution, and traffic congestionThe production of CO2 and other gases by vehicles adds to the total impact of the CO2 pollution of the whole plant. Rail head delivery, and restrictions on importing domestic waste by road for distance greater than 25 miles from Stewartby, must be part of the project design and planning consent. To rely totally on road transport will increase the waste disposal operating costs of local authorities by the number of RRVs required, staffing and fuel cost, and the potential break downs in the waste delivery chain during severe weather. Convanta’s costs and charges only reflect Incinerator gate costs and not the total waste domestic disposal budget. In the long term the cost of a rail head may be cost neutral or even beneficial, and more environmentally and aesthetically friendly to the local and regional population . The building of such a large industrial complex in Stewartby must be restricted and controlled. Roy Tebbutt MSc."

Elaine Randall
"I wish to object to the proposed Covanta EfW incinerator at Rookery South in Bedfordshire. I would be extremely concerned for the health of my three children, my husband and myself if this incinerator was to go ahead as we would be living within two miles of the site. Even the newest incinerators cannot completely destroy all the dangerous chemicals that form during combustion and tiny particles, too small to capture, are emitted through the stack. These nanoparticles are the most dangerous chemicals and contain the richest supply of toxic elements including PCB's, dioxins and furans. They travel long distances and remain suspended for long periods of time which is very worrying for us given the geography of our area and the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion. They penetrate deep into the lungs and are so tiny that they can cross the lung membrane and enter every tissue in the body. A report by Dr. Dick Van Steenis MBBS (a retired NHS GP who has been involved in research into health damage resulting from industrial air pollution) regarding the Newhaven proposed incinerator site, states that "these modern incinerators are very deadly causing maiming and killing". The Belgian St Niklaas incinerator was operating under the EC2000 directive. A university led study in Belgium of people living near the incinerator detailed diseases and deaths from the ages of one to twenty concluding that the incidence of cancer had risen by 480%. Covanta is currently being sued by a state Department of Environmental Protection in the USA for the second time in two years for emitting excessive levels of the carcinogen dioxin from their Wallingford, Connecticut incinerator, caused by a failure at the plant's generating unit. These incinerators will inevitably break down and every time they do, unpermitted levels of carcinogens will be spewed into the air. Even agreeing to a settlement of $355,000 in November 2009 did not prevent Covanta from committing another environmental violation less than a year later. Evidence shows that incinerators are already depressing recycling and composting rates in the UK. In Hampshire, where the Veolia waste contractor operates three incinerators, a shortage of municipal waste has led Veolia to seek to process more commercial waste. Now only one of the county's fourteen local authorities recycles domestic food waste, thirteen others incinerate it. By allowing incinerators, the incentive to recycle or reuse rubbish is removed as incinerators must be fed. In their June 2010 Newsletter Covanta themselves have shown that incineration is only slightly better than landfill and reducing waste and recycling/composting is far preferable than incinerating. Paul Connett, a chemistry professor from St Lawrence University, states that "It doesn't make sense to spend millions of pounds on incinerators. If we want to maximise recycling, composting, reuse and so on, then the last thing we should do is build incinerators". The chief executive of Friends of the Earth, Duncan McLaren states that "All too often an incinerator is not recovering energy from waste- it's a waste of energy"."

Ms Ann Nevinson
"Having looked carefully at and weighed the relative advantages and disadvantages of the proposal before making representation to add to your objective assessment 1. Projected growth and plans for the area have chnaged given the revised ecomonic climate and as such the baseline of the case on which the proposal is built is fundamentally flawed 2. Given the applicant is subject to challenge on its compliance/ safety record the consequent adverse implications for the population wildlife and the environment in the Vale lack the essential levels of assurance. 3. Plans indicate a large building "emitting waste" and dominating the landscape of the area contrary to the restoration of the rural landscape promised and being worked for with rural regeneration and a focus on positive leisure and quality of life led to our choice of this as our home. 4. I see no tangible benefits proposed by way of recompense and it seems unlikely that short term construction emplyment benefits will simply be of a transitory encampment nature and any enduring increase in opportunity for local people will be minimal 5. This isnt a proposal focussed on our locality but to provide facilities for a wide geographic area which will strain the transport infrastructure being provided with the consequence that the area will be clogged up with heavy goods vehicles polluting the area and landscape. We have experienced years of such problems and issues with the promise of improvement in access and quality of life just seeming to be in sight . The opportunity suggested where we may be perceived to be a tourist attraction on the basis of the waste processed at the site is at odds with the regeration of the vale where we can and should improve our recycling in a more sustainable manner than that which is proposed. Other counties and authorities can and should develop, encourage and use their own faciliaties at a scale in a location and way more appropriate to meet their environmental needs."

Jane Kathleen Cosby
"I JANE COSBY OF LIDLINGTON STRONGLY OPPOSE THE BUILDING OF AN INCINERATOR AT STEWARTBY. As a regular user of Ampthill Park and the Millennium Park, Marston Vale I have been greatly troubled by the proposal of Covanta to build an incinerator at Stewartby. It has been wonderful to see the derelict waste ground of the Marston Vale slowly being transformed into an area of natural beauty. It has become a tourist attraction for many people, local and from afar. This can only be beneficial, as it promotes growth and stability for residents living in the area. Ampthill Park for many years has been an attraction for many people. There are organised bus trips to the park from people who live miles away. Schools, football, rugby and cricket players, walkers, cadets - the list goes on - all use this park regularly. To build an incinerator of any size would be a catastrophe for the area environmentally, let alone an eyesore. It would affect the health of all concerned living nearby. Local people have only recently begun to enjoy clean air since the closure of the brickworks. To build an incinerator now would be most unfair. Covanta is not interested in the people of this area. This is an American business looking to make huge profits on the back of a smokescreen promoting eco-friendly power supplies. This proposed carbuncle of a building would destroy these parks, one of which was so carefully designed by Capability Brown many years ago and is part of the local culture and landscape. Tourism has to be the way forward for the areas concerned, with Woburn Abbey and Safari Park, Center Parcs, the various golf courses and the trade generated by the market towns of Ampthill and Woburn. This incinerator would affect every one of these aspects of our community to the detriment of the area and its inhabitants. PLEASE VOTE NO"

James Brown
"I am concerned about the noise, fumes, congestion and damage the large number of HGV,s transporting some 600,000 tons of rubbish per year will cause. I also have concerns regarding the detrimental effect this will have on existing property prices and the health implications caused by emissions."

Lynda Barber
"I support your project at Rookery South, as a nation we must stop being so selfish and ignorant of the facts times and technology have changed and we must keep up with progress or we will leave nothing behind for generations to come only land fill and waste. There is only so much fossil fuel to come out of the earth and then what. People in Bolton objected and complained heartily about the same project at Bolton Hospital but were all very surprised to see none of their fears come to anything there being no smoke, fumes, traffic congestion and complaints were just a nine day wonder. In my opinion its change that people fear most, look at Germany they have run out of waste as they are so efficient, we supplied them with 70,000 tonnes of our rubbish which is peanuts so why do we have such a problem with implementing the same system in this country. We need to stop being selfish to future generations."

Mr P Sweeney on behalf of Mrs C Sweeney
"object to the planning permission"

Colin Bevan
"I am concerned about the environmental impact on the area and my home in particular."

Katrina Dare
"- pollution - increased local traffic - proposed building would be a blot on the landscape - disruption to local wildlife - minimal impact on local uneployment"

Nathan Deverell
"As a resident I am concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement in the state of New Jersey in the USA as the track record for safety has been compromised in these plants. I am also concerned around the permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. I understand that in other areas where these kind of incinerator plants have been installed there has been a detrimental effect on existing property prices and depress economic activity. The proposal is at odds with the local desire to be a leisure destination and not somewhere rubbish is sent for disposal.The new A421 was designed to cope with existing traffic problems and some elements of growth in Bedford Borough.The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road and may well impact on the local roads and surounding villages. If the potential of the operation at the plant is realised this would run into hundreds of lorries using local roads."

Emmeline Creamer
"I wish to object to the Rookery Pit waste incinerator on the following grounds: 1. Air pollution and the long term health implications from toxins and possibly carcinogens from emissions – Covanta has a documented history of breaching safe emission levels. 2. Hazardous fly ash / bottom ash which needs to be removed and transported along our roads and lanes. 3. Negative environmental impacts: light pollution, size and ugliness of the plant, threat to natural environment, habitat and wildlife. 4. Waste will be imported from miles around to keep incinerator ‘fed’ 5. Trucks not being monitored, meaning s a risk of un-controlled hazardous waste being imported and disposed of 6. Negative environmental impact from an estimated 900 trucks per day along the new A421. This will cause excessive noise, pollution and wear and tear to our roads. It is also an increased risk of traffic accidents 7. A drop in tourist revenue for local businesses in an area of natural rural beauty. This area already has insufficient infrastructure, and this pit incinerator with merely push this matter further. The area we live in has been specifically sculpted to encourage wildlife. Disused, spent quarry s have been carefully landscaped, turned into lakes and utilised for tourism, water-sports and for wildlife. In the last few years a lot of work, and money has been spent on tree-planting to make this area one to be proud of. This will all be destroyed in an instant if this incinerator scheme is allowed to go ahead. It will have a negative impact on Stewartby and any areas surrounding it, not to mention the hazardous health issues. I would be grateful if you could consider the above when making your decisions."

June Howard
"The whole plan in it entirety is much too big for the proposed site. We do not wish to have constant lorries driving through our village. If this plan goes ahead, the next will be to build something to "dispose" of the toxic waste. NONE of this should happen in our County!"

Matthew Creamer
"I wish to object to the Rookery Pit waste incinerator on the following grounds: 1. Air pollution and the long term health implications from toxins and possibly carcinogens from emissions – Covanta has a documented history of breaching safe emission levels. 2. Hazardous fly ash / bottom ash which needs to be removed and transported along our roads and lanes. 3. Negative environmental impacts: light pollution, size and ugliness of the plant, threat to natural environment, habitat and wildlife. 4. Waste will be imported from miles around to keep incinerator ‘fed’ 5. Trucks not being monitored, meaning s a risk of un-controlled hazardous waste being imported and disposed of 6. Negative environmental impact from an estimated 900 trucks per day along the new A421. This will cause excessive noise, pollution and wear and tear to our roads. It is also an increased risk of traffic accidents 7. A drop in tourist revenue for local businesses in an area of natural rural beauty. This area already has insufficient infrastructure, and this pit incinerator with merely push this matter further. The area we live in has been specifically sculpted to encourage wildlife. Disused, spent quarry s have been carefully landscaped, turned into lakes and utilised for tourism, water-sports and for wildlife. In the last few years a lot of work, and money has been spent on tree-planting to make this area one to be proud of. This will all be destroyed in an instant if this incinerator scheme is allowed to go ahead. It will have a negative impact on Stewartby and any areas surrounding it, not to mention the hazardous health issues. I would be grateful if you could consider the above when making your decisions."

Ian Peverill
"I object to the construction of this plant as I believe it will have a highly negative effect on local air emissions and seriously affect the flow of local traffic with increased noise and pollution in our local area. I also feel it will be unsightly and destroy the local landscape with it's visual impact."

Tim Hill on behalf of The Village of Stewartby
"There are a number of objections that local residents and their representatives have to the proposals to build an excessively large Incinerator at Rookery Pit in Bedfordshire. These objections are based on factors that affect the local environment, traffic flows and road safety, the visual amenity and potentially the physical health of local residents, as well as the democratic deficit that would be involved in the placing of this incinerator at the Rookery Pit site. Having researched the impact of the Incinerator I would put forward these objections as follows: Environment and Health Covanta themselves have proved neglectful in their stewardship of the environment. There have been cases in America where similar plants have been built and Covanta has been fined Hundreds of thousands of dollars for emitting cancer-linked chemicals into the atmosphere. Nearly 550 tonnes of ash will need transporting away from the site every day and I am concerned that the vehicles involved in this will not be safe enough to ensure the heavy metals being transported don’t leak into the local atmosphere. Emissions from the Incinerator can affect an area of up to 15 miles radius from the site. Whilst the site is in a rural area the potential problems caused by the emissions could affect up to 150,000 people. Most significantly- there is a move from Central Government and the EU to look for alternative waste disposal plans. It is expected that Private Companies and Local Authorities will come forward with plans that have the least impact on the environment. When a product is created and thrown away the best way to deal with it is through re-use. The second best way is to recycle the product and the worst ways to deal with it are to either throw it in a hole in the ground or incinerate it. Incineration does not reclaim the whole of the energy originally used to make the product in the first place. It is a grossly inefficient way to deal with our waste problems. Not only this, but it has negative impact on the drive to reduce our carbon footprint as a nation. Account must be taken of the damage created to European and UK policies on reducing our carbon emissions. Covanta cannot use the reclamation of energy to offset this impact as an argument as the reduced confidence residents have in the system will have a much larger impact on this issue. Add to the equation the large number of vehicle journeys needed to ‘feed’ the sites capacity, as well as the fact that many of these journeys will be made from a considerable distance from the site (at least six counties will need to contract their waste disposal to this incinerator to make it profitable) and the site will have a considerable negative impact on the policy of carbon reduction. Traffic Flows & Road Safety On much smaller plants the traffic impact of the large trucks used to transport waste in and ash out has been considered excessive in certain areas. This Incinerator is to be much larger than most and will result in at least one lorry every minute in order to achieve capacity and efficiency within the site. The site itself is not best suited to such a significant impact on the traffic flow and the knock on effect to the village of Stewartby will dramatically reduce the current level of road safety. There will also be a major impact on the quality of life for local residents by the number of traffic movements. Controls will need to be put in place to stop the large vehicles from travelling down some of the narrower roads in the area. Whilst signs are available to deter large vehicles from accessing certain routes these cannot guarantee that drivers will desist from making such journeys and thus putting drivers and pedestrians at greater risk on these narrow roads. The use of such vehicles on these roads will also have a major impact on the lifespan of the road surface. Who will foot the bill for such damage when it is caused? Since Bedford Borough Council has declared that it will not be using incineration to dispose of its waste and it is clearly seeking alternatives that are more conducive to an environmentally aware Authority why should Bedford Borough residents have to suffer the financial cost of this traffic? Visual Amenity The images shown of the proposed development do not show the full visual impact of the site on the local countryside. This building will tower over the local landscape and will be seen for miles around. As a rural site it will have a major impact on the lives of residents for many miles, affecting several local villages severely. This can have a serious psychological affect on residents. Indeed, the proposed chimney will be the tallest man-made structure in the whole of Bedfordshire, being taller than the nearby Cardington hangars where airships including the R101 have in the past been built. Democratic Deficit I am well aware that the size of the development has been carefully construed to take the decision on this application away from local representatives. What is worse still is that the decision in the first place to site this proposal at Stewartby, but just across the border from the controlling Authority of Bedford Borough Council, means that the representatives of those residents most closely affected by the proposal have a significantly reduced impact on the application. If Buckinghamshire County Council is so keen to develop this method of disposal for their waste then surely it should be sited within the bounds of that Authority? However, many residents in Buckinghamshire have protested against proposals for incineration in their own county. If representatives, at any level of Government, are to be truly accountable then they should do the right thing and develop their proposals in their own area. It is also the case that I have only picked up that Central Beds Council is consulting on this thanks to Facebook! It is symptomatic of the border issue that I have not been formally consulted by Central Beds Council, despite the fact that the proposal will have a dramatically negative effect on the lives of local residents, especially those who live in Stewartby. In concluding I implore those making the decision on this proposal to consider the above and if the impact on local residents does not draw you to a conclusion that this proposal is not right then hopefully an understanding of the negative impact this development will have on driving forward positive environmental strategies for dealing with waste disposal will. Yours faithfully Cllr Tim Hill                               The plans present an appalling prospect for local residents and for the local environment. They would see huge numbers of lorries rolling over local roads, damaging local air quality and the wider environment. To feed a giant incinerator of this size, those lorries would need to be bringing waste from across the region and possibly from locations across the country. These plans propose that after a long history of importing waste from London for landfill, this area should continue to be a dumping ground for other people's rubbish. That is unacceptable. Incineration is an inferior waste treatment method, with a range of technologies offering a better solution for the local and wider environment now available. So, not only would the incinerator be harmful to the local community and to the environment, it is also simply not needed. I will be making this case in the strongest terms alongside local residents over the coming months, and will continue to press for the decision to be taken locally rather than at a national level. I am one of the two bedford Borough Councillors for the Ward most affected by this crazy proposal."

Mrs A M Wright
"The incinorator building will be visable from Ampthill Historic Park and Houghton Ruins both Grade 2 listed there by spoiling the uninterupted view for both areas to the distant hills. The chimney will be 108m high and both the plume and the chimeny will be seen from miles around I am extremly concernd that the plume could contain Doxins and other harmful substances if not extremly well momintored ther have aready been instantes of this in the United States. There is also an air inversion concern in the area. There are also concerns about the increase of traffic in the area Stewertby is a village with no major roads running through it , therefore the traffic congestion would be considerable as the waste is being imported into the facility"

Mrs Jean Sampson
"I am a resident of Cranfield which is a village on a higher plateau considerably higher than Stewartby as well as the proposed height of the chimney at Rookery South Coventa Waste Incinerator Plant. When the Stewartby brickworks were in operation plumes of smoke drifted across to Cranfield giving us fine deposits of dust that we inhaled along with unpleasant smells pervading whilst the wind blew from the north/ north east direction. I do not want to have to inhale fine dust from the proposed waste incineration yet again nor do I want to smell it. I have been told there will be hundreds of lorries carting up to the site the waste from other counties' rubbish. This will cause further distress to those residents in the pathway of the route to and from the site which is I believe will be happening both night and day. Noise, dropping litter from the lorries and blocking roads is unacceptable. This project is planned to be sited next to a nature reserve, The Millenium Park, that is developing with a forest and lakes for the wildlife, flora and fauna. The chemical deposits in the plumes will, I believe, inevitably fall onto the Millenium Forest park undoing the work that volunteers have put in over a period of time. Their aspirations for a wonderful wildlife site rich in waterfowl with forestry wildlife, flora and fauna growing and developing for our future generations will be put in danger by one foul swoop of a pen to be undone little by little with chemical dust and lowered air quality. These will affect the well being not only of the growing wild life in the Millenium Park but also the residents of nearby villages by Coventa wishing to make financial gain from a project which will be disastrous to this area."

Ian Howitt
"Health Effects of the incinerator Environmental effects of the incinerator Effects on the quality of life in Stewartby and the surrounding area Why more effort is not being put on recycling of the rubbish to be burnt"

Nuria Corzo-Menendez
"I have strong concerns about the following: Heavy pollution levels (air, noise, light) Severe increase in traffic in an area that does not have the infrastructure to cope with this increase: Significant vehicle movements to and from the site will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the roads The size of the building will dominate the skyline and it will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and will materially impair the views The proposed site is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale. An oversize Energy from Waste plant is will fundamentally undermine that purpose. The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity"

G WESTGARTH
"1 Emissions - problem with non specific information wrt. actual emissions from plant 2 Concentation of emission in Marston Vale due to temperature inversion charachteristics in the area. 3 severe local area impact, eg visual, noise ( both traffic & Plant), increased traffic pollution (stated volume- 1 vehicle every 36 SECONDS) 4 loss of wildlife habitat and proximity to Millenium park. 5 Exaggerated power service (65Mw WILL NOT SUPPORT 80,000 houses as claimed) more accurately LESS than 20,000 - using National average house consumption of 3.3 kW"

Trevor Jones
"This proposal will severely impact the health, safety and well-being of the local community because it will:- - be operated by a company with a documented history of breaching safe emission levels - be a massive eyesore operating 24/7 - pollute the air and cause health problems - import hazardous waste from outside the area - export hazardous waste through the local community - lead to a massive increase in heavy traffic - adversely affect local business revenues - lead to a reduction in local property values - increase light and noise pollution"

Peter Meadows
"My principal concerns are over the effect the great number of vehicle movements each day to and from the proposed site will have both locally and on a regional basis, the health and environmental impacts of the site on my village and the rest of the Marston Vale and the way the proposed incinerator will dominate the landscape of the Marston Vale."

Mr David Plater
"Below follows a list of objections: 1: That the enormous size of this project is not ideally suited to the farms, villages and "Rural" landscape of the North Marston Vale. 2: The "One" and only main vehicle access from the A421 into the village of Stewartby is via "Green Lane, a rural lane running alongsideStewartby lake and within 20-30m's of the waters edge and public foot paths and cycleway> 3: Green Lane is presently the only viable access etc to an already existing "Large" commercial land fill site to the north of Stewartby lake of which large commercial vehicles use daily. 4: Green lane also offers the access, exit for Pedestrians, Cyclist and private vehicle ownersto the Stewartby Water Sports club, Marston Vale Millenium Wild life park (from the north) Stewartby railway station and crossing. This ill be alongside the "New" road junction proposed by Covanta. 5: Green lane, for many years has suffered from lack of Highways funding, upgrading or refurbishment. While at the same time been subjected to continual road surface deterioration and visable signs of various forms of subsidence. There is presently NO plans to upgrade, refurbish Green Lane. 6: this "Rural setting" (Green Lane) is of the opinion by many if not all of the local residents, NOT suited or capable of handling the increase in commercial traffic and the estimated increase of gross tonnage. Using Covanta's figures i.e. <2million>tons pa. 7: Covanta's agents (ERM) during a public consultation with local Stewartby residents stated that the "Air quality in the North Marston vale is presently GOOD> but, with the addition of the incinerator the "Air Quality" would in effect deteriorate to >Good as a result of some pollution?. This is not acceptable to the residents of the Marston Vale. 8: With 7 (seven) above in mind, one must question Covanta's figures and that of the consultancies. Covanta has not as yet convinced to the local residents and businesses of the Marston Vale that the increase in all forms of pollution beit, emissions from stack or vehicle exhaust to noise pollution and the social and environmental health and safety issues will be of any direct benifit whatsoever to the "RURAL" communities of the North Marston Vale. 9:Another concern is that the "Bedfordshire Core Stratergy 2010-2020" lays out the future Rural and Urban expansion plans designed for the North Marston Vale. Within this plan it is expected that the the sizes of existing residential area's and business parks will grow, spreading towards junction 13 of the M1 motorway. This will eventually put Covanta's proposed incinerator at the heart of a "Rural", residential area, overburdening existing infrastrutures. 10: Also adding to the concerns of local residentsare themany alleged prosecution Passed and Present taking place in America"

Mark Smailes on behalf of Civil Aviation Authority
"On the basis that the maximum height of any development associated with the proposed development would be a single 105m high chimney-stack and that no other structure would exceed a height of 45m, I can advise that the various proposed structures would not formally constitute an aviation en-route obstruction. That said, there are potentially several civil aviation issues that need consideration during the planning process and associated deliberations: · Aerodromes: Dependant upon the location, any tall structure might have the potential to impact upon aerodrome-related operations. There is evident need for the relevant planning authorities to check any aerodrome-safeguarding requirement to identify any aerodrome specific safeguarding issues. To that end, I note the relatively close proximity of several aerodromes: Cranfield (which is mentioned within the associated Consultation Report), Old Warden and Luton Airport. The planning process will need to formally establish the related viewpoints of relevant aerodrome operators / licensees and any concerns expressed duly considered. · Promulgation of Tall Structures. At 105m high, the chimney will need to be notified and promulgated for civil aviation purposes. · Lighting. Given that the chimney-stack will be the tallest structure in the immediate vicinity, I believe that it would be prudent to anticipate a need to equip the 105m chimney with aviation warning lighting. For background: o In the UK, the need for aviation obstruction lighting on 'tall' structures depends in the first instance upon any particular structure's location in relationship to an aerodrome. If the structure constitutes an 'aerodrome obstruction' it is the aerodrome operator that with review the lighting requirement. For civil aerodromes, they will, in general terms, follow the requirements of CAP 168 - Licensing of Aerodromes. o Away from aerodromes Article 219 of the UK Air Navigation Order applies. This Article requires that for en-route obstructions (ie away from aerodromes) lighting only becomes legally mandated for structures of a height of 150m or more. However, structures of lesser high might need aviation obstruction lighting if, by virtue of their location and nature, they are considered a significant navigational hazard. o In the case in question, even if there proves to be no aerodrome related lighting requirement, I believe the ‘by virtue of their location and nature’ argument hold true and therefore lighting is required. · Due to the unique nature of associated operations in respect of operating altitudes and potentially unusual landing sites, it is important to establish the viewpoint of local emergency services air support units in respect of the RRF. · It is anticipated that the facility would not involve the flaring and venting of gas, either routinely or as an emergency procedure such as to cause a danger to overlying aircraft. If that is not the case parties are invited to use myself as an appropriate point of contact for any further related discussion. Cranfield Airport aside, I cannot readily find any related text within the documentation provided concerning the issues highlighted above."

Mobena Penn
"This application should nenver never be approved - The visual impact will be horrendous - virtually in the middle of a country park, and certainly in a mainly green rural landscape The proposed incinerator will need feeding 24/7 so we will be back to importing waste from everywhere, when Bedfordshire has its own solution in the BeAR project. Why don't the others sort their own waste? We have had 30 years of Landfill. No more! The new A421 wasn't built to cope with the near constant traffic never mind the small rural lanes that the huge trucks will create mayhem on. There are no planned checks on incoming waste - who knows what toxic substances will be burnt there. Pollution - where do I start? What will come out of that enormous chimney? We know Covanta has an appalling safety and pollution record. They cannot be trusted and by the time the damage is done it will be too late for the health of the local population. Then there is the problem of the fly ash to be disposed of creating further potential for pollution plus increasing the lorry traffic as it is taken away, thereby further pollluting the air with the diesel fumes. Last but not least the claims for electricity generation from the plant are wildly exaggerated. This is the only potential 'plus' from the whole thing and it is pure fiction. I cannot believe that any sensible person can do other than reject this outrageous planning application."

Caroline Alexander
"I wish to register my complaint regarding the proposal to build an incinerator at Rookery Pit in Stewartby on the grounds that this will be detrimental to the area. The incinerator will create pollution, be an eyesore to the already put upon Marston vale and there are unknown health risks to people living around the area. There will be a massive increase in traffic which in itself will be a pollution hazard, both noise and health wise. It is not known whether there could be long term health risks associated with this facility and it is not enough that Covanta say the risks are low, how can they prove this? In addition Covanta have a bad safety record in the USA so how can we trust that they will not have that here also? Marston Vale has already had landfill, we should not be forced to become a huge waste disposal facility, lowering further the value of our houses and creating possible health problems for our children and generations to come."

D T Withers
"This project will damage our precious rural landscape which is of great value and impair panoramic views. There are long term health implications, which would include impact of noise and dust pollution, plus significant increase in atmospheric CO2. A massive impact on traffic and roads. A massive detrimental impact on wildlife and habitat loss. The hydrology disruption could have serious consequences. Value of residential properties would be adversely affected."

Mrs D Blackmore
"I am concerned for the long term affects on local health via air pollution and toxins and possible carcinogens emitted, especially as Covanta has a documented history of breaching safe emission levels. Also the raised levels of traffic transporting waste in and bottom ash out via local roads is a worry. The levels of light pollution due to the proposed operating hours of the plant will be high having a detrimental effect on local environment. The extremly high chimney will be seen for miles around and the high levels of traffic to site causing added congestion on A421 both are added factors that spoil potential tourist development. as the plant propsed is so very large it will need to take waste from many other areas. In these times of Eco concerns and Green Issues burning waste is not seen as green neither would the proposed additional amount of traffic to and from Bedfordshire"

Adrian Dobson
"Health impact The proposal has a range of potential health impacts, including respiratory illnesses, cancers and congenital deformities. No reference is made in the application and health impact assessment to credible, specialist research on the health risks, even though there are recognised academic experts in the UK and internationally. There is a significant potential mental health impact on the local population, who will be living in the vicinity of a major industrial polluter, producing toxic air emissions and toxic bottom ash, and with no detailed information on the waste products being combusted. No assessment has been made of the periodic, meteorological temperature inversion in the Marston Vale and the resultant pollutant inversion effects. Earlier generation UK waste incineration plants were closed due to health concerns, and the precautionary principle should apply in relation to health impact. Economic/employment impact The construction of a large industrial plant, impacting negatively upon the local area in terms of visual amenity and bringing light, noise and environmental pollution, will be severely detrimental to the tourist industry on which Central Bedfordshire relies for future economic growth and job creation. Design quality The Planning Act imposes a duty to achieve good design and have regard to sustainability. Architectural design quality and sustainable design principles are not adequately addressed by the proposals. Traffic impact The high number of HGV movements will result in noise, pollution and congestion, changing the nature of the rural environment, and over-burdening the capacity of the local road infrastructure. Business model Analysis of the power generation levels suggests that the proposal is incorrectly described as an energy from waste facility. The levels of power generation are modest, and the primary purpose and income will be from waste incineration as a waste disposal mechanism. To obtain a commercial return on investment the operator will need to source large quantities of waste far beyond Bedfordshire (indeed it is unlikely that any waste from Bedfordshire will be processed at all, since the local authorities in Bedfordshire have their own waste management plans). Bedfordshire will again become a receiver of waste at a regional/national level. Incompatabilty with local plans Central Bedfordshire has its own waste management project (BeaR) to deal with local waste. Whilst (following primary re-cycling phases) some of this might be disposed by incineration, this would only require a facility a fraction of the size of the Covanta proposal. The proposal is also incompatible with local economic and development plans, which emphasise tourism. Lack of trust It is unreasonable to ask the local population to place trust in their future health and well-being in Covanta, which according to a number of Internet sites allegedly has a history of environmental violations in the USA and a record of industrial disputes and health and safety breaches. Democratic deficit There is no proven acceptance on the part of the UK population of the concept of energy from waste as a credible source of meaningful amounts of energy, as a sustainable waste disposal method and as a safe process."

Mr Chris Rumbold
"Millenium Park is the main recreational facility for this area. There aready is a sewage works on one side of the park, & an incinerator on the other side would destroy our amenity. We should only deal with Bedfordshire waste, & if it was decided to use an incinerator, then a small one at the old Brogborough site would do the job. This would be well servedby roads, & not immediately adjacent to amenities or private housing."

Maria Rumbold
"Our generation has suffered from pollution from Brogborough dump & Stewartby brickworks for many years now. We do not want to set up a legacy of similar suffering for future generations. Millenium Park has been a great recreation area for thousands of people for 10 years now. The incinerator would ruin this. Covanta say pollution would be limited & reasonable, but experience in the US has shown this to be patently untrue. Bedfordshire should take care of it's own waste, & other counties should take care of their own waste. Please don't spoil our countryside!"

Mark Atkinson
"The proposed facility will cause a substantial increase in the amount of lorry traffic on local roads as the waste is transported. I am concerned that waste will be incinerated that could be recycled. There is some evidence that if recyclable materials are removed the calorific value of the waste will be reduced reducing the efficiency of the incinerator. There are still questions over the safety of the emissions."

Carole Peachey-May
"1 Site for the proposed project is in conflict with the exisiting wild life designated conservation area which started development 16 years ago and is now well established and ongoing. 2. Site Traffic exiting A421 onto subsiduary road alongside village of Marston Morteyne in excess of 400 vehicles in and 400 out of the site on a 24 hour basis. Noise and traffic pollution 3. Accumulation and removal and safety issues arising from in the disposal of toxic ash. 5. Contingency plans in the event of plant failure or breakdown of incinerator processes and associated procedures. 6. Despoiling of local amenities, outdoor leisure activites tourist attractions and access. 7 Health and safety issues affecting the population of the entire Marston Vale area and surrounding environs."

David Hoy
"Re: Proposed Waste Incinerator (Rookery South Bedfordshire, ‘Resource Recovery Facility’) I am writing in response to the application from Covanta Energy to build an enormous waste incinerator in the heart of the Marston Vale in Bedfordshire. In my view, and that of many others living in the local area, this application should be refused for the following reasons: 1. The incineration of so-called ‘residual wastes’ will release noxious, offensive and toxic gases into the atmosphere causing atmospheric pollution. Chimney stacks of such an enormous height would not be required if what was being discharged from them was harmless. 2. Although the plant would be designed to produce electricity as a by-product of combustion this will undoubtedly release substantial quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. Also as the electricity produced will come from burning fossil fuels it cannot be classed as renewable. 3. While the residual waste coming into the plant is a public nuisance our collective efforts should be going into reducing waste and either reusing or recycling raw materials as far as practicable. The burning of ‘residual wastes’ will be a disincentive to reduction, reuse and recycling initiatives. 4. Apart from the air pollution already referred to the plant will generate hazardous waste that will have to be sent to a specially licensed site for disposal. Although landfill waste site capacity is in short supply the number of sites suitable for the disposal of hazardous wastes is even more scarce. 5. The proposal is for waste to be transported to the site using HGVs that will have a devastating impact on people living in the local community. The number of traffic movements planned is already enormous and if, as Covanta have stated to me verbally, they seek and obtain additional contracts for the incineration of commercial and industrial wastes from ‘elsewhere’ the situation could be even worse. 6. The HGV movements referred to above would involve consuming substantial quantities of diesel oil, a limited and in the very near future scarce resource. It will also generate increased levels of noise and vehicle exhaust emissions that can only add to atmospheric pollution and global warming. 7. The visual impact of the plant would have an extremely detrimental impact on Mid-Bedfordshire, which in recent years has started to ‘clean up its act’. For many years Bedfordshire has been a dumping ground for waste transported from all over London and elsewhere in the South-east. Now that this activity and brick making is coming to an end the local authorities have started an environmental re-generation project for the Marston Vale in Bedfordshire e.g. · The now disused clay pits have been turned into lakes that are regularly used and enjoyed by local people for sailing, water ski-ing, fishing, countryside rambling and bird watching etc · The Marston Vale Forest project is now fully underway, with a new visitor centre that is specifically aimed at promoting preservation of local wildlife, flora and fauna, as well as educating young people · Centre Parks have announced a new development close to the town of Ampthill and not very far from the proposed Incinerator location · I believe approval has been given to a project to construct a new waterway between the River Ouse in Bedford and the Grand Union Canal in Milton Keynes. This would run within sight of the ‘blot on the landscape’ i.e. the proposed incinerator and its chimney stack This development flies in the face of everything that the District, County and Parish Councils are trying to achieve and in my view if approved it would have a seriously negative impact on every one of the positive environmental improvements that I have listed. The incinerator would also be located directly in the line of sight over Marston Vale from Ampthill Park, one of the great historic parks of England, which has an association with Henry 8th and Katherine of Aragon. No visitor to Ampthill Park would wan't to look out over such an abomination, let alone stand downwind of the chimney stack. 8. For many years the people of Marston Vale have had to endure pollution caused by the London Brick Company, which was eventually taken over by Hanson. If the incinerator development was approved their quality of life would be severely blighted and their property would plummet in value, this cannot be justified. Put simply they and their children deserve a better future than this. Yours faithfully, David Hoy"

Phil Smith
"I feel the local infrasture to the proposed site is not adequate to support the increase in vehicle volumes. Green Lane is already in a poor condition from the existing landfill site. There is an enormous issue with rubbish dropping off vehicles which is polluting the area heavily and this will only get worse if the proposal goes ahead. The new junction at Marston Moretaine for the A421 does not appear to be capable of sustaining the increased vehicle volumes and there will be increased air and noise pollution to those who live between the new A421 junction and the proposed stucture site. The proposed structure appears to be far too high compared with existing structures in the area. I do not feel that Convanta have given adequate assurances that there will not be any noise or air pollution control. This seems to be an issue at other sites they have constructed."

Mrs A. Crampin
"1. Parts of the Marston Vale were formerly targeted for development; but since the regional plans and their growth targets have now been done away with, what remains important are the Vale’s designations as the site of a community forest, and as a strategic green infrastructure corridor in the Bedfordshire Green Infrastructure Plan. It is the green gap between Milton Keynes and Bedford. 2. The Vale’s environment was badly damaged by its exploitation for brick production, and its restoration precludes over-exploitation through industrial development. The Covanta proposal fits badly with the re-greening of the Vale. It jeopardises the amenity being created by the forest. 3. It threatens the amenity of the Marston Vale Milennium Country Park , through its scale. Views from the Greensand Ridge to the south, an Area of Great Landscape Value, and from the clay ridge to the north, where ancient woodland is preserved at Marston Thrift, will become industrial rather than rural. 4. There remain concerns over air emissions, both greenhouse gases and other potentially hazardous traces. As far as the latter are concerned, it is certain that the local area frequently suffers from temperature inversions. These used to trap smells from the (now closed) brickworks, and currently trap a pall of noise from the motorway. Hence, should anything untoward escape from the chimney, it is likely to linger. 5. Lighting from the site will threaten the rural character of the Vale at night and mean that the stars in the night sky are no longer visible from what should be a tranquil rural area. 6. There is a risk that dust, noise and disturbance will impact adversely on wildlife and on residents. Since this is to be a 24/7 operating plant, there will be little respite. 7. There may be difficulties with water availability . 8. The fact that Bedfordshire’s brickpits were used for the dumping of rubbish from a wide area does not mean that it is appropriate to use Bedfordshire as a centre for waste disposal by other means. To develop social responsibility about waste generation and to encourage reuse and recycling, waste should be collected and disposed of locally, and indeed the BEaR project is designed to do just that and has much local support. 9. A major concern is the traffic that will be generated, since Covanta will be importing waste from other areas and emitting extra greenhouse gases while so doing. This proposal is certainly not “reducing the need to travel”, as far as waste is concerned. 10. Moreover, the local roads are already overcrowded and the upgrading of the A421 was designed to remedy this rather than to generate more traffic. West of J13 of the M1, the roads are all unsuitable for more heavy lorries. Dualling the A421 to the west will require money that may not now be forthcoming. 11. People in villages to the west of J13, were not consulted about these proposals, yet I believe there will be significant impacts."

Parvez Akhtar
"I have writtern to the IPC and also to Covanta in the past in relation to this development and wanted to make sure my statements on the suitability of this site compared to others is considered. I can re-submit the original letter I have writtern if needed at a later stage."

brian robinson
"i am writing to give our opinions on why covanta should not build an incinerator. the proposed access road green lane is a narrow windy and fast road which is used daily by walkers fisherman and families and adding a lorry every minute is a recipe for an accident. when the lorry drivers find out there is a shop in the village they will be driving further into the residential area for supplies endangering young children. not only is it wrong to put an incinerator in the middle of a country park but it sorrounded by six villages all within half a mile. also ampthill cranfield kempston and bedford all of which will be affected by chemicals and ash. no one really knows what will come out of the top of the chimney until its up and running by which time that will be too late. i cant see they will segregate the rubbish to see what can be burnt not when you have that many lorries come in daily.now that centre parcs has the thumbs up in woburn and nira project seems to be going the same way these will bring thousands of much needed jobs as well as millions of pounds in tourism, how many jobs will covanta bring probably a handfull as well as bringing the house prices down who would want to come and live and holiday here.i dont think any thought has been given to the people living in the area and a alternative site should be found ,"

Bill Smullen
"I object to the proposal to build Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station. As an asthmatic I am particularly concerned about the possiblity of Air Pollution from the chimney emissions especially as I am informed that Covanta have a documented history of breaching safe emission levels. I believe the size of the proposal is inappropriate to the area. The landscape and consequently the tourist industry in the Marston Vale Forest will suffer. The wildlife and bird biodiversity will suffer. Our local roads and villages will become rat runs for hundreds of lorries a day which will also increase emissions and dust particles which will also affect my asthma. Bedfordshire does not need an incinerator as we already have very good and improving recycling facilities."

Mrs Sally Law
"I think that it would be an absolute tragedy if this application was passed as it will be in the wrong place. The infrastructure leading to Rookery cannot take and is not built to take this amount of traffic and it is too close to houses, The roads to the RHS of the site as you look at it have been designated as not big enough to take the existing traffic volumes and a new by pass has been built (the new A421) this still will increase the traffic on the new road by anything from 300 to 900 lorries depending on which report you read. Having travelled on the new road you then have to go onto the old road which has now been made single track and is supposed to be a service road into the villages in the vale (Marston, Stewartby and Kempson Hardwick) again it is not meant to take this volume of traffic. The lorries are then going to be turning into a country lane which is supposed to be leading into a little village which wants to stay one!!! When Covanta put their baloons up to advise us of the building and chimney heights you could see them from everywhere in the village (I drove round to see them from all corners of the village) It will be an eyesore and is only less than 100 yards from the first house. It will spoil the view from the sailing lake and the surrounding forest centre. In summary I think that the idea of this monster being in our sleepy village will ruin the village, our lives and the future of our children."

M A Constable
"I wish to register my objection to the placement of the waste disposal site (Rookery) at Stewartby Beds for reasons of pollution, safety and for increase in traffic through and around the village and the Bedford area in general."

Martin Devereux
"The Rookery Pit Incinerator Plan will be detrimental to the people of Central Bedfordshire. It would impact on the local transport infrastructure, already burdened by increased traffic and development. It would pose a hazard to the lives of local people with the potential for harmful emissions and inadequately controlled waste processing. It would adversely affect the environments for local wildlife and be a seriously blight on the the landscape, night and day."

mike street
"The negative effects of this project are vast I will list some of them below. I quite frankly cannot believe the choice of proposed site for this plant, so close to the nature area of the Millenium park centre, designed specifically to provide the area with a recreational facillity embracing the countryside and its wildlife. The negative impact of all who surround this proposed site are listed below but not limited to: Air polution, the long term health implications from toxins from the chimney emmissions, and possibly carcinogens on not just the human life but the wildlife too. This company has a documented history of breaching safe levels (see BOS,26.09.10) Hazardos fly ash needing to be removed by trucks via the local roads. Severe light poloution as the site will be lit 24/7 Waste being transported via local roads from other areas waste produce. Trucks not being checked on arrival for approved waste to be burnt leading to possible illigal subtances being burnt causing terrible harmful gasses. A drop in tourist revenue for local businesses. A drop of house prices in the surrounding areas. This needs to be sited in an area away from an area of natural beauty of which there are plenty. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!"

Claire Judd
"I wish to oppose the proposal for the Covanta incineration plant at the Rookery South Pit. I am very concerned about: the sheer scale of this proposal; the prospect of large quantities of waste being imported into Bedfordshire. the impact a large number of waste lorries and other traffic will have on the road network and local communities. the damaging visual impact of such a large industrial facility in particular, I am concerned about the visual impact of having an 105 metre chimney and the effect of a long plume of smoke in this rural area, plus how certain weather conditions which occur in the Vale might affect the safe dispersal of emissions."

Miranda Smythe
"The proposed build of the waste incineratory at Rookery Pit will have a detrimental impact on the local environment. It will be impossible to incincerate material of this nature and volume without it having a serious impact on a beautiful piece of land. Its proximity to housing will also mean significant impact on quality of life including light pollution, additional road traffic in an area which is struggling to cope with the volume of transport from nearby distribution centres, air pollution and will be a visual eyesore. The size of the plant will overwhelm the local area and cast a shadow over the Milennium Park and its noise and activity will disturb the wide variety of wildlife that have gravitated to the area."

Richard Howard on behalf of The Howard Partnership Limited
"We cannot set out our submission until we have been able to read the application."

Mr Darl Sweetland on behalf of Buckinghamshire County Council
"Covanta are one of two bidders for Buckinghamshire County Council's residual household waste procurement project."

Roy Cooper
"There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. There are concerns about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Marston Vale there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. There is serious concern that there will be a cumulative impact over the 30 year + life cycle of the plant either within the Marston Vale and/or Bedford and Kempston. The proposed site is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale. An oversize Energy from Waste plant will fundamentally undermine that purpose. Since clay extractions ceased Rookery Pit, situated adjacent to the Millennium Country Park are now both an ecologically integrated and co-joined wildlife site. The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life. The Covanta proposal would be a retrograde step ecologically and ultimately lead to the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. The site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. The sheer size of the building will dominate the skyline - most of which will be visible above the existing edge of Rookery Pit. The Covanta Rookery Pit stack would be higher than the long disused brickworks chimneys and the plume will accentuate the stack's visibility. The sheer size of the Covanta plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and will materially impair the views from the Vale to the surrounding Greensand Ridge and the panoramic views from the ridge across the entire Vale. Noise has only been considered in terms of ‘average’ levels so no adequate account been taken of intermittent noise such as that from rattling of empty HGV’s which lead to huge disturbance. Significant vehicle movements to and from the site – arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week, will cause inherent problems both regarding noise, traffic problems and CO2 emmissions, caused by transporting waste over large distances, thus defeating any CO2 savings from the plant. The Covanta proposal will override attempts to deal with waste locally - the Proximity principle. A fundamental question is whether there should be permission for one local authority to discharge its responsibility for waste management by entering into an agreement with a private contractor to build a plant for the sole management of that authority’s waste in another local authority’s area. Thank you for reading my representation."

Russell O'brien
"I object to the proposal on the grounds that the development would cause a negative impact on local people in relation to:- Noise pollution; Air pollution; Light pollution; A huge increase in traffic using local roads resulting in congestion and further pollution; A decrease in house prices; The destruction of a unique and beautiful habitat for wildlife."

Sarah Johnson
"Facility will cause widespread damage to local environment and health of nearby residents. The company responsible is under investigation in the US for breaches in emission levels, so has a poor track record of control. Therefore permitting this development is allowing nearby residents to have their health affected by an unwanted eyesore. The local community will also be blighted by the amount of traffic and pollution this will bring. This area is supposed be being regenerated to compensate for the neglect it has suffered in the past, e.g. the millenium park and marston forest - this development is contrary to this remit."

Nicholas Stone
"I am strongly opposed to this application, on the following grounds. (a) Transport. The local road network is totally inadequate for the traffic movements proposed. (b) Noise, light, and atmospheric pollution over a wide area. (c) No confidence in the company being able to operate the plant legally within the current safety limits. The proof is in the US court cases. (d) Damage to local business, especially those in the leisure industry."

Susan Valerie Stone
"I feel that this application should not go ahead for the following reasons :- Against all the negatives for local people, all types of pollution, greatly increased traffic, detrimental impact to the National Forest, local businesses, there are a small number of permanent local jobs created. Probably these will be balanced by those lost in established businesses. Who wants to holiday near a huge incinerator? I also fear that there would be a negative impact on the amount of re-cycling done. Some people will take the attitude 'Why should I bother, when it goes up the chimney anyway'. Finally, I think the effect of the electricty generated has been greatly exaggerated."

Mr John Redman
"The NEW A421 dual Carriageway, from Marston junction, runs parallel to the old A421 which is the access to Green Lane Stewartby. The road is 1¼ miles long, most backing on to housing of Marston Moretaine, some within 50 Yards. Much of the NEW road has noise barriers installed along it, to protect the large number of residents that back on to it from traffic noise. HGVs feeding this plant, from far and wide, will have to use the OLD A421 (then de-classified) to access Green Lane and the noise and pollution will be reflected even more towards the residents houses, by this barrier . This road will also be the responsibility of the local authority and thus, us as local tax payers for maintenance. This should be viewed as a negative effect against the small amount of power generation that will be of little benefit to the direct sufferers. The visual impact to the Marston Vale is unacceptable, with the plant imposing on the Forest Centre that was set up to regenerate the area, after years of the abuse by the brickyards quarrying and landfill sites. It will be hugely visible from many historical sites, including Ampthill Park and the Greensand Ridge and no amount of landscaping will ever conceal it. It will be for the profit of a foreign company that appears to have a poor safety and reliability record in the USA, offering a small power generation facility, that will only offer minimal employment for local people and will have a negative impact on the growing tourism industry in the area. Bedfordshire has an excellent recycling record, that will be eroded by the requirements for waste to fuel this facility. This site has been identified by this company as ideal, but the railway, a less polluting method of supplying its furnaces and removing its toxic waste, appears to have been ruled out of the equation, with preference given to polluting road transport, that will affect everyone that is on the routes. Given the historical pollution of the brickworks and the damage caused to the health of people in the area, it is worrying that the stack to be erected is far taller. This alone, leads us to believe that the emissions are far more harmful, despite the advances in technology. It is a concern to us that the gentleman who conducted, what we believed to be, an independent Environmental Impact Meeting at Marston Forest Centre, was the same one who was at the Covanta local Public meetings and who tried to reassure us that the emissions were totally safe."

Mrs Ruth Redman
"HGVs feeding this plant, from far and wide, will have to use the OLD A421 (then de-classified) to access Green Lane and the noise and pollution will be reflected even more towards the residents houses, by this barrier . The NEW A421 dual Carriageway, from Marston junction, runs parallel to the old A421 which is the access to Green Lane Stewartby. Most of this road backs on to houses in Marston Moretaine, some as close as 50 Yards. The NEW road has noise barriers along it, to protect the residents that back on to it from traffic noise. As this road will be the responsibility of the local authority, us as local tax payers will subsequently have to pay for the increased maintenance. This will probably wipe out the small benefit residents may have from the power generated by the plant. The visual impact from many villages in Bedfordshire is unacceptable and the plant greatly impose on the Forest Centre, which was originally created for the regenerate of the Marston Vale after years of suffering the scarring from the brickyards quarrying and then the landfill sites. It will be almost impossible to disguise the plant from anywhere, especially the historical sites, including Henry VIII hunting ground in Ampthill Park and Houghton House, John Bunyan’s ‘House Beautiful’. This American company appears to have a dreadful safety and reliability record. The amount of power that seems to be on offer, will be far outweighed by detrimental effects on the community and whilst there will be only minimal employment for local people, it will have a negative impact on the growing tourism industry in the area. Bedfordshire has an excellent recycling record, that will be eroded by the requirements for waste to fuel this facility. The railway, a less polluting method of supplying its furnaces and removing its toxic waste, appears to have been ruled out as a means of transport, with preference given to polluting road transport, that will affect everyone that is on the routes. Given the historical pollution of the brickworks and the damage caused to the health of people in the area, it is worrying that the stack to be erected is far taller. This alone, leads us to believe that the emissions are far more harmful, despite the advances in technology. It is a concern to us that the gentleman who conducted, what we believed to be, an independent Environmental Impact Meeting at Marston Forest Centre, was the same one who was at the Covanta local Public meetings and who tried to reassure us that the emissions were totally safe."

F M Fry on behalf of Woburn Sands and District Society
"1. Soundness of IPC Process – the IPC but more importantly consultees are to evaluate the application against draft National Policy Statements which have neither completed consultation nor been adopted. 2. Inadequate Consultation – failure to consult areas that will be impacted by this facility, particularly in respect of transport infrastructure and loss of public amenity 3. Benefit and Adverse Impact –the adverse immediate and cumulative impact of a facility this size, and lack of sustainability outweighs any benefits. Additionally we are of the view that local solutions, which incentivise reuse and recycling, are of more benefit and sustainable than large facilities requiring outsourcing for economic viability. 4. Transportation – all transportation, waste and people will be by road. Rail or other public transport is not possible due to capacity and other limitations. Additionally the adverse impact on main transport routes west of the site (75% of waste traffic) particularly the A421 and J13 has neither been assessed, nor mitigated. The local road infrastructure including the Green Lane level crossing is totally unsuitable for a massive increase in HGV use. 5. Location · consideration of the Alternative Site Assessment shows clearly that there were more appropriate sites that could have been used. Deliverability and cost is is not a sound reason to overset national planning policy · the immediate locality areas are now national, regional, and local amenity areas and the siting of a facility of this size in this area is both inappropriate and jeopardises the restoration of the rest of this historically scarred area, following decades of exploitation by landowners with no delivery of agreed restoration. 6. Landscape and Biodiversity - the site is within an area of great landscape value, and will materially affect the views to and from the Greensand Ridge, Cranfield Plateau and Ampthill Park. Landscaping and planting will have minimal mitigation effect. The area is becoming ecologically significant in respect of wetland biodiversity and light and noise pollution will adversely affect wildlife and residents alike. 7. Flooding and Water – · This site is in Flood Zone 3a, (irrespective of the cynical LRRS Phase One ) and the facility is classed more vulnerable under PPS25 and therefore does not meet the requirements of PPS25 D9. · If non recycled water supply is from licenced abstraction, water resources in the upper Ouse and Bedford Ouse Catchments are classed as having no water available, with some areas classified as over licensed or over abstracted · The Stewartby STW is at capacity and will require upgrading for the 2,500 dwellings proposed in north Stewartby, plus the additional foul water discharge from the MRF and EfW ash washing, subject to EA consent on discharge. This makes water quality under EU directives an issue. In summary we cannot think of a worse position to site this facility."

Michael Green
"1) I am concerned about emissions from the EfW stack and the long term effect of these on the health of people and flora and fauna especially bearing in mind the unique meteorological conditions in the Marston Vale.There are some new rare lichens which indicate that at last we have clean air in Marston. How will this be affected in the future? I am also concerned at reports that Covanta have been taken to court in the USA for illegal emissions. 2) I am concerned at the massive size of the plant and the visual impact on what is a rural area and the close proximity of the proposed plant to a nature reserve and local areas of beauty. It will undermine the idea of the Marston Vale Forest and have a detrimental affect on visitor numbers. 3) I am concerned about the vast number of HGVs to and from the plant using local roads, the effect of congesting the detrunked A421 and the noise and pollution both near to Marston Moretaine and the leisure areas. To be efficient it is likely that waste will have to be transported from farther and farther afield. It is possible from investigation that the new A421 junction 13 will be overloaded by the Covanta lorries and local roads will will be forced to carry the traffic over many hours of each day. 4) I am concerned at the effect such a plant will have on property prices in this area and the impact on the rising leisure industry of Bedfordshire. 5) My understanding is that incineration will discourage recycling and add significantly to atmospheric CO2. 6) There will be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution with the plant operating 24/7. 7) We have our own local waste management project; the BEaR project. The Covanta project will override attempts to deal with waste locally. 8) It is highly questionable whether the energy generated from the plant will supply the needs of 82,500 homes. The sums do not add up."

John Bentley
"I am concerned about general air polution and contamination of surrounding land."

Kathleen Mills
"I believe there will be significant damage to the environment if this project is allowed to go ahead. The additional transport that will be required just to build the waste processing plant will cause tremendous disruption to the local population and already damaged roadways. The proposed site is far too close to nature reserves which will damage fragile habitat of many birds and insects in this area. We cannot allow our already fragile wildlife to be subjected to this disruption unnecessarily This MUST be stopped N O W"

Carl Hickey
"(No Information Supplied)"

Laurence Kibblewhite
"An increase of traffic around Stewartby Village, I believe would danger the public and disturb the peace. Stewartby has its own thriving school, many of the children walk to and from the school along the roadways and crossing the roadways at numerous intersections. Stewartby is one end of The Millennium Forest, this project has done wonders for our community and in a ever more built up Bedfordshire is one of our only peaceful retreats. Stewartby Lake has a large number of community lead projects, including providing sailing lessons for local state and public schools. Our poor infrastructure with 900 lorries a day would stop them providing this service to projects in Bedford."

Heather Metherall
"Concern about EFW stack and long term health implications. Much concern that Covanta have been served with several legal improvement notices on its Plants in USA. The sky above Marston Vale has a meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion - on still days emissions linger over the Vale and eventually drop onto the Vale. When inversion not occurring, prevailing is South Westerly. Serious concern long term cumulative effect in Marston Vale and/or Bedford and Kempston. Concern regarding biodiversity and geologival conservation.Since clay extraction finished some years ago this has improved naturally and now is integrated ecologically with the adjacent Millennium Counntry Park. This proposal would be a retrograde step. Concerns regarding traffic and transport impacts. New 421 was designed to cope with existing traffic problems. The volume of lorries and associated traffic to and from the proposed site will be massively beyond the predicted capacity, Transportation to and from the new 421 and the proposed site would also have to be along the de-trunked old 421 and surrounding village roads, as there is no direct entry to the proposed site. In Conclusion, visual impact, loss of wildlife habitat,predicted traffic levels with associated noise and dust pollution, proposal to draw huge proportions of the waste processed by the plant from surrounding counties (at odds with the minerals and waste local plans),the fact incineration discourages recycling and contributes significantly to atmospheric CO2, renders this proposal the wrong solution to dealing with Bedfordshire waste and in the wrong location."

Michael Brooks
"1. Traffic is one of the biggest issues. The number of vehicle movements expected (HGV plus cars) is not inconsiderable and cannot be said to 'get lost' in overall traffic levels, even on the (new) A421 and M1. There are two measures which can be taken: a. The applicant should be prepared to enter into a legal undertaking that HGVs to and from the site will not use any other access route than the 'old A421' and Green Lane. b. The developer should actually construct (as opposed to merely leaving space for) railway siding(s), including locomotive run-round loop and connection to the Marston Vale line, for future use. The developer says that these will not be needed initially, but (i) it would be less expensive to construct these at the outset rather than to put them in later and (ii) the lack of a railway connection will be a disincentive to any future contracts for which rail transport would otherwise be viable. Covanta should be encouraging all potential waste arising outside Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes to use rail transport, in the interests of sustainbility. 2. The buildings should be as inconspicuous as possible and not draw attention to themselves. The base ground level of the plant should be lowered: even a 2m gain would help to reduce the impact. 3. The proposed double chimney adds to the visual impact: a single stack would be less conspicuous. In any case, it should not be painted rusty red. It should have a colour (light grey, perhaps) which would help it to be less conspicuous in normal conditions from most viewpoints. 4. I am very concerned about the view of the plant from the registered historic Ampthill Park, located on top of the Greensand Ridge to the south of the application site. Although the plant would, of course, be able to be seen from 360deg, this is one of the most important viewpoints. So all efforts should be taken to reducing its impact when viewed from here. 5. External lighting needed for operational or security purposes should be fully shrouded and downward-facing in order to eliminate light spillage on to any land outside the plant itself. Many commercial and industrial premises in Bedfordshire (including in the Marston Vale) have a very poor record in this respect and there should not be yet another blot on the night-time landscape affecting views of the night sky. It should be technically possible for none of the plant's external lighting to be visible from outside the site. This should be secured by a water-tight planning condition."

Mr L Hughes
"1. The proposed building is in the middle of a conservation area of Marston Vale. An area of outstanding beauty consisting of forests, lakes bird sanctuaries, areas of special scientific interest, and habitats of many rare breeds of birds, bats and flora and fauna. 2. The proposed building would be only approximately 1 mile away and within the sight of Houghton House, an ancient monument, and It would severely detract from the views from the house by the numerous visitors the house receives. Many local planning applications have been refused before particularly because of this point. 3. This area has had to suffer the smell, dirt and inconvenience of having a large tip nearby for numerous years. It is now just about full and local resudents were looking forward to a more peaceful time, only for this proposed development to occur. 4. If this development is allowed, All the numerous lorries will be directed directly past my property and very near to the village of Marston Moretaine. A New road has been built nearby and consideration should be given, (if the building is given permission) to having a dedicated junction off the new road to avoid any inconvenience to local residents."

mr j ruocco
"I wish to object to the proposed covanta incenerator because of the impact it would have on my home ,ie the increased polution to the area as well as increased heavy vehicle traffice also i believe it would affect the value of my home. I have grandchildren and would be concerned about the health impact it may have on them."

Darren Edwards
"Dear sir/madam, I would challenge all those responsible for considering this application to come and live in the village that I live in and breathe in the toxic fumes and carcinogens that I and my young family will be inhaling into our lungs! If you feel that the filtration offered by Covanta is sufficient, then I ask you to review the below link, whereupon Covanta have been fined by various goverments for emitting more than their allowance in the atmosphere. http://galwaytent.blogspot.com/2008/12/covanta-fined-for-toxic-nickel.html As an Senior Engineer whose been in the Engineering field for over 20 years, I know that no amount of filtration will be stop these chemicals being released into the atmosphere. Along with the pollution, there will be increased lorry traffic bring waste from several other counties! So that's the green argument dismissed! Finanicaly, consider this: 1) Financial claims for ill health due to the release of chemicals into the air. 2) Being sued for the loss of earnings and wealth (houses are simply not selling in the area due to this application) I would also ask that you visit the pretty villages in the area that this may effect and ask yourself, is this application something we should be accepting? In the last month, 152 homes have gone up for sale in the surrounding villages, only 4 have been sold! I wonder why?! Please use some common sense and throw this application where it belongs - in the bin! May be you could burn it? Darren Edwards"

natasha witt
"I fundamentally disagree with the proposed plans, and also with the proposal to asccept waste from other counties."

Zena page
"Traffic, pollution, eyesore, noise, nominal jobs created. Impact to the environment,"

Adrian Jay
"This rural area is only just recovering from years of abuse from brickbuilding and the use of those clay quarries as landfill. We are starting to improve the landscape with tourist projects such as the millenium Forest, Centre Parcs and possiibly the NIRAH projects, these will all suffer badly should the Coventa waste incinerator go ahead. House prices will tumble, roads will be under constant use with waste lorries, pollution will inevitably arise from the burning process be it air or by product such as toxic ash. It feels like this project is kicking someone who is only just starting to kneel after years of being floored by previous industrial use and landfill waste. It will be a sad day should this go ahead."

Mrs A Albone
"To Whom It May Concern Re: Objection to Covanta Energy near Stewartby I think the idea of Covanta Energy building a Resource Recovery Faciltiy is probably a good one, but what I do object to is the location in which they are planning to build it. To suggest building it in a scenic mid Bedfordshire village is ridiculous. Why on earth don't they consider a remote area where the sheer size of it and the vast numbers of lorries travelling to and from the site each day will not affect rural country life. The A421 is already a really busy road and the large number of lorries going back and forth each day is completey inappropriate. Yours faithfully Anita Albone (Mrs)"

Mrs Ruth Jay
"I object to the Covanta incinerator. We have had numerous years of dealing with refuse from London and the South East- through landfill and were all very pleased when we heard it was to close. This proposed incinerator destroys the hopes we had for a greener, cleaner and more pleasant environment. Surely it is someone elses turn?"

Paul Fox
"As a member of Stewartby Water Sports Club (SWSC), I object on the following grounds: During normal operational 530 daily trips movements (One vehicle every 52 seconds). During maximum throughput seconds 768 daily trips movements (One vehicle every 33 seconds). The majority of these will be noisy HGV trips that will make peaceful use of our leisure areas impossible. This includes: * The SWSC Club House is within 100m of the proposed access route to the RRF affecting our peaceful enjoyment of the patio area, club and grounds. * The club event camping area is with 50m of the proposed access route * The clubs Water Ski Launch and Recreational Area is within 30m of Green Lane and will be severely affected by the increased noise from HGV Traffic Angling pitches and our sailing area (which is closest to the RRF - approx 850m) will have the peaceful enjoyment ruined by a view of the RRF Sailing one of the key sports at SWSC and is totally dependent on wind strength, direction and stability. The building will be over 40m high and the operational area some 500m or more wide, this will have disruptive effects of the winds strength, stability and direction. We do not believe that Covanta have demonstrated that the RRF (in non-technical terms) will not have an effect on the water quality of Stewartby Lake. Air Emissions - There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I am concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Stewartby Lake there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Marston Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. Stewartby Water Sports Club, Marston Vale Millennium Country Park and surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. An oversize Energy from Waste plant is will fundamentally affect the rural landscape and its regeneration. The RRF site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation are all likely to impact SWSC. Of particular concern are the effects of dust and air pollution on boat finishes and covers. There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. This is of particular concern for the SWSC Event Camping Area The RRF can process many times the size needed for Bedfordshire waste, I object to the out of Bedfordshire importing of waste and the resulting environmental impacts Of particular concern is the affect on the amenity value of Stewartby Lake as a Water Sports Venue and is negative impact on membership numbers and volunteering. Taken to it ultimate conclusion this could affect the viability Stewartby Water Sports Club. As a regular user of the Marston Vale Country Park and member of Stewartby Waters Sports Club (SWSC) I object to the Rookery South energy infrastructure project for the following reasons: There is no definitive lifespan to the EfW plant During normal operations an additional 356 HGV's (178 in 178 out) and 174 Cars/ LGV's (87 in 87 out) vehicle movements will be generated. The will affect the local community and make peaceful use of SWSC leisure areas (all within a distance of 30m to 100m) impossible. Green Lane is a C class road and there appears to be no current plan to upgrade it sufficiently for the increase in HGV traffic. This raises serious concerns for road safety, congestion and noise. Access arrangements from Green Lane into SWSC do not allow for safe movement of boat trailers which are commonly at least six feet wide and slow moving. The hours of operation of the EfW when vehicles will be moving in and out are too long and extend into the weekend. Public access around the lake, SWSC angling pitches, the SWSC sailing area will have the peaceful enjoyment ruined by the view, noise, dust, light and air pollution of the RRF. The EfW is large and this will have disruptive effects on the wind’s strength, stability and direction for Stewartby Lake and my lifelong sport of sailing. The south west corner of Stewartby Lake is connected to the Rookery South attenuation pond via a surface water pump into Mill Brook. It has not been demonstrated that this will not affect the water quality and wildlife. The EfW is located in the base of Rookery Pit and is an area of flood risk. Mitigation strategies are proposed but these contain unacceptable levels of flood and pollution risks. The cumulative long term impact on health caused by EfW stack emissions may be accentuated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion. EfW, Stewartby Lake and surrounding environment is host to large numbers of wildlife including priority species such as the great crested newt and otters who will be subjected to pollution risks. Dust, Odour, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation are all likely to impact Stewartby Lake and the local community Permanent loss of night sky The RRF capacity is considerably greater than that produced locally and hence the RRF additional capacity will be available to take waste from wider afield causing more traffic and loss of amenity. Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. If it must be fuelled by waste from further afield, this should be transported by rail to minimise the local impact. Steps will need to be taken to ensure the removal of hazardous waste takes account of the leisure use of the SWSC site and need to be actively controlled and monitored. I would seriously consider if I wanted to remain a member of SWSC due to the above circumstances."

Alan Davidson
"WE are against the Covanta application for the following reasons: Traffic - concern with the number of vehicles that will be passing through the Village and using the 421 from all over the country. Health concerns - with regard to the emissions of toxic material this has been confirmed by the data received from the company using the same system in America. This will greeatly affect the next generation of residents. Will greatly affect tourism in the County which will stop people visiting Woburn and the new Centre Parks because this will be a complete eyesore to be seen from miles around. Will have a big affect on re-cycling and at the moment the County is excelling with regard to re-cycling its waste this will cease immediately if this system is accepted."

Jonathan Michael Pelling
"I am very concerned about the following: 1) Problems with air pollution. 2) Effect on the environment 3) Size and ugliness of the building. 4) Threat t o wildlife and parks."

Felicity Boyle
"I OBJECT TO THE PROJECT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Risks of air pollution from the project when functioning, and resulting health issues. 2. Risk of air and noise pollution from lorries travelling to and fro from the site. 3. Wear and tear on the surrounding roads from large lorry use. 4. Congestion resulting from the number of lorries travelling to and from the site. 5. Dangers and nuisances resulting from large numbers of lorries using the village roads. 6. Visual downgrading of local area. 7.Consequential negative effect on village property prices in local area."

Ann Morley
"The proposal should be rejected for the following reasons: The site is in a valley surrounded by housing developments and primary schools. Long-term effects (possibly carcinogenic) of burning enormous quantities of mixed waste are unknown and potentially dangerous, particularly to small children, therefore to build the incinerator would be totally irresponsible. The health of children should not be jeopardised for short-term gain by commercial enterprises. The proposal, if carried out, would result in noise pollution (heavy lorries constantly delivering to the site), air pollution from the greatly increased traffic, damage to roads, and the destruction of local amenities essential to a reasonable quality of life. The size and height of the incinerator would dominate the area - totally out of scale with its surroundings. The effect on property would be enormously detrimental. There seems no reason why such a small area should have to deal with the rubbish of surrounding counties. Although a small number of short-term jobs might be created, there would be no guarantee that they would go to local people."

Aron Ross
"My concerns are; that there is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. this company is also facing legal action in the US due to emissions from its plants, has this been taken into account? Also, the noise from this plant, and from the trucks delivering the waste to the furnace, will in my view seriously affect life in the the surrounding villages, the hours are long and the noise will be considerable, how is this being addressed? I would be interested in being involved in any discussion involving noise levels and their impact. The construction of this facility will lead to a reduction of house prices in the surrounding areas, leading to economic downturn, the 60 -70 jobs created will not be enough to justify this. There is also no guarantee that the jobs will be for local people. In fact the industrialization of Rookery pit would be a retrograde step and dilute the good work done by the Marston Vale forestry centre in wildlife preservation, and making Bedfordshire a place where people want to come and visit, rather than somewhere where people send their rubbish."

PAUL MACKIN
"My main concerns are:- A I am not convinced that the environment will not be harmed by the effluent from a plant of this size (a single discharge point) discharging into a valley. Widely spaced, smaller plants will enable the environment to compensate for the amount of effluent discharged. B I am concerned about the additional traffic this plant will bring to this area of the county. Shefford sits on a natural link between the A1 (northbound) and the proposed site. I do not believe that the operators of the site will only take refuse from the west of the region. Being a business concern they will take refuse from whoever can pay the cost of disposal. They will not be able to control the routes taken by lgv drivers delivering to the site. The road network in my community is overwhelmed by the normal day to day traffic now. An additional quantity of lgv’s passing through my town will damage the road structure as well as cause vibration damage to adjacent residential building structures."

Tanya Ross
"Noise has only been considered in terms of ‘average’ levels so no adequate account been taken of intermittent noise such as that from rattling of empty HGV’s which lead to huge disturbance. There will also be noise from the plant itself. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices - which in turn will depress economic activity. Will there be compensation for each household who has a decrease in their property price due to our village, and all the surrounding villages, becoming a waste site? We cannot envisage an incinerator becoming a popular tourist destination. Bedfordshire is a popular tourist destintation so why waste time, money and effort in projects like Marston Vale Millennium Country Park, which promotes the re forestation of the Marston Vale, and promoting more wildlife. Rockery Pit is a wildlife area and will totally undermine all the work that has been done so far."

Andrew Corless
"My outline objections are on the following areas of concern: Increased traffic flow on the A421 and Stewartby access via Marston Moreteyne. Environmental impact as the Marston Vale suffers from inverted cloud cover and the exhaust waste no matter how high the chimney will not move away but sit over the surrounding area, as has happened historically with the Stewartby brick works. The proposed site sits well below the base water level and had to be and will continue to require continuous pumping to prevent flooding. This operation will require excessive electricity reducing the "quoted" output to the national grid and surrounding areas. Environmental disaster when/should this pumping fail and the site floods and due to the site operation contaminate the flood water which will then be absorbed into the local area and water supplies Environmental impact to the landscape which will be more that anything previously present in the area. (The old Brick works had only chimneys and pollution to blot the skyline this structure will be visible from all surrounding areas) Bedfordshire’s recycling programme is so successful that more than 50% of the waste required to run such a plant will have to be brought in from other counties, which is unacceptable not only on environmental impact of transport and motor pollution, but shows that any need for such a facility is not in Marston Vale, Bedfordshire but a county who can provide such waste volumes locally."

John Souster
"That as a private housholder and a generator of household waste I consider the project has advantages over the continued use of landfill I consider the location in Rookery Pit is acceptable"

Ian Campbell
"This is an area of natural beauty which is recovering from years of clay extraction for brick production. I have concerns over the air quality, the emmissons from a waste incinorator would be harmfull to health. Covanta have already been held accountable in the USA for polluting the air with the same type of plant. Landscape and visual impact - all negative. Extra traffic and extra pollution from waste carrying road traffic. Beds already has an environmental 'green' waste project - Bear."

Marion Laurence
"I am extremely concerned regarding the safety issues of this project. Covanta have been fined several times in the U.S. for exceeding emissions. I do not feel the benefits outweigh the cost. The traffic situation is already bad in the area - it will deteriorate considerably if this incinerator is built. Roads are already in a state of disrepair - this will worsen them. I believe this will damage the surrounding countryside - particularly for future generations. The main view from one of the most beautiful parks in the county - Ampthill Park - will be ruined by this eyesore."

Peter Blaine
"The plans present an appalling prospect for local residents and for the local environment. They would see huge numbers of lorries rolling over local roads, damaging local air quality and the wider environment. To feed a giant incinerator of this size, those lorries would need to be bringing waste from across the region and possibly from locations across the country. These plans propose that after a long history of importing waste from London for landfill, this area should continue to be a dumping ground for other people's rubbish. That is unacceptable. Incineration is an inferior waste treatment method, with a range of technologies offering a better solution for the local and wider environment now available. So, not only would the incinerator be harmful to the local community and to the environment, it is also simply not needed."

Colin Ingram-Moore
"I am totally against the submission: The proposed site will create significant heavy haulage traffic along the old A421 and Green Lane and experience shows this traffic will use these roads prior to stated opening times creating heavy noise, pollution and congestion. The sheer size of the building 75% of which will be above the existing edge of Rookery Pit i.e. visible. This will dominate the skyline and blight the Marston Vale for ever. It is totally disproportionate to any other buildings in the vicinity."

Murdo Mathewson
"I am not ready to make a representation. I am, though, registering to ensure I can. I am against the plans."

Drew Marchant on behalf of Renaissance Bedford
"Renaissance Bedford is the Local Delivery Vehicle for the Bedford, Kempston and Northern Marston Vale Growth Area. The organisation is concerned with the delivery of homes, jobs and infrastructure in the area, and although the Regional Spatial Strategy has been abolished, the targets set out are maintianed in the adopted Core Strategies of Bedford Borough Council and Central Bedfordshire Council. We may wish to make representations on: - delivery of infrastructure to support the local area in accordance with the adopted Local Authority and other partners policies; - minimising the effect this infrastructure has on matters such as flood risk management, noise, pollution and other issues; - maximising the benefit of such infrastructure in matters such as transport (particularly use of rail), energy distribution, community benefit and other issues. Impact on the Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway Caveat While recognising that each of the Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway Consortium Members, including Bedford Borough Council, Central Bedfordshire Council and Milton Keynes Council, will present their own representations on the Proposed Facility, and without prejudice to these views, this representation considers the potential impacts, both negative and positive, on the Waterway, should the Proposed Facility gain approval. Evaluation With no reference to the impact of the Proposed Facility on the Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway in the Submission documentation, this issue needs to be evaluated by the Infrastructure Planning Commission and, should the Proposed Facility gain approval, be mitigated by Covanta. Summary The Proposed Covanta Resource Recovery Facility impacts the Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway immediately south of the current A421 at the north-western end of Green Lane. The Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway will be a new 26Km link between the River Great Ouse at Kempston in Bedford and the Grand Union Canal at Newlands in Milton Keynes. The Waterway project design & development work is being led by the Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway Consortium, comprising eleven public sector and charitable bodies including Bedford Borough Council, Central Bedfordshire Council and Milton Keynes Council. The Waterway is included as a protected project in the adopted Core Strategy or adopted Local Plan for all three Local Planning Authorities. The Proposed Facility access road and the two grid connection routes cross the Waterway route at the north-western end of Green Lane. The Proposed Facility could have a serious negative impact on the Waterway and could prove fatal to the project as alternative Waterway routes from Stewartby Lake to the New A421 Underpass may not be possible. However, this impact can be mitigated during construction of the Proposed Facility. It should be noted that Waterway construction at a later date would require a period of closure of Green Lane and routing delivery vehicles via Broadmead Road through Stewartby village. Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway The Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway will be a place defining 26Km link between the River Great Ouse at Kempston in Bedford and the Grand Union Canal at Newlands in Milton Keynes. It will provide a new broadbeam canal between the main UK network and the Fens Waterways and be at the heart of a series of new waterway parks, forming a green corridor at the heart of the new Local Enterprise Partnership area. The Waterway and it’s green corridor passes through the three local authority areas via the Bedford Waterway Park, Marston Vale Waterway Park and the Milton Keynes Waterway Park. Green Lane marks the boundary between the Bedford and the Marston Vale Waterway Parks. It is an enhancement of the established Milton Keynes Parks and Forest of Marston Vale green infrastructure projects. The Waterway Parks enjoy significant local community support, demonstrated through a Citizens Jury, Planning for Real events together with numerous local consultations and development projects. It also enjoys support for the towpath becoming an off-road section of the Sustrans National Cycle Network Route 51 from Oxford to Cambridge. All Members of Parliament along the route are supportive. Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway Consortium The Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway Consortium was formed in May 2010 and is chaired by Dave Hodgson, the Elected Mayor of Bedford. He is supported by senior level representatives from each Consortium Member. The purpose of the Consortium is to progress the Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway to the point where a Single Purpose Vehicle or other commissioning agency is established. The Consortium comprises: - Bedford Borough Council; - Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway Trust; - British Waterways; - Central Bedfordshire Council; - Environment Agency; - Marston Vale Trust; - Milton Keynes Council; - Milton Keynes Partnership; - Milton Keynes South Midlands; - Renaissance Bedford; and - The Parks Trust. The Bedford Group of Internal Drainage Boards, while not full members of the Consortium, are fully supportive of the project and active members of the Bedford and Marston Vale Waterway Park Steering Group. Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway Planning Status The project is included in the Bedford Borough Council adopted Core Strategy, Central Bedfordshire Council adopted Core Strategy and the Milton Keynes Council adopted Local Plan. Relevant extracts are: Bedford Borough Council Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan (adopted April 2008) states that “the Borough Council supports in principle the Bedford to Milton Keynes canal project along a route that would bring waterway traffic through the town” and a concept route is shown on the Key Diagram. Policy CP 22 states that “where necessary and appropriate the council will seek the use of planning obligations to secure a contribution towards the cost of future management and maintenance of green infrastructure.” Bedford Borough Council Allocations and Designations Development Plan Document Draft Plan Consultation May 2010 (scheduled to be adopted in early 2012) looks to consolidate this position and proposes the Waterway as a Borough Wide Infrastructure Designation along a route defined on a map and a statement “where appropriate, development will be expected to contribute towards the creation and delivery of the Waterway Park.” This will result in a fully safeguarded route. Minerals and Waste Full Planning Permission was granted to Bedford Borough Council for extraction of 22,828m3 of topsoil and 59,249m3 of clay to create the Waterway channel between the New A421 Underpass and Fields Road and provide material to local development. Central Bedfordshire Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies (North Area) (adopted November 2009) states that “the Council will continue to formally support the creation of the Waterway Park, working with them to ensure appropriate opportunities are taken to realise these projects where new development is planned.” and “The preferred route of the canal passes through the district, travelling from Milton Keynes, across the M1 around Junction 13, through the Marston Vale and up to Bedford. The Council strongly supports the proposed scheme and will ensure that the route is not prejudiced by proposed development, whilst recognising that funding for the project remains uncertain.” The creation of the Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway Park is recognised as being of regional significance. Developer contributions collected through the Planning Obligations Strategy will supplement other sources of funding to bring these projects forward. Policy CS17 states that “new development will be expected to aid the delivery and management of Green Infrastructure including the Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway.” Milton Keynes Council Local Plan (adopted December 2005), supported by the Milton Keynes Council Eastern Expansion Area Development Framework (adopted October 2005) states that “the Council is satisfied that sufficient progress has been made regarding the feasibility of the waterway to safeguard the provision of a route as part of the Broughton Brook linear park, through the Eastern Expansion Area. The development framework and development briefs for the Eastern Expansion Area will need to show how the waterway can be successfully integrated into the new development.” In February 2007, Milton Keynes Partnership, then part of English Partnerships and now part of the Homes and Communities Agency, and the Local Planning Authority for the Eastern Expansion Area, granted Full Planning Permission to British Waterways for this section of the Waterway within Milton Keynes. In July 2007, Milton Keynes Council granted Outline Planning Permission for the Waterway in the main city area where they are the Local Planning Authority. This Permission was renewed for five years by Milton Keynes Partnership in November 2010. Milton Keynes Council Core Strategy Revised Submission Version October 2010 (scheduled to be adopted in early 2011) shows the Waterway on the Key Diagram and includes Policy CS5 which provides for “a safeguarded route for the Bedford and Milton Keynes Waterway.” Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway Project Progress The Consortium Members recognise that the best way to bring the project to fruition is by ‘developing ‘bitesize sections’ within an overall long term plan. The Status Report, updated November 2010, lists an A-Z of sections being progressed over a period of years in co-operation with other development along the route. The section between Stewartby Lake and the new A421 Underpass is Section M. The first structure (section N), constructed by the Highways Agency, is already in place as New A421 Underpass accommodating both the Waterway and Sustrans National Cycle Network Route 51; the first channel cut will be in place by March 2011 at Marston Vale Innovation Park using the Minerals and Waste Planning Permission. A number of the sections are progressing, including: masterplanning the Grand Union to Willen Lake leisure park (including the UK’s deepest lock at 11.6m); linking Brogborough and Stewartby Lakes to provide strategic flood management mechanism for Marston Vale; a destination attraction at the junction of the Waterway and the river at Kempston; and the Bedford Waterspace Strategy to consider opportunities along the river. Also generating considerable interest is the Brogborough Hill boat lift (a 30m drop) – with over 25m people living within two hours travel of this major visitor attraction. Impact on the Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway The route of the Waterway between Stewartby Lake and the New A421 Underpass runs along the drainage ditch around the north-west edge of Lake and under the two arms of the access road. The impacts are located at: 1. the bridge (OS Reference 008431) across Green Lane access road; 2. the bridge (OS Reference 007430) across the southern link from Green Lane; 3. the location and underground burial depth of the grid connection cable routes shown in the Covanta proposal as being in both locations above. The Proposed Facility could have a serious negative impact on the Waterway and could prove fatal to the project as alternative routes from Stewartby Lake to the Underpass may not be possible. However, this impact can be mitigated during construction of the Proposed Facility by construction of appropriate bridges and appropriate location of the grid connection cables. It should be noted that Waterway construction at a later date would require a period of closure of Green Lane and routing delivery vehicles to the Proposed Facility via Broadmead Road through Stewartby village. There is a window of opportunity to deliver this mitigation while minimising disruption. Green Lane currently provides access to the WRG Stewartby Landfill Site which, at current rates of infill, is expected to reach capacity by the end of 2011. The window exists between closure of the landfill site and construction of the Proposed Facility. The Proposed Facility could instead provide a positive impact on the Waterway. Accommodation of the Waterway could provide part of Covanta’s proposed community contribution by facilitating the route as it intersects the access road and the grid connection route. There could also be an opportunity to make clay available to Covanta as the Waterway channel is cut with the minerals and waste planning permission for extraction currently in place immediately north of the New A421 Underpass. Renaissance Bedford is undertaking a technical assessment of the line-and-level of the Waterway route between Stewartby Lake and the New A421 Underpass funded by the Department for Communities and Local Government Growth Area Fund. This study, which will inform any design considerations along the route, will report in December 2010."

Peter davies
"My concerns agains this proposal are the following: 1) Traffic, Lorries will be transporting rubbish to and from the site from early morning until late night, the noise and pollution from these, the congestion on the roads which have only just been re-built to cope with the existing traffic volume EXCLUDING the lorries for Covanta. 2) Toxic fumes, Covanta are being prosecuted in the US, what will they do differently here. If they are not afraid of the US Government, then they will not be in fear of the UK Gov. 3) Health Hazard to children and communities with potential increased cancer threat and contamination of local crops. 4) Night pollution due to gasses in the air and fumes. 5) increase noise, Marston and the surrounding area are particularly quiet in the evenings, this plant will increase the niose level signficantly 6) impact to housing prices in the areas, who will compensate for this impact? 7) Where will the waste product be removed to? 8) General impact on the skyline and the adjacent forest centre, We have a forest centre which is green and for the future, right next to it, we will be buring waste and creating toxic fumes. 9) why are we dealing with other peoples waste, we should focus on our own waste and do all we can to recycle and reduce our landfill in an environmentally friendly way... These are my main concerns regarding the covanta proposal at present and I feel strongly there must be another alternative option for dealing with our waste..."

Heather Buckley
"Covanta have documented history of breeching safe emition levels. Concern regarding air pollution and long term health implications Detrimental effect on the enviroment eg light pollution, size and ugliness of the plant An estimated 900 trucks per day on the A421 Detrimental effect for tourism in Bedfordshire and revenue foe associated buisnesses Hazardous "fly ash" or "bottom ash" being transported through our communitities along country roads and lanes"

Timothy Ward
"I have serious concerns about the long term health problems that this plant will cause to the public in the surrounding areas due to the toxic emissions being emitted from the chimney. The fact that this can be backed up with evidence of a less than clean safety record from Covanta in the United States with current legal proceedings ongoing against the energy giant, fills me with severe doubts about there attitude toward the safety of there operation and profit once again being the overiding factor. The proposed site which is adjacent to the Marston Vale park where I take my young family for walks to enjoy the reserve, is wholly unacceptable as a location due to the direct and indirect loss of habitat and will cause the prevention of reforesting the marson vale which is the whole point of the marson vale forest centre project. The visual impact that this incinerator will have on the contryside will impair the pleasnt views you get from the elevated positions near ampthill. The noise and air polution from the streams of trucks delivering waste to the plant will cause a huge impact to the surrounding towns and villages which they will have to drive through, as well as the extra pressure and wear put upon the roads. This plant is not the answer to Bedfordshire or the surrounding counties waste problem. It will:- Increase atmospheric CO2 Increase traffic and noise pollution Decrease wildlife and the habitat it occupies Decrease the prices of surrounding houses"

Mr R K Wilson
"Where I live in Ampthill we were subject to unpleasant smells and fumes under certain weather conditions when the brickwork chimneys at Stewartby were in full use from the time we moved here in 1957 to the time the chimneys were taken out of use. When that happened we literally breathed a sigh of relief. Now you propose to erect and use another chimney at the former site! No matter how modern, up to date, state of the art chimney is in use, it emits the products of combustion into the atmosphere and the results thereof are most likely to be carried over Ampthill again under various weather conditions. This is not conducive to good health - mine in particular!"

Anthony Gill
"I believe that incineration of waste is not the most environmentally favourable option. Re-use and recycling is preferable. I am concerned that there may be health issues relating to the waste products of incineration. I do not believe that waste should be transported long distances by road and I understand that it is envisaged that this large plant will require a constant stream of lorries. This will be to the detriment of our road surfaces and will impact traffic flow in the region of the plant."

Derek Harpur
"My concern is for the possible spread of contamination when the wind direction from the North-East carries any fallout which may contain harmful substances to my property. When brickmaking was carried out at the Stewartby site we could smell the fallout of sulphurous gases at East End, North Crawley. I have no doubt that should the emissions from the site at Rookery Pit fall outside those permitted, as has been reported from Covanta's sites in America, then the residents in my area will be subjected to the harmful effects of the said fallout."

Mrs Natalie Lunnon
"My Husband and I have lived in Bedfordshire all of our lives and in Marston Moretaine for 7 years. We object to the proposed incinerator at rookery pit for many reasons. Firstly, we use the Forest Center Cafe and Park frequently and walk and cycle the Stewartby lake and wetland area regularly. The children go to educational events here. The Forest center set out "to use trees and woodlands to transform 61 square miles between Bedford and Milton Keynes, repairing a landscape scarred by decades of clay extraction, brick-making and landfill" and "create new woods and other wild places for everyone to enjoy." No-one will want to come here to walk near the incinerator, or get married there as they do now! Wildlife will be damaged in a regenerated area. This part of Bedfordshire has had two landfill tips taking waste from other counties in the past and the Stewartby Brickworks and deserves to breath fresh air. The air quality has improved since the Stewartby Brickworks stopped. Locals want it to stay this way! Our house backs on to the A421. The proposed lorry route involves using the old A421 (soon to be "local road") that runs directly behind our houses and Marston Moretaine Playing Field. Some of the waste could be toxic! House prices will decline due to the air and noise pollution from the road and the plant itself. It would be visible from our house. Recycling has increased in the last year in Central Bedfordshire as more can now be recycled due to a change in contract. We do not want this effort to be wasted by the 24 hour incinerator that needs to be fed permentently! Our family have a new allotment in Marston. It was admitted at a consultaion meeting that the incinerator will pose an increased risk of cancer from eating local produce. The allotments are about community and health and wellbeing. We would have to give this up. Other health issues worry us too, for example, what will come out of the chimney and how closely immission will be regulated. The site is right in the middle of beautiful and historic countryside. From Ampthill Hill and all around the plant will ruin the view. The size of the chimney and building are a big issue as is location itself (right next to the proposed NIRAH freshwater eden project and canal link stop-off point!)"

Mr Steve Page
"An enormous amount of work has been done locally to promote and attract new business to the Marston Vale and surrounding area using a model based on leisure and tourism one of the main growth areas in our economy. The Millenium Centre and parklands have become a much loved amenity in the area and with the possible inclusion of the Canal link project and the new Centre Parcs we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to create a sustainable green and attractive area in which to live and work.All of this good work will be totally undermined by the construction of the Rookery Incinerator. The actual building will be a blot on the landscape visable from a wide area and with the problems with emissions affecting every single family in the area. Covanta have proved themselves less than trustworthy in their ability to set reasonable levels and to meet them and the massively increased traffic levels to and from the facility would negate the improvements so recently made and being made to local and M1 traffic. On top of this the facility would go against all logic which says that rubbish disposal is a local responsibility not something to be passed on to a profit making entity in a different county ie: out of site out of mind. We should be encouraging local solutions with a stronger emphasis on recycling. In short this proposal will destroy wildlife habitat, decent living conditions for thousands of people and make no contribution to responsible disposal of rubbish. It is not wanted and not the way forward - I and my family strongly object to its consideration."

Jake Sale
"Covanta have proved in their failure to be able to provide accpetable levels of stewardship of the environment. In the US they have similar plants Covanta has been fined Hundreds of thousands of dollars for emitting cancer-linked chemicals into the atmosphere. Emissions from the Incinerator are likely to cover areas up to 15 miles away from the site. This could affect 150,000 people in Bedford and even more in Milton Keynes. Hiding the site in the middle of a clay pit only serves to reduce objuctions and not the real affect of the plant. Central Government and the EU are looking at alternative waste disposal plans. Should we be using plants which have the least impact on the environment. On top of this there is the large number of vehicle journeys needed to keep the plant working. Also many of these journeys will be made from a considerable distance from the site as six counties will need to contract their waste disposal to this incinerator to make it profitable."

Gareth Lloyd
"Having researched the impact of the Incinerator I would put forward these objections as follows: Environment and Health Covanta themselves have proved neglectful in their stewardship of the environment. There have been cases in America where similar plants have been built and Covanta has been fined Hundreds of thousands of dollars for emitting cancer-linked chemicals into the atmosphere. Nearly 550 tonnes of ash will need transporting away from the site every day and I am concerned that the vehicles involved in this will not be safe enough to ensure the heavy metals being transported don’t leak into the local atmosphere. Emissions from the Incinerator can affect an area of up to 15 miles radius from the site. Whilst the site is in a rural area the potential problems caused by the emissions could affect up to 150,000 people. Most significantly- there is a move from Central Government and the EU to look for alternative waste disposal plans. It is expected that Private Companies and Local Authorities will come forward with plans that have the least impact on the environment. When a product is created and thrown away the best way to deal with it is through re-use. The second best way is to recycle the product and the worst ways to deal with it are to either throw it in a hole in the ground or incinerate it. Incineration does not reclaim the whole of the energy originally used to make the product in the first place. It is a grossly inefficient way to deal with our waste problems. Not only this, but it has negative impact on the drive to reduce our carbon footprint as a nation. Account must be taken of the damage created to European and UK policies on reducing our carbon emissions. Covanta cannot use the reclamation of energy to offset this impact as an argument as the reduced confidence residents have in the system will have a much larger impact on this issue. Add to the equation the large number of vehicle journeys needed to ‘feed’ the sites capacity, as well as the fact that many of these journeys will be made from a considerable distance from the site (at least six counties will need to contract their waste disposal to this incinerator to make it profitable) and the site will have a considerable negative impact on the policy of carbon reduction. Traffic Flows & Road Safety On much smaller plants the traffic impact of the large trucks used to transport waste in and ash out has been considered excessive in certain areas. This Incinerator is to be much larger than most and will result in at least one lorry every minute in order to achieve capacity and efficiency within the site. The site itself is not best suited to such a significant impact on the traffic flow and the knock on effect to the village of Stewartby will dramatically reduce the current level of road safety. There will also be a major impact on the quality of life for local residents by the number of traffic movements. Controls will need to be put in place to stop the large vehicles from travelling down some of the narrower roads in the area. Whilst signs are available to deter large vehicles from accessing certain routes these cannot guarantee that drivers will desist from making such journeys and thus putting drivers and pedestrians at greater risk on these narrow roads. The use of such vehicles on these roads will also have a major impact on the lifespan of the road surface. Who will foot the bill for such damage when it is caused? Since Bedford Borough Council has declared that it will not be using incineration to dispose of its waste and it is clearly seeking alternatives that are more conducive to an environmentally aware Authority why should Bedford Borough residents have to suffer the financial cost of this traffic? Visual Amenity The images shown of the proposed development do not show the full visual impact of the site on the local countryside. This building will tower over the local landscape and will be seen for miles around. As a rural site it will have a major impact on the lives of residents for many miles, affecting several local villages severely. This can have a serious psychological affect on residents. Indeed, the proposed chimney will be the tallest man-made structure in the whole of Bedfordshire, being taller than the nearby Cardington hangars where airships including the R101 have in the past been built. Democratic Deficit I am well aware that the size of the development has been carefully construed to take the decision on this application away from local representatives. What is worse still is that the decision in the first place to site this proposal at Stewartby, but just across the border from the controlling Authority of Bedford Borough Council, means that the representatives of those residents most closely affected by the proposal have a significantly reduced impact on the application. If Buckinghamshire County Council is so keen to develop this method of disposal for their waste then surely it should be sited within the bounds of that Authority? However, many residents in Buckinghamshire have protested against proposals for incineration in their own county. If representatives, at any level of Government, are to be truly accountable then they should do the right thing and develop their proposals in their own area. It is also the case that I have only picked up that Central Beds Council is consulting on this thanks to Facebook! It is symptomatic of the border issue that I have not been formally consulted by Central Beds Council, despite the fact that the proposal will have a dramatically negative effect on the lives of local residents, especially those who live in Stewartby. In concluding I implore those making the decision on this proposal to consider the above and if the impact on local residents does not draw you to a conclusion that this proposal is not right then hopefully an understanding of the negative impact this development will have on driving forward positive environmental strategies for dealing with waste disposal will."

Carol Lloyd
"Having researched the impact of the Incinerator I would put forward these objections as follows: Environment and Health Covanta themselves have proved neglectful in their stewardship of the environment. There have been cases in America where similar plants have been built and Covanta has been fined Hundreds of thousands of dollars for emitting cancer-linked chemicals into the atmosphere. Nearly 550 tonnes of ash will need transporting away from the site every day and I am concerned that the vehicles involved in this will not be safe enough to ensure the heavy metals being transported don’t leak into the local atmosphere. Emissions from the Incinerator can affect an area of up to 15 miles radius from the site. Whilst the site is in a rural area the potential problems caused by the emissions could affect up to 150,000 people. Most significantly- there is a move from Central Government and the EU to look for alternative waste disposal plans. It is expected that Private Companies and Local Authorities will come forward with plans that have the least impact on the environment. When a product is created and thrown away the best way to deal with it is through re-use. The second best way is to recycle the product and the worst ways to deal with it are to either throw it in a hole in the ground or incinerate it. Incineration does not reclaim the whole of the energy originally used to make the product in the first place. It is a grossly inefficient way to deal with our waste problems. Not only this, but it has negative impact on the drive to reduce our carbon footprint as a nation. Account must be taken of the damage created to European and UK policies on reducing our carbon emissions. Covanta cannot use the reclamation of energy to offset this impact as an argument as the reduced confidence residents have in the system will have a much larger impact on this issue. Add to the equation the large number of vehicle journeys needed to ‘feed’ the sites capacity, as well as the fact that many of these journeys will be made from a considerable distance from the site (at least six counties will need to contract their waste disposal to this incinerator to make it profitable) and the site will have a considerable negative impact on the policy of carbon reduction. Traffic Flows & Road Safety On much smaller plants the traffic impact of the large trucks used to transport waste in and ash out has been considered excessive in certain areas. This Incinerator is to be much larger than most and will result in at least one lorry every minute in order to achieve capacity and efficiency within the site. The site itself is not best suited to such a significant impact on the traffic flow and the knock on effect to the village of Stewartby will dramatically reduce the current level of road safety. There will also be a major impact on the quality of life for local residents by the number of traffic movements. Controls will need to be put in place to stop the large vehicles from travelling down some of the narrower roads in the area. Whilst signs are available to deter large vehicles from accessing certain routes these cannot guarantee that drivers will desist from making such journeys and thus putting drivers and pedestrians at greater risk on these narrow roads. The use of such vehicles on these roads will also have a major impact on the lifespan of the road surface. Who will foot the bill for such damage when it is caused? Since Bedford Borough Council has declared that it will not be using incineration to dispose of its waste and it is clearly seeking alternatives that are more conducive to an environmentally aware Authority why should Bedford Borough residents have to suffer the financial cost of this traffic? Visual Amenity The images shown of the proposed development do not show the full visual impact of the site on the local countryside. This building will tower over the local landscape and will be seen for miles around. As a rural site it will have a major impact on the lives of residents for many miles, affecting several local villages severely. This can have a serious psychological affect on residents. Indeed, the proposed chimney will be the tallest man-made structure in the whole of Bedfordshire, being taller than the nearby Cardington hangars where airships including the R101 have in the past been built. Democratic Deficit I am well aware that the size of the development has been carefully construed to take the decision on this application away from local representatives. What is worse still is that the decision in the first place to site this proposal at Stewartby, but just across the border from the controlling Authority of Bedford Borough Council, means that the representatives of those residents most closely affected by the proposal have a significantly reduced impact on the application. If Buckinghamshire County Council is so keen to develop this method of disposal for their waste then surely it should be sited within the bounds of that Authority? However, many residents in Buckinghamshire have protested against proposals for incineration in their own county. If representatives, at any level of Government, are to be truly accountable then they should do the right thing and develop their proposals in their own area. It is also the case that I have only picked up that Central Beds Council is consulting on this thanks to Facebook! It is symptomatic of the border issue that I have not been formally consulted by Central Beds Council, despite the fact that the proposal will have a dramatically negative effect on the lives of local residents, especially those who live in Stewartby. In concluding I implore those making the decision on this proposal to consider the above and if the impact on local residents does not draw you to a conclusion that this proposal is not right then hopefully an understanding of the negative impact this development will have on driving forward positive environmental strategies for dealing with waste disposal will."

Abigail Lloyd
"Having researched the impact of the Incinerator I would put forward these objections as follows: Environment and Health Covanta themselves have proved neglectful in their stewardship of the environment. There have been cases in America where similar plants have been built and Covanta has been fined Hundreds of thousands of dollars for emitting cancer-linked chemicals into the atmosphere. Nearly 550 tonnes of ash will need transporting away from the site every day and I am concerned that the vehicles involved in this will not be safe enough to ensure the heavy metals being transported don’t leak into the local atmosphere. Emissions from the Incinerator can affect an area of up to 15 miles radius from the site. Whilst the site is in a rural area the potential problems caused by the emissions could affect up to 150,000 people. Most significantly- there is a move from Central Government and the EU to look for alternative waste disposal plans. It is expected that Private Companies and Local Authorities will come forward with plans that have the least impact on the environment. When a product is created and thrown away the best way to deal with it is through re-use. The second best way is to recycle the product and the worst ways to deal with it are to either throw it in a hole in the ground or incinerate it. Incineration does not reclaim the whole of the energy originally used to make the product in the first place. It is a grossly inefficient way to deal with our waste problems. Not only this, but it has negative impact on the drive to reduce our carbon footprint as a nation. Account must be taken of the damage created to European and UK policies on reducing our carbon emissions. Covanta cannot use the reclamation of energy to offset this impact as an argument as the reduced confidence residents have in the system will have a much larger impact on this issue. Add to the equation the large number of vehicle journeys needed to ‘feed’ the sites capacity, as well as the fact that many of these journeys will be made from a considerable distance from the site (at least six counties will need to contract their waste disposal to this incinerator to make it profitable) and the site will have a considerable negative impact on the policy of carbon reduction. Traffic Flows & Road Safety On much smaller plants the traffic impact of the large trucks used to transport waste in and ash out has been considered excessive in certain areas. This Incinerator is to be much larger than most and will result in at least one lorry every minute in order to achieve capacity and efficiency within the site. The site itself is not best suited to such a significant impact on the traffic flow and the knock on effect to the village of Stewartby will dramatically reduce the current level of road safety. There will also be a major impact on the quality of life for local residents by the number of traffic movements. Controls will need to be put in place to stop the large vehicles from travelling down some of the narrower roads in the area. Whilst signs are available to deter large vehicles from accessing certain routes these cannot guarantee that drivers will desist from making such journeys and thus putting drivers and pedestrians at greater risk on these narrow roads. The use of such vehicles on these roads will also have a major impact on the lifespan of the road surface. Who will foot the bill for such damage when it is caused? Since Bedford Borough Council has declared that it will not be using incineration to dispose of its waste and it is clearly seeking alternatives that are more conducive to an environmentally aware Authority why should Bedford Borough residents have to suffer the financial cost of this traffic? Visual Amenity The images shown of the proposed development do not show the full visual impact of the site on the local countryside. This building will tower over the local landscape and will be seen for miles around. As a rural site it will have a major impact on the lives of residents for many miles, affecting several local villages severely. This can have a serious psychological affect on residents. Indeed, the proposed chimney will be the tallest man-made structure in the whole of Bedfordshire, being taller than the nearby Cardington hangars where airships including the R101 have in the past been built. Democratic Deficit I am well aware that the size of the development has been carefully construed to take the decision on this application away from local representatives. What is worse still is that the decision in the first place to site this proposal at Stewartby, but just across the border from the controlling Authority of Bedford Borough Council, means that the representatives of those residents most closely affected by the proposal have a significantly reduced impact on the application. If Buckinghamshire County Council is so keen to develop this method of disposal for their waste then surely it should be sited within the bounds of that Authority? However, many residents in Buckinghamshire have protested against proposals for incineration in their own county. If representatives, at any level of Government, are to be truly accountable then they should do the right thing and develop their proposals in their own area. It is also the case that I have only picked up that Central Beds Council is consulting on this thanks to Facebook! It is symptomatic of the border issue that I have not been formally consulted by Central Beds Council, despite the fact that the proposal will have a dramatically negative effect on the lives of local residents, especially those who live in Stewartby. In concluding I implore those making the decision on this proposal to consider the above and if the impact on local residents does not draw you to a conclusion that this proposal is not right then hopefully an understanding of the negative impact this development will have on driving forward positive environmental strategies for dealing with waste disposal will."

Fred Wilson
"As a resident in Bedfordshire I must state I am not against the provision of an incinerator or energy conversion of local waste within Central Bedfordshire. We do need to manage our waste. However, I am opposed to the provision of facilities which will take waste from other counties over a much wider area, the traffic congestion it will create on our County roads and the higher possibility of pollution of the atmosphere downwind of such a plant, even as far from the plant as the area I live in. Over a period of time, human nature being as it is, there is a probability that the numerous lorries that are expected to be required will be diverted by their drivers throughout the County roads using, for example, the A600 and A507. This will cause further deterioration of roads which are already in need of attention and will be a constant source of noise to residents in local Bedfordshire towns and villages. I am also supportive of the local residents in Marston Moreteyne who have major concerns about their way of life and the way it will affect them in so many ways. I would request those making decisions about this to put aside any commercial views and consider how they would view this very significant proposed development if it was to directly affect their life."

Sharon Mackenzie
"As a Angling/Power Boat Racing/Sailing/Water Skiing[1] member of Stewartby Water Sports Club (SWSC), I object on the following grounds: During normal operations 530 daily vehicle movements (One vehicle every 52 seconds). During maximum throughput 768 vehicle movements (One vehicle every 33 seconds). The majority of these will be noisy HGV trips that will make peaceful use of our leisure areas impossible. This includes: * The SWSC Club House is within 100m of the proposed access route to the RRF affecting our peaceful enjoyment of the patio area, club and grounds. * The club event camping area is with 50m of the proposed access route * The clubs Water Ski Launch and Recreational Area is within 30m of Green Lane and will be severely affected by the increased noise from HGV Traffic Angling pitches and our sailing area (which is closest to the RRF - approx 850m) will have the peaceful enjoyment ruined by a view of the RRF Sailing one of the key sports at SWSC and is totally dependent on wind strength, direction and stability. The building will be over 40m high and the operational area some 500m or more wide, this will have disruptive effects of the winds strength, stability and direction. We do not believe that Covanta have demonstrated that the RRF (in non-technical terms) will not have an effect on the water quality of Stewartby Lake. Air Emissions - There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I am concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Stewartby Lake there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Marston Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. Stewartby Water Sports Club, Marston Vale Millennium Country Park and surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. An oversize Energy from Waste plant is will fundamentally affect the rural landscape and its regeneration. The RRF site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation are all likely to impact SWSC. Of particular concern are the effects of dust and air pollution on boat finishes and covers. There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. This is of particular concern for the SWSC Event Camping Area The RRF can process many times the size needed for Bedfordshire waste, I object to the out of Bedfordshire importing of waste and the resulting environmental impacts Of particular concern is the affect on the amenity value of Stewartby Lake as a Water Sports Venue and is negative impact on membership numbers and volunteering. Taken to it ultimate conclusion this could affect the viability Stewartby Water Sports Club."

Tony Richardson
"As a Water Skiing member of Stewartby Water Sports Club (SWSC), I object on the following grounds: During normal operations 530 daily vehicle movements (One vehicle every 52 seconds). During maximum throughput 768 vehicle movements (One vehicle every 33 seconds). The majority of these will be noisy HGV trips that will make peaceful use of our leisure areas impossible. This includes: * The SWSC Club House is within 100m of the proposed access route to the RRF affecting our peaceful enjoyment of the patio area, club and grounds. * The club event camping area is with 50m of the proposed access route * The clubs Water Ski Launch and Recreational Area is within 30m of Green Lane and will be severely affected by the increased noise from HGV Traffic Angling pitches and our sailing area (which is closest to the RRF - approx 850m) will have the peaceful enjoyment ruined by a view of the RRF Sailing one of the key sports at SWSC and is totally dependent on wind strength, direction and stability. The building will be over 40m high and the operational area some 500m or more wide, this will have disruptive effects of the winds strength, stability and direction. We do not believe that Covanta have demonstrated that the RRF (in non-technical terms) will not have an effect on the water quality of Stewartby Lake. Air Emissions - There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I am concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Stewartby Lake there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Marston Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. Stewartby Water Sports Club, Marston Vale Millennium Country Park and surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. An oversize Energy from Waste plant is will fundamentally affect the rural landscape and its regeneration. The RRF site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation are all likely to impact SWSC. Of particular concern are the effects of dust and air pollution on boat finishes and covers. There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. This is of particular concern for the SWSC Event Camping Area The RRF can process many times the size needed for Bedfordshire waste, I object to the out of Bedfordshire importing of waste and the resulting environmental impacts Of particular concern is the affect on the amenity value of Stewartby Lake as a Water Sports Venue and is negative impact on membership numbers and volunteering. Taken to it ultimate conclusion this could affect the viability Stewartby Water Sports Club. Tony Richardson"

Alastair Ackroyd
"The incinerator chimney is 180m tall and will dominate the scenery less than 800m from the stewartby water sports club. The vehicles going back and forth from the Waste Power Station will make lots of noise making it unpleasant for members of the water sports club. The club therefore may lose members. Also people visiting for leisure walks will be less inclined to when you have a huge Power Station breathing down your neck."

louisa
"do not agree with this at all total blot onthe landscape a polutant that could harm generations to come not able to 100% commit to the fact that poisionous chemical swill not be released into the atmosphere, contaminate land, food & people now & in generations to come!!!! Just look at what the company is now going to court over in america Do not need it. Will kill in the future will not be able to grow our own veg etc it will kill !!!!"

John Beckerleg
"I am concerned about the potential to have three large incinerators, affecting the health and well being of people, a short distance apart (Bicester, Calvert and this application). I am worried about the impact on the environment, health and transport in the area. I do not believe that this applicaiton reflects best practice in terms od waste disposal."

Andrew warwick
"I am a member of the water skiing section of Stewartby Water Sports Club and would like to object on the following grounds. The clubs water ski launching and recreational area is within 30metres of Green Lane and the noise from increased HGV traffic would severely impair the enjoyment of my chosen sport and its accompanying social aspect."

Pete Bullock
"As we have now closed the Stewartby brick works and have the opportunity for the water and wildlife project at one of the lakes, which will much needed investment in the area , why spoil it and drive people away with a waste incinerator? For the first time in many years there is an opportunity to upgrade the area to a tourist attraction, which would bring prosperity and jobs - an incinerator will kill this prospect dead in the water. Mindless rural vandalism, in my opinion."

Mr & Mrs J Wilson
"Health implications from chimney emissions. Transportation of fly ash from the plant and importation of waste from other areas will lead to an estimated 900 trucks PER DAY on local roads. Light pollution due to plant being lit 24/7. Given the above, I would ask Mr Malcolm Chilton if he would move into a beautiful country home within 5 miles of the site. If he would, putting his money where his mouth is, would he please contact me with regard to purchasing Laurel Cottage."

Steve Hill
"As a Sailing member of Stewartby Water Sports Club (SWSC), I object on the following grounds: During normal operations 530 daily vehicle movements (One vehicle every 52 seconds). During maximum throughput 768 vehicle movements (One vehicle every 33 seconds). The majority of these will be noisy HGV trips that will make peaceful use of our leisure areas impossible. This includes: * The SWSC Club House is within 100m of the proposed access route to the RRF affecting our peaceful enjoyment of the patio area, club and grounds. * The clubs camping area is within 50m of the proposed access route which would make it un-useable * The clubs Water Ski Launch and Recreational Area is within 30m of Green Lane and will be severely affected by the increased noise, dirt and smell from HGV Traffic Angling pitches and our sailing area (which is closest to the RRF - approx 850m) will have the peaceful enjoyment ruined by the RRF Sailing one of the key sports at SWSC and is totally dependent on wind strength, direction and stability. The building will be over 40m high and the operational area some 500m or more wide, this will have disruptive effects of the winds strength, stability and direction. We do not believe that Covanta have demonstrated that the RRF (in non-technical terms) will not have an effect on the water quality of Stewartby Lake. Air Emissions - There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I am concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Stewartby Lake there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Marston Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. Stewartby Water Sports Club, Marston Vale Millennium Country Park and surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. An oversize Energy from Waste plant will fundamentally affect the rural landscape and its regeneration. The RRF site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. Dust, Noise, Smell, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation are all likely to impact SWSC. Of particular concern are the effects of dust and air pollution on boat finishes and covers. There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. This is of particular concern for the SWSC Event Camping Area The RRF can process many times the size needed for Bedfordshire waste, I object to the out of Bedfordshire importing of waste and the resulting environmental impacts Of particular concern is the affect on the amenity value of Stewartby Lake as a Water Sports Venue and it's negative impact on membership numbers and volunteering. Taken to it ultimate conclusion this will affect the viability of Stewartby Water Sports Club."

Harry Moore
"According to the developers, Covanta, the incinerator will burn 585,000 tonnes of waste per year 24 hours a day 7 days a week. This waste to be supplied by 400 HGV trucks per day on A421. The plant will be the size of Wembley stadium with a chimney stack twice the height of Big Ben. The huge site will be illuminated 24 hours per day. This will not only blight the local residents but also be detrimental to tourism in the area. Covanta have breached emission regulations consistently at a number of their USA plants. Most recent lawsuit brought in August 2010 for second breach at Connecticut plant in three years. Permission should not be granted unless the IPC satisfied that any breach of emissions regulations is impossible, because 100,000 people live within 5 miles of plant. Gases travel much further than this. Once started the incinerator requires a constant supply of fuel. Some of which may have to be sourced from far and wide and brought by road."

Rhiannon Stone
"Increased C02 emissions created by the burning of waste and the huge number of trucks going to and from the proposed facilty. The effect on the health of the residents of Bedfordshire due to burning waste. It is too close to Stewartby local housing, Marston local housing and adversely affecting housing prices and the Marston Forest Centre. The prominence of the proposed building and stack would be a blight on the landscape. The redevelopment of the site for the purpose of a waste incinerator is unlawfuL. As part of the local plan for this area, the disused pits and area that the brickworks covered are for rural regeneration. The community does not want waste to be imported in to the area. There is no need for such a large waste management facility when there are others being proposed by the local councils. The rural landscape will be ruined, including the views from the historic Ampthil Park and Houghton House. Concerns about the temperature inversions - how emissions from the stack may impact the local area. HGVs going in and out of the site - the roads do not have the capacity for this increased usage."

Mr J Casey
"As a Water Skiing member of Stewartby Water Sports Club (SWSC), I object on the following grounds: During normal operations 530 daily vehicle movements (One vehicle every 52 seconds). During maximum throughput 768 vehicle movements (One vehicle every 33 seconds). The majority of these will be noisy HGV trips that will make peaceful use of our leisure areas impossible. This includes: * The SWSC Club House is within 100m of the proposed access route to the RRF affecting our peaceful enjoyment of the patio area, club and grounds. * The club event camping area is with 50m of the proposed access route * The clubs Water Ski Launch and Recreational Area is within 30m of Green Lane and will be severely affected by the increased noise from HGV Traffic Angling pitches and our sailing area (which is closest to the RRF - approx 850m) will have the peaceful enjoyment ruined by a view of the RRF Sailing one of the key sports at SWSC and is totally dependent on wind strength, direction and stability. The building will be over 40m high and the operational area some 500m or more wide, this will have disruptive effects of the winds strength, stability and direction. We do not believe that Covanta have demonstrated that the RRF (in non-technical terms) will not have an effect on the water quality of Stewartby Lake. Air Emissions - There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I am concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Stewartby Lake there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Marston Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. Stewartby Water Sports Club, Marston Vale Millennium Country Park and surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. An oversize Energy from Waste plant is will fundamentally affect the rural landscape and its regeneration. The RRF site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation are all likely to impact SWSC. Of particular concern are the effects of dust and air pollution on boat finishes and covers. There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. This is of particular concern for the SWSC Event Camping Area The RRF can process many times the size needed for Bedfordshire waste, I object to the out of Bedfordshire importing of waste and the resulting environmental impacts Of particular concern is the affect on the amenity value of Stewartby Lake as a Water Sports Venue and is negative impact on membership numbers and volunteering. Taken to it ultimate conclusion this could affect the viability Stewartby Water Sports Club. This would ruin or tottaly stop my leisure activity."

Philip Pearson on behalf of RSPB
"New development has the potential to reverse the declines of urban bird species such as swift, house sparrow and starling. A range of nest boxes are available that can be included in the construction of new buildings. This has not been detailed for the RRF. Good design principles to incorporate biodiversity into new development are contained within the Town and Country Planners Association’s Ecotowns Biodiversity Worksheet. The UK Green Building Council’s (UK GBC) biodiversity guidance (p. 15) regards the provision of roosting and nesting opportunities as an important component of the built environment. Appendix 6 of the UK GBC guidance (p. 37) also gives an indication of the number of roosting/nesting opportunities that should be provided in new buildings. Table 1 was devised for the Rackheath Ecotown development in Norfolk, which also includes recommendations for bats, is based on the UK GBG guidance but has been tailored for the Rackheath area: Crevice dwelling bats 1 box in 20 structures Bats requiring flight space Access provided in five public buildings (non-residential) Swifts 5-10 swift bricks per dwelling House martins 2-3 artificial nests on 1 in 50 buildings House sparrows 2-3 boxes/bricks on 1 in 40 buildings Starlings 1 box in 100 buildings The development should also incorporate areas of nectar-rich plants to maintain healthy insect populations and plants that will provide seed during the winter. By providing such areas it will ensure there is a sufficient year-round food resource for birds that colonise the development."

helen sharratt
"I'm strongly against Covanta for reasons including: Air Emissions - There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I'm concerned about reports that Covanta have been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. There is serious concern that there will be a cumulative impace over the 30 year life cycle of the plant either within the Marston Vale and or Bedford/Kempston. I suffer from asthma and I've been told that this is sometimes due to pollution. I'm concerned about my health and the health of my children. Dust - there will be a permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. Landscape and Visual impact - the building will dominate the skyline Traffic and Transport Impacts - I'm concerned about significant vehicle movements to and from the site - arriving and departing between 5 a m and 11pm dyas a week and 7 days a week on bank holiday weekends which will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community.. The volume of lorry and associated traffice for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road. So far there has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed project for Bedfordshire on communities beyond the Marston Vale but within Beds. In conclusion, it is my view that the visual impact, predicted traffic levels with associated noise and dust pollution, the fact that incineration discourages recycling and significantly contributes to atmospheric C02 renders this proposal the wrong solution in dealing with waste and in the wrong location."

Mrs R Persaud
"Wind direction within the Marston Vale area would send the vapours from the facility over Cranfield and the surrounding villages. Having experienced the effect of smells from the Brogborough Tip for many years this is unacceptable. The facility is not in keeping with the environmental nature of the Marston Vale area. This contains areas of outstanding natural beauty and ancient woodland and should not be submitted to such a development. Despite the improvements to the A421, local road infrastructure is not adequate for such a facility. The increased volume of traffic and the noise and dirt created by the vehicles will seriously impact on the quality of life for residents in surrounding villages. Local residents ahve had to cope with the effects of Brogbborough Tip for many years and should not be subjected to having to handle waste on suhc a large scale from surrounding counties."

David Fothergill
"I sail at Stewartyby Water Sports Club and I object for the following reasons: The clubhouse and surrounding grounds are very close to the proposed development, and it will completly ruin the current peacful atmosphere. The constant stream of trucks (530 a day?) will create unacceptable levels of noise and pollution. We rely on the relatively open nature of the surrounding countryside to allow reasonably "clean" wind for sailing, and putting up a 500m wide by 40m high building on the proposed site is highly likely to destroy the wind stability - it wil generate vorticies and, as a result, severe and frequent changes in wind direction and strength. From past experience with the smoke from the old (now disused) chimnies on the site, we know that any dust and pollution will blow over, and land on, the lake and the club house area. I understand that the temperature inversion effect traps the airborne pollution and is likely to result in it beiong dropped locally, all over the Marston Vale nature reserve etc, rather than being dispersed. Apart from being very unpleasant, the dust and pollution is likely to be detrimental to the fabric of the club building and to the boats stored on the site. Aside from the above, I particularly object to the importation of waste from other counties, and the resulting super concentration of pollution emanating from without our county boundaries. In short, I think that the impact on the sailing club could be so far reaching that, with flukey winds, chemically damaged boats and covers, not to mention the reaction of any members who suffer from Asthma, the club could cease to be viable. This would remove one of the jewels in the crown of Bedfordshire's collective outdoor leisure facilities."

Mrs J Elson
"When I looked in detail at Covanta's assumptions behind the initial Environmental Impact Assessment, not being an expert, it all looked too simplistic to me. It is the effect this Energy from Waste Development will have on Local Environmental Quality, which most concerns the community. To work out the impact of additional pollutants from incineration, Covanta seem to have assumed certain existing ‘baseline values’ for soil and air pollution in Stewartby for each noxious substance. Hardly surprising therefore that, when the Covanta’s consultants added the projected future extra emissions from the facility to these low baseline assumptions, the resultant total predicted emissions conveniently stayed within EU limits. For an area already blighted with highly contaminated soil, water, air etc, like Stewartby, the advisors had taken existing baseline numbers for some key pollutants to be the ‘national average’ or similar (like for the green fields of the Cotswolds), arguing that actual local readings’ were not available. This is not good enough. This in my view supports the adage ‘lies, damn lies and statistics.’ What is being done to verify the true nature of the impact of this facility on the health of local residents and to assess the real impact the additional contamination will cause? Independent expert assessment needs to be made by surveying the true extent of existing local health problems, perhaps by seeking info from the local Primary Care Trust about asthma, birth defects etc. These problems have arisen from the immediate area’s unfortunate historic prolonged noxious contamination from the Brick Works and from Landfill sites. Actual reading of exiting pollutants should be taken, without resorting to 'assumptions'. Independent medical opinion should then be sought to assess, given the community’s existing health impairment, how much additional contamination the local people and the environment can reasonably be expected to sustain? If the answer is that the area has already suffered disproportionately, then alternative locations should be considered for the Facility. How can environmental information be taken as 'gospel' when it is provided, within an application, by non-independent specialists, paid for and employed by the applicant ? Similarly any Health Impact Assessment (arising from the projections of these noxious emission statistics) needs to look at the true additional impact on the already impaired health of residents in the area. Who will be making sure this is done properly, without the statistics being massaged to suit the required outcome? Residents here all seem to have a greater than average incidence of respiratory problems, including asthma etc, arising from historic sulphur dioxide contamination (from the brickworks). I myself never suffered from asthma till I moved here and know neighbours similarly affected. Who within the IPC will provide assurance that they really understand the true scientific, environmental and medical implications of all this and will ensure the costs of the development, in terms of health, pollution and environmental quality, are weighed properly against other political and commercial interests? Covanta have done a great job presenting a professional argument supported by volumes of papers, but this information cannot be accepted at face value and the community objectors don’t have the expertise nor resources to analyse this properly. Who will vet and critique this application on behalf of the local residents to ensure their interests are protected in the face of commercial and political expediency?"

jonathan sharratt
"I do not want Covanta anywhere near the area in which I reside due to the following points which greatly concern me: Air Emissions - There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I'm concerned about reports that Covanta have been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. There is serious concern that there will be a cumulative impace over the 30 year life cycle of the plant either within the Marston Vale and or Bedford/Kempston. I'm concerned the effect dust from Covanta will have on my health and the health of my children. Dust - there will be a permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. Landscape and Visual impact - the building will dominate the skyline Traffic and Transport Impacts - I'm concerned about significant vehicle movements to and from the site - arriving and departing between 5 a m and 11pm dyas a week and 7 days a week on bank holiday weekends which will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community.. The volume of lorry and associated traffice for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road. So far there has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed project for Bedfordshire on communities beyond the Marston Vale but within Beds. In conclusion, it is my view that the visual impact, predicted traffic levels with associated noise and dust pollution, the fact that incineration discourages recycling and significantly contributes to atmospheric C02 renders this proposal the wrong solution in dealing with waste and in the wrong location. Jonathan Sharratt"

elaine turland
"I do not want Covanta anywhere near the area in which I reside due to the following points which greatly concern me: Air Emissions - There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I'm concerned about reports that Covanta have been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. There is serious concern that there will be a cumulative impace over the 30 year life cycle of the plant either within the Marston Vale and or Bedford/Kempston. I'm concerned the effect dust from Covanta will have on my health and the health of my children. Dust - there will be a permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. Landscape and Visual impact - the building will dominate the skyline Traffic and Transport Impacts - I'm concerned about significant vehicle movements to and from the site - arriving and departing between 5 a m and 11pm dyas a week and 7 days a week on bank holiday weekends which will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community.. The volume of lorry and associated traffice for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road. So far there has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed project for Bedfordshire on communities beyond the Marston Vale but within Beds. In conclusion, it is my view that the visual impact, predicted traffic levels with associated noise and dust pollution, the fact that incineration discourages recycling and significantly contributes to atmospheric C02 renders this proposal the wrong solution in dealing with waste and in the wrong location.  "

Graham Glover
"I do not want the remains of Bedfordshire countryside to be turned into a garbage disposal unit for other parts of the country. The proposed plans will turn country villages into routes for the rubbish being transported to the site, we have had to put up with the landfill sites for many years and now just as they are being capped off, this is being thrown at the area. The proposed tower is not a view I want from my back garden"

David Dixon
"This part of Bedfordshire has endured the consequences of industrialisation for too long, firstly with the consequences of discharge from brickmaking chimneys and secondly, from the effects of the landfill operations of Shanks & McEwan. It is grossly unfair to inflict another large scale waste operation on this community. The view from Ampthill Park across the Marston Vale is one of the best in Bedfordshire and made immeasurably better by the closure of the brickworks. The Covanta site will provide a permanent blot and detract massively from the fast developing Forest of Marston Vale. This is an exciting development that is removing the scar of brickmaking from the local landscape. It should not be compromised by the disfigurement of the Covanta site."

Paul Sealey
"I object to the proposal to allow the construction of the Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station. The planned incinerator is completely out of step with what is required for the management of local needs. It will necessitate the additional shipment of significant rubbish, by road into the region, negating the green by-product of converting the waste. The resultant waste products of incineration are highly toxic further negating any "green" benefit. Coventa appears to have been subject to sanction in the US for particulate emmisions from its incinerators questioning their ability to operate a safe site for local residents. Further more, the construction of this completely disproportionate sized unit will destroy the visual environment in the Martson Vale, and views from Ampthill Park and throughout Mid Beds. Mid Beds tourism and industry could be disproportionately affected as a result of the construction with visitors to the proposed Centre Parcs, Woburn House, Ampthill Park, Marston Vale and the potential Nirah ecological site all being discouraged given the impact on sight, sound, traffic and emmisions created by the the construction. Place the incinerator close to a waste source that can feed it with minimal transportation. and no rural or economic impact. Alternatives to waste management exist - this scheme is abhorent in the extreme and should be given no further consideration."

Andrea Sealey
"I object to the proposal to allow the construction of the Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station. The planned incinerator is completely out of step with what is required for the management of local needs. It will necessitate the additional shipment of significant rubbish, by road into the region, negating the green by-product of converting the waste. The resultant waste products of incineration are highly toxic further negating any "green" benefit. Coventa appears to have been subject to sanction in the US for particulate emmisions from its incinerators questioning their ability to operate a safe site for local residents. Further more, the construction of this completely disproportionate sized unit will destroy the visual environment in the Martson Vale, and views from Ampthill Park and throughout Mid Beds. Mid Beds tourism and industry could be disproportionately affected as a result of the construction with visitors to the proposed Centre Parcs, Woburn House, Ampthill Park, Marston Vale and the potential Nirah ecological site all being discouraged given the impact on sight, sound, traffic and emmisions created by the the construction. Place the incinerator close to a waste source that can feed it with minimal transportation. and no rural or economic impact. Alternatives to waste management exist - this scheme is abhorent in the extreme and should be given no further consideration."

Adrian Hudson
"I would like to lodge my objection to the building of the Covanta plant at Stewartby Rookery south. This would be an unsightly blemish in an otherwise beautiful spot and therefore highly detrimental to the tourist industry on which many jobs present and future depend. I also have a concern about the possible effects on health that the emissions will cause, especially as Covanta has a history of releasing toxic emissions far in excess of those permitted on multiple occasions and which have been substantiated in court. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/08/18/business/doc4c6c466c1faf5390658122.txt The 530 vehicle movements from 5am to 11pm 6 days a week 67% of which will be heavy goods vehicles will cause substantial noise pollution, light pollution and add additional congestion to the surrounding infrastructure http://www.covantarookerysouth.co.uk/2ic-transport-operation.shtml Covanta’s calculations for average energy usage per household are incorrect by a significant proportion which at best is a mistake. The fact that such a fundamental and simple calculation is incorrect must call into question Covanta’s other figures and therefore the entire project, calculations and measurements need to be reassessed. There will be a permanent detrimental change to the landscape during the day and light pollution during the night with no substantially benefit to the community. Multiple other issues that will have an adverse affect on the landscape, quality of life, potential for tourism, ecology and the local economy are: • Loss of rural landscape • Extremely large building causing detrimental change to the landscape during the day. • Complete loss of night sky in surrounding rural area. • Loss of quiet area in the Marston Vale with site running 24 hours a day 7 days a week • Reduction of local house prices due to proximity to incinerator • Uncertainty of how the waste from the incinerator will be dealt with"

Audrey Hudson
"I would like to lodge my objection to the building of the Covanta plant at Rookery South. My issues with the plans to build the incinerator are as follows: • Recycling in my home has increased greatly in the past couple of years where would be the incentive to continue this recycling when everything can just get burnt. • Size of plant will cause an unsightly blemish on the landscape reducing tourism on which many jobs present and future depend. • The long term health effects that the emissions will cause have not been made clear enough, this is more worrying as Covanta has a poor history of keeping emissions to correct levels in the USA. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/08/18/business/doc4c6c466c1faf5390658122.txt • Noise, CO2 and light pollution and further traffic congestion from the 530 vehicle movements from 5am to 11pm 6 days a week 67% of which will be heavy goods vehicles. http://www.covantarookerysouth.co.uk/2ic-transport-operation.shtml • Impact of wildlife, we have recently bought a home close to the proposed site which gets a lot of bird and animal visitors, with the added noise and light pollution I am concerned that we may lose these visitors. • Loss of rural landscape • Complete loss of night sky in surrounding rural area. • Loss of quiet area in the Marston Vale with site running 24 hours a day 7 days a week • Reduction of local house prices due to proximity to incinerator • Uncertainty of how the waste from the incinerator will be dealt with • Uncertainty of accuracy of all Covanta’s calculations. This uncertainty is due to their figure for average energy usage per household is incorrect by a significant proportion which at best is a mistake."

Craig Mace
"I am firmly against the building of this centre. The proximity of the Waste Generating Station to local villages, including a number of schools, is deeply concerning. The potential for toxic leaks and atmospheric pollution to the local community serves as a huge worry to all local residents. The location also so close to Marston Vale school, and the potential helath issues this can generate with children, should act as a barrier to the completion of this project. The long term health issues have not been fully investigated and the running of the Waste Generating Station has the potenital to impact the health of the local children greatly. Unless concrete scientific evidence can be provided that there is a 0 chance of a health impact and that there is a 0 possibility of potential leaks then I fail to understand how it is possible to move forward with the project."

james mcconnell
"I am totally opposed to planning application because I am not convinced by safety of this structure to myself and to my grandchildren. after 100 years of brick making it is nice to have some fresh air to breathe,so thanks but absolutely NO NO NO if there is any problem not understanding my views Irepeat NO NO AND NO.. James Mcconnell."

E.C.Carter
"I have lived in the shadow of noxious fumes from this sitefor 55 years and at last we are free, or have been for the past 2/3 years. Now the awful spectre has arisen again and we are threatened with more stinking effluents. I cannot believe this is even being considered as further blight on our lives and countryside. This must not be allowed in any circumstances. ECCarter"

Therese Thomson
"Size and scale is completely out of proportion to the local villages and environment: chimney will be twice as high as Big Ben! Long term health implications from toxins and emissions to local community - Covanta have bad history on safe emission levels - please see Bedfordshire on Sunday 26/09/2010 Hazardous waste 'Fly Ash' to be transported through our villages. Dangerous. Severe environmental detriment: size in ratio to surrounding villages, light pollution, threats to gorgeous Millennium Country Park and wildlife unacceptable This plant will be processing other regional authorities, not just Bedfordshire, much more waste imported and subsequent effects outlined above will increase dramatically No checks on trucks when they arrive at the plant, leading to potential hazardous waste being imported and burnt 900 trucks + a day on our local country roads and A421. It is not sustainable CenterParcs about to build huge site locally: we cannot take the traffic of CenterParc visitors AND Covanta trucks CenterParcs & The Millennium Forest Centre provide much needed local employment and needs to attract tourists. This will be a major eyesore and put people off travelling to Mid-Bedfordshire. Leading to a drop in tourist revenue and therefore employment for local businesses. The SHEER SIZE & SCALE OF COVANTA'S PROPOSAL IS JUST LUDICROUS. Please reject it."

mathew stringer
"I live very near to where the site is being constructed, this will effect living conditions in terms of noise, smells, views and general health. No doubt the effect on my property value and others will be substantial and my investment greatly decreased. Not to mention the impact on the surrounding countryside and the local wildlife. Hence I am very much against these plans for the sake of the surrounding area."

Lynne Stapleton on behalf of Woburn Sands Town Council
"Concern with the threat of extra vehicles accessing site with waste using route through Woburn Sands"

Alan Paterson
"The proposal for an Incinerator at Rookery South is inappropriate in many respects: 1. It will cause pollution (landfill in the sky) to a local area that has already suffered significant pollution (from the brickworks) which was over the statutory emission limits for many years. The health risk and effects of this new and CUMMULATIVE pollution on local residents is not being adequately considered. 2. The height of the top of the proposed incinerator chimney for the plant (which is placed in a pit near the escarpment) is below the height of Ampthill (less than 1 mile away) and under adverse weather conditions will directly affect the town with significant dangerous pollution (temperature inversion effect). This pollution effect previously occurred with the brickworks. 3. The scale of the plant is too large and totally inappropriate thus encouraging more incineration rather a policy of recycling. It will generate massive unnecessary and environmentally harmful lorry movements to pull in more waste from a very wide area. 4. Placing an incinerator so close to Center Parcs will stop tourists visiting the area and harm the local economy. The intended NIRAH project will also be harmed. 5. Ampthill / Flitwick and especially Marston Vale have been identified as housing development areas. Is it sensible to put an incinerator in the middle of a housing development area? I suggest not. 6. House prices will fall in an area surrounding the incinerator. A 10% fall in the prices of 50,000 local houses at an average of £200,000 will cost the local community £1bn. Is Covanta or the goverment going to provide compensation? 7. The visual impact and pollution (noise and air) will destroy the amenity value of Ampthill Park. The park is a major amenity for Ampthill having existed for over 400 years. 8. Covanta have a history of causing pollution. It is unlikely the plant will be shut down if it does cause pollution as the economic impact will be so great so it is wise not to risk so large a plant. 9. I understand the land for the incinerator was under a "no waste business" covenant. Why is there an overpowering need to break this covenant? I trust ALL those making the decision in the IPC will visit Ampthill and Ampthill Park to enable them to assess the likely impact on this community. The Covanta consultation exercise was not an independent assessment. Thank you in advance for considering these points."

Yasmine Cargill
"I am totally against the setting up of this waste disposal site. It will be too big, the amount of heavy traffic will increase exponentially, it will give toxic fumes and unpleasant smells [despite what is claimed to the contrary.] In summer, particularly, the prevailing wind comes from that direction over my property. When the brickworks were at Stewartby, the stench made life intollerable, especially when wanting to use the garden. This will be just the same."

Bernard McConnell
"I WISH TO STRONGLY OPPOSE ANY BUILDING OF WASTE PLANT AT ROOKERY PIT STEWARTBY BEDFORDSHIRE DUE TO THE FACT OUR HEALTH WILL BE AT RISK FOR ANYONE LIVING CLOSE TO THE INTENDED SITE"

David Grummitt
"Stewartby was a principal brick making town which employed a large amount of local workers. Hanson trust who bought the company were the last owners of the site and due to green issues predominant in the country were informed that the sulphur content of their manufacturing process was detrimental to the area. The company proposed a tall chimney with sulphur filters to overcome this problem. The county council refused the application and the company premises was closed with the loss of most of the workforce employment, the site is now something of an eyesore from its heyday. The proposal put forward for this waste project will sport an even larger chimney than that refused by the council some years previous. The lorry movements on Green Lane will be substantial and cause more pollution to our environment. The road in my opinion will not cope with this mass of lorry movements and even if up rated will cause major road problems for the future. The site is set in the Marston Vale forest area which has re vitalised tourism on old disused clay pits which have given a habitat to large numbers of birds. What is proposed will tower way above the whole forest area and deter visitors and wildlife to this unique site.The sailing lake will also be affected by the noise and pollution of the extra traffic in addition to the site noise and traffic. The whole project has not been thought through taking into account the above mentioned viewpoints, I am totally opposed to this development."

M Bennett
"The size of the plant and the area from which the company will draw waste is too large. 600,000 tonnes of waste every year is unacceptable in a small area like Stewartby. Central Bedfordshire has done its 'fair share' in the management of waste with rubbish from London and other areas being dumped in landfill here for decades. Stewartby and its surrounding area was blighted by the emissions from the brick works for many years, just as clean air comes to Central Bedfordshire we are once again being asked to suffer this dirty plant. The traffic generated by this plant will be unacceptable, fumes from lorries and traffic movements from early morning until late at night is just not on. This company has a poor record of compliance in the US. This is not a green solution to waste management. NO NO NO to Covanta and its plant."

Richard Carter
"I am deeply concerned about the environmental impacts and public health risks associated with the proposed development."

Jonathan Brooks
"Emissions from this proposed facility are a serious concern. In the area there is often temperature inversion and so it is an inappropriate site for Waste Incineration. The effect of air emissions on people using the lake and the Park will therefore be multiplied compared with more suitable sites and could have a serious long term health impact. No Incineration Plant should be built until proof is available from an independent and trustworthy source that any emissions will not be harmful. Afterall smoking is now banned where people congregate so why should this smoke be allowed? This argument also applies to the plentiful birdlife that exists at the lake too. Covanta have been served legal improvement notices on their plants in the United States proving that they should not be trusted to manage such a facility with the potential for harm to people and the environment without a full investigation of the circumstances. This plant is too big for the area it should be serving, the noise, traffic and air pollution should be evenly spread across the countryside and each plant should only serve one County. The volume of lorries alone will make Stewartby Lake very unpleasant to access or visit."

Lindsay Kemp
"I have concerns concering: * Air pollution * Ash nuisance * Light pollution from site * Increased heavy lorry traffic * Despoilaton from leaks and spillages of hazardous waste in transit * Despoilation of countryside"

Louise Clark
"Whilst the principles behind this development may be advertised as environmentally sound, it must be appreciated that the applicants primary interest will always be commercial, there is no other sensible reason for investment! The history of Covanta, in terms of its previous violation of environmental emission standards does not reassure local communities that this development will not have a disastrous local impact. There is huge potential for air pollution including carcinogenic emissions and there remains little evidence that Covanta has taken active steps to prevent the possibilty of such emissions, in fact their previous history shows quite the reverse. In addition, the massive capacity of the plant will necessitate the "importation" of waste from outwith the locality, bringing with it increased traffic and noise pollution to an area that already struggles with road infrastructure. I remain concerned that a multinational is emphasising the environmental benefits of its plans, when ultimately, the winners will be its shareholders, and the losers, the local cumminities surrounding this site."

David Harrison
"Over the past 20 years or so Stewartby Lake and its surroundings have been steadily transformed from an unattractive industrial site into an environment where wildlife can flourish and which provides an attractive amenity for local residents. The building of the Forest Centre, the creation of bird reserves, the assisted natural development of the trees and woodlands and the building of cycle and walking tracks have all contributed to this. I am astounded to see that it is now proposed to turn the area back into an unattractive industrial site with the creation of the giant Covanta incinerator in Rookery Pit. The sheer size and scale of the project mean that the local landscape will be significantly changed for the worse. There will undoubtedly be harmful and unpleasant emissions from the plant which are likely to accumulate over time, there will be a large volume of heavy goods traffic in and out of the plant over much of the day and night which is certain to cause great inconvenience and disturbance to local residents and visitors to the area alike and it appears that the local infrastructure will be entirely unable to support this large volume of goods traffic. Stewartby lake is used regularly for competitive and recreational sailing and is one of the best stretches of water in the area for the purpose and currently enjoys relatively uninterrupted and steady winds. Some of the local schools use the sail training facility located at the Sailing Club which is supported by the Royal Yachting Association. The size of the Covanta installation means that this situation would not continue. Parents will be reluctant to allow their children to take part in recreational activities close to what is likely to be a major source of pollution and winds will be badly affected. Please think again before taking this seriously retrograde step and do not site the installation close to an area where the environment has been significantly improved in recent years."

Ian Rambart
"Have all the alternatives been investigated in full by Central Bedfordshire council. We do not want to turn Bedfordshire into a dumping ground for everyone else’s use. Is burning rubbish really the safest option. I’m sure when mobile phone masts / Nuclear power stations were built they said the same things, where as now there is plenty of debate whether they are or are not safe. This plant would be an unsightly blot on the landscape in the Marston Vale area and would be seen from miles afar, surely the whole point of the area is to keep its natural beauty, something that would not be the case with an Incinerator blotting the landscape. I know it’s been said that they will only be burning rubbish from the immediate area, but as Covanta is a business, it’s prime aim will always to be to make money for its shareholders, they are not doing this out of the goodness of their heart. What provisions have been put in place to stop Covanta from taking waste from all over the country in the years to come, or by incinerating more waste than originally published."

John Mitcalf
"The propaganda surrounding the application from Covanta for the Rookery South incinerator project claims that it will bring with it numerous environmental benefits. This from a company which has a history of excessive emissions of carcinogens from other of its sites and has been sued on several occasions for being in breech of the relevant regulations. There can be no doubt that the primary motivation behind this project for a US multi-national is profit and even with the best of intentions the potential for serious environmental damage and health issues to the surrounding population is significant. The commercial motivation will invariably lead to the importation of waste products from outside the region adding significant traffic to already congested roads. Where profits and share-holder return dominate the operating philosophy, the potential for serious flouting of emissions safeguards surely must outweigh any benefits from a small number of jobs created. This project, if it were to go ahead would have a disastrous effect on the quality of life and potentially health for thousands in the surrounding communities. Can there be any justification for this ?"

J A C Edwards
"Key issues that do not seem to have been addressed to the satisfaction of the local community: 1. Location in relation to the expected sources of bulk waste; toofar away over inadequate roads. 2. Highway considerations not only on the realigned A421 but on the road network as a whole. 3. The apparent failure to consider rail transport for waste delivery. 4. The massing and bulk of the plant in relation to the landscape, given the other landscape pressures in the area and the effect on the adjacent communities. 5. Concerns about atmospheric pollution, dioxins and particulates over a very large well-populated area downwind in prevailing wind periods and including rising ground around Bedford making the likely chimney height an unacceptable visual feature. 6. Residue disposal following incineration. 7. The commercial involvement of a US company with a less than satisfactory performance record in the eastern United States."

Mrs. B Heley
"I am fully against the development of the site for the purposes as stated by Covanta. I do believe that full and frank consultations have not been entered into by this company and the community who will be greatly effected by this development with all its ancilary buildings. The roads and infrastructure will not sustain such a massive undertaking within this county."

Brigid Heley on behalf of Clive Marsh
"The toxcins which may well be emitted from this process can onlyn be detramental to the health and wellbeing of all life within a considerable radius of the plant. Human and aminal defects have been registered in the vacinities of other like plants and this is not acceptable in this populated county. The plants grown in this county may carry these toxins not only to the locals but others who buy the produce from this county. This project is not acceptable here in Bedfordshire."

Peter Gardner
"Promoters claim that incineration produces energy and fights global warming. This is utter nonsense. Three - four times more energy is saved by recycling the same materials as burned. For every four tons of trash burned you get at least one ton of ash: 90% is called bottom ash (that is the ash collected under the furnace) and 10% is the very toxic fly ash. The more efficient air pollution control devices, the more concentrated the fly ash is in toxic materials like polyhalogenated dibenzo para dioxins and furans (PCDDs, PCDFs, PBDDs, PBDFs etc. Where do you dispose of that ash safely. There are NO regulations in the world for the monitoring nanoparticles from incinerators. These nanoparticles are so tiny that they can cross the lung membrane and enter the bloodstream. Once there they can enter every tissue in the body including the brain."

Kim Thorpe
"We no longer want to be a dumping ground for the pollution of others with the landfill sites and Brickworks. We are currently a county with steadily improving recycling rates: why are we going to let Covanta bring waste from other counties and just burn it without knowing exactly what’s in it? Just because there massive incinerator needs to fed massive amounts of waste and if they don’t know what is in the waste, how do they know what the effects of the emissions leaving this will have? Local communities have worked hard to improve their local area and this would not be an enhancement. As this incinerator will be situated right in the middle of the vale of Marston were we have a temperature inversion phenomenon, which means on still days these emissions will linger for longer before they eventually drop into the vale. Covanta has already been served improvement notices in the USA, how do we know this will be any different here? Do we allow them to build this eyesore just to prove us right in a few years time, when external investigators find emission rates far exceed the limits. No, we don’t want this monstrous building on our landscape! The population of the vale has also increased over the years; hence we have need to update our current road infrastructure to accommodate this, but what is going to stop the lorries coming through the villages when roads get blocked? I believe tourism will bring far more into this county than this incinerator will ever do, Covanta will provide 60-70 jobs when established and these may be specialised jobs, not suited to local people. Where by Centre Parks, the Nirah Project will provide plenty more and people will want to come and see the beauty of our county and its wildlife. Who wants to come and see a massive incinerator! And why site it on the doorstep of a county park, that offers so much to all in the community by letting us explore and enjoy such natural beauty, keeping us all healthy in mind and body. This incinerator will not only devalue this counties greatest asset the beautiful countryside, but it can only have a devastating effect on the price of our homes. For who is going to want to live beside a big incinerator? There is no proof that this will NOT have any impact on our current health services who are struggling to cope with demands on the local hospitals and doctors’ surgries now. Who is going to pay for the damage, when in years to come it is proven that the rate of mortality in this area is contributed to the incinerator? It will be to late for many of those that now live in and love Bedfordshire, we will off paid for it with our health and lives! This just does not make any sense, it a disaster !"

William Giles
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children."

Lawrence Johnson
"I am an occupier of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic the project will generate and . I worked for 50 years at London brick company and next year will be 90 and object generally the principle of this being built at this location. I do not have my own computer and therefore the email address is that of the parish clerk"

Nick Ward
"Having recently cleaned the surrounding area of polluted brick chimmney air, there is now the possiblity of further high level pollution from an even bigger stack. This cannot be fair on the residents of Stewartby and surring area, especially as the waste material being incinerated will not be coming from Bedforshire! Surely each area should be responsible for its own waste disposal within its area of responsibility. I say - No to this monster project."

Francis John Timms
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. The prevaiiling wind from north to south means that any fumes or emissions will come directly over the village"

Kevin M. Blake
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children.There are so manys to object that this form is not big enough . It would seem that Stewartby is always the dumping ground for other counties rubbish and big companies riding rough shod over the residents."

Wendy Blake
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children.There are so manys to object that this form is not big enough . It would seem that Stewartby is always the dumping ground for other counties rubbish and big companies riding rough shod over the residents"

Mark Sweetman
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children."

Margaret Edna George
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children."

Shiela Mary Lowe
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children."

Patricia Joyner
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children and grandchildren."

Peter Clifford Lowe
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children. There is no much to say to object to this that your form clearly is not big enough"

Dawn Raggett
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children."

Collin Raggett
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children. I further that this will destroy the village of Stewartby and severely affect the surrounding area of Bedfordshire"

Julie Williams
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. I further believe that this will adversely affect the environment and particulary object to waste being imported from outside bedfordshire."

Julie Fountain
"I am an owner of a property in Marston Moretain and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children. I further object to waste coming from outside Bedfordshire. I believe this will adversely affect the ecology, landscape and general attractiveness of the whole area for years to come."

Alan Fountain
"I am an owner of a property in Marston Moretain and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children. I further object to waste coming from outside Bedfordshire. I believe this will adversely affect the ecology, landscape and general attractiveness of the whole area for years to come."

Alan Fountain on behalf of Richard Fountain
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic it will generate and generally the principle of this being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children. I further object to waste coming from outside Bedfordshire. I believe this will adversely affect the ecology, landscape and general attractiveness of the whole area for years to come."

Patsy Jefcoate
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic this will generate and generally the principle of it being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children and subsequent generations. We live in a lovely and unique village and this project totally adversely affect our environment and rural way of life."

Mick Jefcoate
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic this will generate and generally the principle of it being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children and further generations. It will adversely affect our environment and area."

Patsy Jefcoate on behalf of Joshua Hofmann
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic this will generate and generally the principle of it being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children."

Emma Ellerbeck
"I I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic this will generate and generally the principle of it being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children."

Mark Chadwick
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic this will generate and generally the principle of it being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children."

Sue Kemp
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic this will generate and generally the principle of it being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but also gernerations to come. I further believe that feel that this is totally inappropriate in an areas whose motto is reuse, recycle and reduce"

Joan Kemp
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic this will generate and generally the principle of it being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children and grandchildren. I moved from London to enjoy the countryside and fresh air and I believe that this will have a detrimental affect on my life and expectations."

John Symonds
"I am an owner of a property in Stewartby and object to the polution and the amount of traffic this will generate and generally the principle of it being built at this location. I further believe that this will not only affect me but my children."

C Burrell
"This is yet another example of the USA using another country for its own ends. Any ill health effects caused by toxic emissions from the burning of rubbish will be suffered by local British residents while the Americans running Covanta and taking profits from it stay safe far away. Remember Bhopal. I believe applications for compensation will take a long time to substantiate, and the legal processes that will drag on year after year will be long, complex and slow. Bedford is a beautiful, clean, green, healthy place to live. It will no longer be an attractive place once it is scarred by the building and operation of this waste facility."

Julie Couldridge
"I live in Stewartby and do not want this incinerator here and for the following reasons - 1. A lack of clarity about what will come out of an incinerator’s chimney(s) and long term health implications. Incinerators generate a TOXIC waste called Fly Ash. There is little known if this will then be moved off site to licensed landfill sites for such waste and how - by road through local villages? Or is there then a second development of part of Rookery Pit South to become a licensed site for landfill of hazardous waste ? 2. The permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. 3. The permanent loss of a uniquely quiet area with the site operating 24/7. 4. The negative impact on a newly created Country Park. 5. The new A421 was designed to cope with existing traffic problems and some elements of growth in Bedford Borough. The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the capacity of the road."

Daniel Couldridge
"I live in Stewartby and do not want this incinerator here and for the following reasons - 1. A lack of clarity about what will come out of an incinerator’s chimney(s) and long term health implications. Incinerators generate a TOXIC waste called Fly Ash. There is little known if this will then be moved off site to licensed landfill sites for such waste and how - by road through local villages? Or is there then a second development of part of Rookery Pit South to become a licensed site for landfill of hazardous waste ? 2. The permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. 3. The permanent loss of a uniquely quiet area with the site operating 24/7. 4. The negative impact on a newly created Country Park. 5. The new A421 was designed to cope with existing traffic problems and some elements of growth in Bedford Borough. The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the capacity of the road."

Emma Wood
"I am against the incinerator being built close to an area of natural beauty & conservation. Covanta are being sued in another country for polution. I do not agree that Bedfordshire should be poluted by an incinerator being used by other counties."

Ann Nella Brown
"1. The proposed development will enormously incease traffic congestion. 2. Air pollution: 3. The proposed developer has a bad track record on emission levels 4. Marston Vale is an area just beginning to recover from centuries of industrial abuse. The Millennium Forest is just beginnning to grow - an industrial site just across the railway will not help at all. 5. Local property values will be adversely affected"

John William Jordan
"1. The visual impact of building would spoil the openness of the adjacent country park. Accociated lighting would intrude at night. The height of the stack, as demonstrated by the balloon would dominate the view from Stewartby southwards. the whole building will spoil a landscape which is recovering from years of industry. The volume of traffic destined for the old A421 Marston to Stewartby and along Green Lane and across the Level crossing at Stewartby railway station would cause noise, damage to highways. The trucks travelling beside Rookery North to the facility in rookery South would cause noise within Stewartby Village. I feel road access to this facility to be unsuitable. I asked Covanta about using rail access and they don't have customers lined up with rail connections. So they want us to put up with massive road traffic. The railway station and the Country Park are for families to walk/cycle from their homes without having to contend with heavy traffic. Within the site I was surprised to see at a presentation that it is planned to pile waste ash outside until it can be taken away. This could easily be picked up by the wind and deposited over the old peoples homes downwind in Stewartby. Re the waste coming from the stack I have heard that Covanta have been in trouble with authorities over emissions at other sites. Why should their performance improve at this site? Because the incinerator would be supplied by road there will be times when there is no access. I understand that the incinerator will then be fed by low grade fuel oil at night.If we start getting sulphur in the air we will be in the postion we were in when the brickworks had to close through air quality problems. I am concerned about the chimney exhaust gases, there being homes, and schools immediately down wind in Stewartby and Bedford further on."

Mrs C Romans
"My husband and I moved from Milton Keynes to Marston Moretaine 4 years ago. My husband preferred village location due to his health - he suffers from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. The emissions from the proposed site will affect his health. The plant itself will be a blight on the landscape, it is too near residential properties, too expensive and unnecessary. If you wish to build such a plan then place it in an area well away from population."

Philip Merryman
"This development is far too large. Not only will the sheer bulk of it dominate the landscape but the vast number of trucks required to fuel it is far too great for the surrounding roads to take, and will ruin the amenity of anyone living along these roads near the plant. This is an unsustainable form of waste disposal as it will need to be continually fed to keep it going. This will mean that if the original source of material becomes less due to, for example, improved recycling, then more will have to be sourced from further afield for it to remain economically viable. This will have adverse effects on recycling rates from wherever the material is sourced. It will also increase the number of and distance travelled by trucks on the roads, thus burning more fossil fuels to keep it going. Already NONE of it will come from Bedfordshire, so why are we having to deal with all the rest of the country's waste as well as pay for the strengthening and increased maintenance of our roads to no benefit of ourselves?"

Kim Mccormick
"Shouldn't go ahead due to the following: Not environmentally the correct way to dispose of waste. Pollution to the local and international environmental due to the incinerator fumes and additional vehicle traffic due to transportation of waste into the area and removal of fly ash from the incinerator. . Additional traffic on highways already burdened by too much traffic. Our County needs to increase the revenue generated by tourism this will not be a landscape enhancer."

H Fitz-Gibbon
"This will have an unbelievably detrimental effect on the area such as the increase in traffice opperating 24/7 on an already existing traffic congested area. the loss of a rural landscape which is currently a haven for wildlife and why people have chosen to live in the area the detrimental effect on tourism in the area and also for the people that live here will be horrendous. vehicles operating 24/7 increaseing the carbon footprint - this should be dealt with locally not transported all around the country. There is very little green space around so why fill up what little beauty spots there are with an incinirator that will spoil life for people and wildlife it will be an imense blot on the landscape. and then the light pollution at night in an area that has already had an enormous amount of light polluiton over the last few years in building warehouses and roads. The long term health implications by the waste such as fly ash which experts say is safe but later they back track."

Mrs S Arden
"I would like to strongly object to the building of an incinerator by Covanta. I have lived in Marston for 9 years and love the area. Rookery Pit is in a valley which means that emissions will not blow away in the breeze but sit above the community.I am extremely concerned about the health aspects of the fumes emitted, as Covanta have such a poor safety record in the USA, i believe it would be insane to allow them to build here. There is also no need to take in waste from other counties to pollute ours. The problems cased by the lorries delivering to the site will be huge. Why should such a plant be allowed to be built so close to the nature reserve that is the Forest Centre at Marston Vale. The birds and animals should be protected. It would be a disgrace to allow this to be built to put such a blight on local childrens lives."

Brian Hilton
"It is patently obvious, even using Coventa's own documentation that for Bedfordshire in General, and Stewartby and surrounding area in particular, that this development is far too large, massively visually intrusive, will need to bring large amounts of rubbish from outside the county, with excessive number of vehicle movements to make this operation pay. None of which is in the best interest of the people of Bedfordshire, which has been used as a rubbish dump for other cities and counties for many years."

John Andel on behalf of Ampthill Development Action Group
"Ampthill Development Action Group has been formed to oppose inappropriate and environmentally damaging development in the vicinity of Ampthill. The site of this proposed facility is within 4 miles of Ampthill Town Centre. We object to the proposed development and request that the IPC rejects the application. Our objections to the development can be summarised under the following headings • Potential air pollution from chimney • Increased HGV traffic movements leading to o Road congestion o Noise o Air pollution • Concern at production, transport and disposal of fly ash • Light pollution from a site operating 24 hours a day. • Visual impact of such a large industrial facility"

Keith Whittle
"As a Angling/Power Boat Racing/Sailing/Water Skiing[1] member of Stewartby Water Sports Club (SWSC), I object on the following grounds: During normal operations 530 daily vehicle movements (One vehicle every 52 seconds). During maximum throughput 768 vehicle movements (One vehicle every 33 seconds). The majority of these will be noisy HGV trips that will make peaceful use of our leisure areas impossible. This includes: *  The SWSC Club House is within 100m of the proposed access route to the RRF affecting our peaceful enjoyment of the patio area, club and grounds.  *  The club event camping area is with 50m of the proposed access route *  The clubs Water Ski Launch and Recreational Area is within 30m of Green Lane and will be severely affected by the increased noise from HGV Traffic Angling pitches and our sailing area (which is closest to the RRF - approx 850m) will have the peaceful enjoyment ruined by a view of the RRF Sailing one of the key sports at SWSC and is totally dependent on wind strength, direction and stability.  The building will be over 40m high and the operational area some 500m or more wide, this will have disruptive effects of the winds strength, stability and direction. We do not believe that Covanta have demonstrated that the RRF (in non-technical terms) will not have an effect on the water quality of Stewartby Lake. Air Emissions - There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I am concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Stewartby Lake there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Marston Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. Stewartby Water Sports Club, Marston Vale Millennium Country Park and surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. An oversize Energy from Waste plant is will fundamentally affect the rural landscape and its regeneration. The RRF site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation are all likely to impact SWSC. Of particular concern are the effects of dust and air pollution on boat finishes and covers. There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7.  This is of particular concern for the SWSC Event Camping Area The RRF can process many times the size needed for Bedfordshire waste, I object to the out of Bedfordshire importing of waste and the resulting environmental impacts   Of particular concern is the affect on the amenity value of Stewartby Lake as a Water Sports Venue and is negative impact on membership numbers and volunteering. Taken to it ultimate conclusion this could affect the viability Stewartby Water Sports Club."

Jeremy Gooch
"I write as both a local resident whose quality of life will be affected by the plant and as someone who firmly believes that our focus should be on waste reduction as a priority over incineration. With regard to my first point, the plant is patently too big for the site. Specifically:- o The amount of waste required for efficient operation will result in an unacceptable increase in heavy road traffic, at all hours of the day. o It is proposed to place the plant within a recently created country park, based around land recovered from exactly the type of industrialisation now being proposed. o The pollution from this plant will be all-encompassing, from emissions of the lorries going in and out, to the noise and to the light pollution coming from a site that operates 24 hours per day. o The view from Ampthill Park, a site with significant history and a greatly loved community resource, will be diminished, even more greatly than by the brick chimneys that once covered the Marston Vale. Furthermore, Covanta have thus far failed to address concerns over the outputs from the plant. The emissions from the chimney (C02 etc) are contributors to global warming and, by Covanta's own admission, many tonnes of ash and non-combustible waste will need to be taken away from the plant for "additional treatment". This latter waste is evidentially hazardous but I find there is insufficient detail of how or where this waste will be processed. My second overarching point is that I believe that we should seek government policy and industry/business practices that reduce the amount of waste that we face as consumers, particularly non-recyclable packaging. We should treat this problem at source by avoiding the generation of rubbish, rather than by ignoring the long-term impacts of our waste generation and only attempting to treat the symptoms. Overall, Bedfordshire has historically been the recipient of waste from a very wide area whilst increasing its own recycling capabilities year-on-year. I demand that this imbalance be addressed by policies that result in reduced waste overall and the recognition of the need for each region to deal with its own waste rather than exporting it to neighbouring counties for incineration."

A Morris
"I am concerend about the long term health implications that will effect myself and my children should this project go ahead. The government had spent alot of money trying to develop the area as a wildlife sanctuary and the pollution from the chimneys will threaten this eco system. The increase in traffic will cause congestion as well as damage to the roads, not to mention a hideous spoiling of the tranquil countyside. Why is a more appropriate site not considered, one just off a main motor way, a fair distance from a residential area?"

Mr SH Morris
"I am concerend about the long term health implications that will effect myself and my children should this project go ahead. The government had spent alot of money trying to develop the area as a wildlife sanctuary and the pollution from the chimneys will threaten this eco system. The increase in traffic will cause congestion as well as damage to the roads, not to mention a hideous spoiling of the tranquil countyside. Why is a more appropriate site not considered, one just off a main motor way, a fair distance from a residential area?"

Mrs BM Morris
"I am concerend about the long term health implications that will effect myself, my children and my grandchildren; should this project go ahead. The government had spent alot of money trying to develop the area as a wildlife sanctuary and the pollution from the chimneys will threaten this eco system. The increase in traffic will cause congestion as well as damage to the roads, not to mention a hideous spoiling of the tranquil countyside. Why is a more appropriate site not considered, one just off a main motor way, a fair distance from a residential area?"

Hugh Roberts on behalf of Marston Moreteyne Action Group
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects - drawn from the generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) - listed below outweigh any potential benefits; (A) Air Emissions (1) The cumulative long term impact on the health of residents anxious about the EfW stack emissions over the life cycle of the plant accentuated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion within the Marston Vale. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2) To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale - would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation (3) There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact (4) The sheer size of the EfW and stack (accentuated by the plume) will materially impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise (5) There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management (6) The EfW will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. (G) Socio-Economic (7) The electricity generating capacity of the EfW in terms of average domestic consumption is exaggerated. (8) The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the EfW for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. (9) EfW assembly will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area and the remaining permanent jobs will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns – of which there can be no guarantee, will be offered to local people. (10) There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts (11) The traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network and the traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. (12) Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. (13) There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. For these reasons above we propose to provide further supporting detailed evidence that the IPC should conclude the EfWis the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area and in the wrong location."

Hugh Roberts
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects - drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) - listed below outweigh any potential benefits; (A) Air Emissions (1) The cumulative long term impact on the health of residents anxious about the EfW stack emissions over the life cycle of the plant accentuated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion within the Marston Vale. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2) To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale - would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation (3) There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact (4) The sheer size of the EfW and stack (accentuated by the plume) will materially impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise (5) There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management (6) The EfW will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. (G) Socio-Economic (7) The electricity generating capacity of the EfW in terms of average domestic consumption is exaggerated. (8) The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the EfW for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. (9) EfW assembly will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area and the remaining permanent jobs will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns – of which there can be no guarantee, will be offered to local people. (10) There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts (11) The traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network and the traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. (12) Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. (13) There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. For these reasons above we propose to provide further supporting detailed evidence that the IPC should conclude this proposal is the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area and in the wrong location."

kim stuart-smith
"I'm strongly against Covanta for reasons including: Air Emissions - There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I'm concerned about reports that Covanta have been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. There is serious concern that there will be a cumulative impace over the 30 year life cycle of the plant either within the Marston Vale and or Bedford/Kempston. I'm concerned about my health and the health of my animals, particularly horses who graze on my land. Dust - there will be a permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. Landscape and Visual impact - the building will dominate the skyline Traffic and Transport Impacts - I'm concerned about significant vehicle movements to and from the site - arriving and departing between 5 a m and 11pm dyas a week and 7 days a week on bank holiday weekends which will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community.. The volume of lorry and associated traffice for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road. So far there has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed project for Bedfordshire on communities beyond the Marston Vale but within Beds. In conclusion, it is my view that the visual impact, predicted traffic levels with associated noise and dust pollution, the fact that incineration discourages recycling and significantly contributes to atmospheric C02 renders this proposal the wrong solution in dealing with waste and in the wrong location."

James Dunn
"I feel that the burning of rubbish is not the way forward at this or at any time. The amount of polution that will be created far outways the amount of electricity tha will be produced. Marstone Vail has been blighted with smoke and polution for decades, it is now getting back to normality, this planning application will be a terrible thing to happen here."

Garry Legg
"I am objecting to Covanta’s proposed energy unit on the following grounds:- · The facility is too large for a rural site. · It will have a negative impact on the landscape. · Incineration is the least environmental friendly way of disposing of waste. · The residual furnace ash is toxic and will need to be disposed of in landfill. · The effects of the emissions on the surrounding areas. · The CO2 emissions from the plant. · Increased congestion and CO2 emissions. Taking into account the above points I can’t see how this proposal will benefit the local area, especially as the energy created will not be sufficient to generate power to the local population."

John Marsh
"There is not sufficient evidence that issues regarding air pollution have been addressed. As the prevailing wind is SW this will impact on the urban area of East and North East Bedford. The transport infrastructure in the locality is inadequate to support the additional traffic that will result from a development of this scale."

Jill Clark
"I feel that I have to strongly object to the application for the high temperature waste disposal that is under discussion for the Rookery area of Stewartby. Up until the late 1970s the area had the chimneys from the London Brick Company and suffered with a great deal of health problems such as asthma, and chest complaints. The surrounding area was also affected by the general dust and dirt that arose from the chimneys and I often would look in dismay at the plumes of smoke being blown over the area - depending on wind direction. Since the closure of the brick manufacture, the whole air quality has improved greatly, and there is no pollution to be viewed daily, just clear sky for a long way. I am also concerned that the access to the proposed site is going to be from the improved main road which is near to completion and this has been a local traffic bottleneck for the last two years. I can only imagine that the volume of lorries and large vehicles who would be bringing the waste to the proposed site daily would be vast and the major road works that have been endured will be a total waste as the planning for the infrastructure of the road would not have taken into account this large amount of heavy goods. For something that size they must need a lot of waste to keep it going. I am disappointed that the original plan of a new marine research centre was squashed so easily in favour of a waste burner. The research centre would have created jobs for the local area, something which is sorely lacking currently, and would have also created a tourist attraction for Central Bedfordshire. I am not objecting to the site being developed, but it must be for something worthwhile for the residents and prosperity of Bedfordshire. Instead we are again facing the possibility of being a dumping area for a large part of the UK. (memories of the Nirex situation of 1980's). I do hope that you will take consideration of residents of the area and maybe visit it yourselves to see what a total blot on the landscape (both visually and commercially) such a proposal would be."

Timothy Harris
"The application by Covanta is in the wrong place, of the wrong scale, has not been properly evaluated for pollution, has not shown itself to have a safe system of work. 1. Wrong place Stewartby has suffered from industrial degradation for the past century. This does not mean it should become a dumping ground for other people's waste/incineration site. A lot of regeneration money, community organisation and volunteer time has been invested in the creation of the Millennium Forest Park and Centre. This is now a welcome leisure site and essential lung for a densely populated sub-region. The tranquillity and enjoyment of the area by millions of visitors and hundreds of thousands of residents will be severely damaged by the construction operation and decommissioning of the proposed plant. The site is wrong as the prevailing wind is southwesterly which brings the pollution output to the major town of Bedford. The wildlife in the park will be disrupted and adversely affected by the operation of the plant 24/7. 2.Wrong scale The size of the plant is too big. It should not be designed so that waste is transported from totally different areas along minor roads causing hazards for local traffic. It is too high so that it is a blight on the landscape. The noise light and smell from such a large plant will have a large effect on the local population. The large-scale operation will have an undue inappropriate effect on the local area. 3.Not properly evaluated for pollution The studies so far are inadequate in the scope of their analysis of results. The effects on specific locations, wildlife, local communities and woodlands have not been measured. No precise evidence is available about the emissions anticipated. The area has just recovered from the effects of brickdust and the local population deserves better than to have pollution on a large scale and indeterminate nature once again. 4.Safe systems of work Apart from the obvious dangers of large transport movements there are concerns about the proposed various processes within the plant, for example 13 metre high uncovered piles of ash in the open airwhich are very close to resident population, the Forest Park and transport routes. No mention of what happens when the wind blows. The application needs to address these safety issues; as such it is incomplete."

Alex Stanton
"I would like this registration to acknowledge that I am against the proposed incinerator at Stewartby the reasons are as follows: I have lived in Houghton Conquest for the last 45 years and have enjoyed the country walks within the area, I find it hard to believe that in future years I could be looking over the plain of bedfordshire and looking at a large constructed incinerator bellowing out fumes with no knowledge of content and a complete eyesore. I understand that Bedfordshire as a county has a large income from tourism and feel that this will deminish if the proposed Rookery Site goes ahead, my children and Grandchildren require jobs which will not be generated by the incinerator and surely Companies who have the opportunity to move into the area will decline due to an unhealthy environment. As a senior middle distance coach at Bedford and County Athletic Club, I already see the results of polution from traffic in the young atheletes that I train as they suck on their inhalers, let alone the effect of an incinerator burning the waste from several different counties. We in Bedfordshire have a good recycling record it won't be our waste that we will be burning."

Rosemary Stanton
"Please accept this representation as against this proposed Rookery Site at Stewartby, my reasons are as follows: The infrastructure around the area can't cope with the day to day traffic, let alone the additional lorries delivering other Counties rubbish to burn and then other lorries to take the fly-ash away. I understand this is estimated at an extra lorry every 36 seconds. What guarantees can be given that during hold-ups or due to pure laziness drivers will not use our villages as cut threws, causing extra traffic in the villages, more pollution and danger to our children. Environmentally this is not a sound way to process waste 1 due to the fact that it is being transported from other counties and 2 burning causes gases and fumes which again effect the environment in which we all live. Unfortunately in this case we know for certain that this Company does not conform to any pollution standards/restriction hence the closer of an incinerator in the States, plus they have 3 other court cases against them. What research has been carried out to ensure that the ash & fumes don't polute our water table, especially as this incinerator is so close to Stewartby lake. The County as a whole are really proud of the Marson Vale Country Park which the community has given time and money to, this place is really enjoyed by many family from all walks of life and in true British style we are now having to learn about a proposal which will spoil all this hardwork and is totally against the whole concept of the park. Please please stop this happening please let sanity prevail."

Jeff Joynson
"The proposed building of the incinerator will affect a great deal of people with repect to pollution, noise, increased traffic, drop in equity of their property. I wish to have solid proof that other waste solutions businesses have been given as much chance to put a proposal forward as Covanta has. There appears to be no competitor/alternative waste solution business in the running. Why is this? Other counties are willing to shop their waste to Rookery south but not deal with it themselves. This seems unfair considering the Marston Vale has been used for tipping rubbish in for the last 30 years."

Brad Yates
"I am concerned about the following: Significant and heavy HGV traffic movement. 585 Tonnes of rubbish being moved and incinerated into the local atmosphere. A huge detrimental effect on local house prices and enviroment."

Emma Yates
"The volume of HGV traffic is beyond the predicated capacity of the road. All rubbish will be transported by road. It is not in keeping with the local enviroment. The size of the building will dominate the skyline. There is concerns with the emissions and long term health implications."

Alastair Stirling on behalf of Forestry Commission
"Dear Sir/Madam Thank you for asking the Forestry Commission to respond on the EN010011 Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station. We welcome the new woodland which is to be planted as part the proposed development. I hope this comment is helpful to you. If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards Alastair Stirling Woodlands Officer"

Mari Watts
"Air polution - we are now benefiting from much improved air quality since the brickyard at Stewartby closed with far fewer sinus and breathing problems. We do not want to go back to being in a valley full of poluted air and suffer the associated health risks. We already have heavy transport cutting through the village despite the weight limit. Inevitably this would increase. This massive structure in the middle of surrounding villages is totally out of place and would completely change this rural area. We already have our share of waste coming here from other areas. It is unacceptable that Stewarty should be the dumping ground at the levels proposed."

Jonathan Westwood on behalf of Copart UK
"Copart UK is not inherently opposed to the development and has no objection in principle to the developers having a right over Copart UK's land to install and maintain electricity transmission lines but requires comfort that such right will be exercised only in a form and manner that does not prevent or restrict Copart UK's site operations and access/egress."

Stephen Watson
"I would like to register my support for the Project as proposed by Covanta for Rookery South. I am a resident of Bedfordshire approximately 4 miles from the site and I have no other interest other than being familiar with Rookery Pit and the greater waste issue. The site presents a valuable opportunity to provide a regional waste facility and I note that Bedford Borough Council while vociferously opposed to the project appear to have no tangible plans for dealing with our areas waste other than transportin it to a Energy from Waste Facility in the Midlands. The size of Rookery Pit and its location afford a very valuable opportunity for a sustainable waste facility capable of making significant contribuitions to energy generation."

Graham Young
"I am concerned at potential breaches of the emission limits given Covanta's poor record at it's other sites of operation. I am also concerned at the heavy traffic densities on small rural roads which will be used to bring in the waste."

Michael C Andrews
"The proposed transportation of waste would appear to utilise the new A421 dual carriageway put in at millions of pounds to aleviate the conjestion in the marston area and reduce fatalaties on this same stretch of road. The proposal as I understand would provide for a totally unacceptable amount of lorries to transport this waste along the A421 dualling. My calculations would indicate that the separation of these lorries would be in minutes thus causing severe disruption to the entire area, ammounting to the entire construction for the benefit of Covanta not the general public around Marston or the principal transportation of traffic from the M1 to the A1"

Michael Henson
"As a member of theStewartby Water Sports Club (SWSC), Sailing Section, I object to this proposal for these reasons: Sailing a key sports at SWSC and is completely dependent on wind strength, direction and stability. The intended building that is over 40m high covering an area more than 500 m wide, will necessarily cause disruptive effects on these critical factors. Also of concern are the effects of dust and air pollution on boat finishes and covers. More generally, I am concerned about the negative impact on the amenity value of Stewartby Lake as a Water Sports Venue and its depressing effect on membership numbers and volunteering. Taken to it ultimate conclusion this could affect the viability Stewartby Water Sports Club. This is because: a) The SWSC Club House is within 100 m of the proposed access route to the generating station which will compromise the peaceful enjoyment of the patio area, club and grounds. b) The club event camping area is with 50 m of the proposed access route c) The club's Water Ski Launch and Recreational Area is within 30 m of Green Lane and will be severely affected by the increased noise from HGV Traffic Other issues: There is serious concern about polluting emissions to the atmosphere from the EfW stack, and hence, negative long term health implications. Stewartby Water Sports Club, Marston Vale Millennium Country Park and surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. An oversize Energy from Waste plant is will fundamentally affect the rural landscape and its regeneration."

Robert Lambe
"1. The massive structure will dominate the landscape, right next to the Marston vale forest centre. The chimney will be 500m high, and be seen by most of Bedfordshire. 2. We will be back into a situation that will be worse than when Brogborough tip and Stewartby tip were both operating. The amount of heavy traffic will clog the main routes around Stewartby. Plus the fact that the traffic will be from miles away, and the plant will be open from 5am to 11pm. 3. Marston vale has now begun to regenerate following the closure of the brickworks, and the imminent closure of Stewartby tip. We do not need another eyesore and air pollutant facility in the Bedfordshire area. 4. Why should Bedfordshire be obliged to take rubbish from surrounding counties, and futher afield."

Linda Westgarth
"My husband and I are extremely concerned that despite assurances from Covanta, the emissions from the proposed waste plant will seriously affect the air quality of the area. We note that Covanta is/has been called to account in the United States for such issues. We are also concerned that the proposed increase in traffic to service this huge development will again seriously impact upon the infrastructure of the area."

s boniface
"Size of the plant extra traffic emissions in regards to health of the local people"

Valerie Beaty
"Size - The massive industrial structure will dominate the rural landscape, right next to the Forest Centre, the main building and the chimney will dwarf everything in the Marston Vale. Traffic - Huge quantities of waste will be imported into the Vale from all over the region, toxic fly ash will be removed from the site, waste lorries travelling through our towns and villages will have a detrimental effect. Need - This area does not need such a large incinerator, the Marston Vale has started to regenerate after the ending of brickmaking, importing waste from outside the local area is not needed. Emissions - There are worries about the emissions that will be generated and their safe monitoring. Covanta has not adequately considered temperatur inversions in the Vale, and how they may affect the safe dispersal of emissions from the stack. Benefits - I do not believe this incinerator, or the proposed community benefits will enhance the local area, or outweigh the negative effects."

Rosalind Phillips
"I have grave concerns about the emissions that would be generated from the site and the disposal of the hazardous Fly Ash produced by the incinerators, especially considering Covanta's poor safety record in the USA. Also the large amounts of waste that will be required to make the incinerator economically viable could be detramental to efforts to improve recycling facilities in Bedfordshire and result in waste being brought in from an increasingly larger area of the country. This will result in a large increase in traffic volume for which the infrastructure is not in place to deal with - the new A421 was designed only to cope with current levels of traffic and a small amount of growth."

andrew plumb
"destruction of important wetland site for wildlife."

Lee Gray
"As a resident of Stewartby with a young family these are my concerns with the proposed energy from waste facility: Emissions - My primary concern, which has been increased by Covanta's numerous fines in the USA for toxic emissions. Secondly, having experienced years of sulphur emissions from the brickwork chimneys, I know that the prevailing wind is from the West and that there were many occasions when the emissions would drop from the chimneys and lay like a blanket over the village. I believe that despite the height of the proposed chimney this would be a regular occurence once again. Increased traffic - the route of lorries entering the site along Green Lane from the A421 is the route I use regularly for family bikerides to the Millenium Country Park. I will not be able to use it if there are HGV's using it from 5am daily. Visual impact - The chimney will be visible from my house and the building will be visible from the country park. Environmental impact - The proposed site is not a lifeless unused clay pit, but a thriving habitat for wetland birds. I have spent many hours walking around the area and can attest to the amount of winged visitors to the site. Secondly how can it be enviromentally viable to have the required amount of waste that this size of incinerator would require, transported in by road."

judith cunningham
"I am the bedford Borough councillor for the village of Stewartby. 1.the size and the position of the chimney The model village of Stewartby was built almost eighty years ago to accommodate all the families of the brickworkers of stewartby brickworks.the families put up with the site and smells because they needed the work. In the Marston vale there were 110 chimnies of the brick kilns. The plumes from the chimnies blew from a south esterly direction and caused some respiratory problems especially for the elderly in the large number of retirement homes.The chimney of the EfW site will be on the outskirts of the village will be bigger and taller and more powerful than the brick chimniesand the contents of the plume will be unknown as the contents of the waste to be burnt will always be unknown. 2.The EfW capacity of is over 500,000tonnes of waste per year.The present size of the lorries to feed the incinerator means that if the site is open for 14 hours per day then there will be at least one lorry per minute of waste through the villaqge. These lorries will also have to leave by the same route. There will also be lorries from a different company taking away the heavy metal waste.Ther is only ONE route to the site. At the moment this access is on the outskirts of the village. There are plans for over 2000 houses to be built around this access road. At the moment there is a new A421 road being built to take traffic away from the villages BUT access to the site will have to leave this new bypass to go through local roads which have been newly liberated from the heavy lorry numbers"

Darryl Brookman
"I wish to voice my concerns over this project going ahead, being detrimental to the environment, and to the health and standard of life of my children"

Sally Bacon
"I would like to submit my objections to the proposed development as follows: 1. I live in Ampthill and am very worried about the impact that this development will have on our town. I know that traffic is due to use the MI and then the new A421 road, but what will happen if for some reason Junction 13 is shut? The only other route from the M1 will be Juction 12 and then straight through Ampthill. There is no other traffic assessment provided than using the A421. 2. Air emissions are a great concern, especially as Covanta have already been served legal notices in the USA. I have yet to be convinced that the air emissions will be safe and have concerns about long term health issues for people living in the surrounding areas. 3. Ampthill is of great historic value, Ampthill Park, Houghton House, Greensand Ridge all of which will be at risk by not only the visual aspect but also the potential degradation of the soil quality due to the emissions. 4. The local economy will only be enhanced by this proposed development if Covanta use local tradesmen, and I would think this very unlikely. The same could be said for guaranteeing local jobs, surely they will want to use an experienced workforce, of which I would presume there are very few in this area. 5. This development is due to operate all day and every day, this means constant steam, artificial light, dust and noise etc. Not good for local residents, who will perhaps move out of the area, thus making our towns and villagers into "ghost towns". In conclusion, I would like to register my dismay at this proposed facility and would urge the IPC to refuse this application."

Laurence Brown
"Loss of local amenity Traffic congestion: too many lorries Air pollution and stink Reduction of property value Unsightly instrusion on the landscape"

Deborah Martin
"I am concerned about the application made by Covanta for the following reasons: The technology is new and we cannot be sure that there will not be long term health issues in years to come. The area has been blighted by landfill and pollution from brickworks for decades. Residents suffer high instances of asthma and other breathing/allergy connected illnesses. Potentially adding to this would exacerbate problems. Whilst the new A421 dual carriageway will benefit the area, this will alleviate the already high level of congestion - hundreds of lorry movements a day will cause problems which will effectively return the area to the gridlock it has suffered over recent years. Hundreds of large lorry movements will cause pollution damage and be harmful to residents' health and general quality of life. The development is inconsistent with the area - the Millenium Park and wider conservation activity in Marston Vale. The development will be an eyesore and a blot on a landscape that is returning (post landfill) to what it should look like."

Mrs J M Fishlock
"a I strongly object. First we get a landfill site, which wasn't in our interests as Lord Hanson closed a thriving brickmaking industry, putting many local people out of work, now they want us to have an incinerator, once again making us a rubbish tip, even making us take the rubbish from other counties. Don't say it will create jobs, we had jobs with the brickworks, but we were turned into a rubbish tip instead, which proves jobs weren't on the agenda then, any more than they are now. This is a highly populated area now, with hundreds of homes being added to every village."

Lyn Brown
"(No Information Supplied)"

Beryl Pengilley
"This proposal is far too big for Bedfordshire. The County should not be taking in waste from other Counties. The road network in the area is not sufficient to absorb more lorries delivering waste."

Keith Hoar
"I would like to know why Bedfordshire is obviously seen as a dumping ground for waste material. Firstly, we have had put up with the dumping of London rubbish for the past 30+ years which was not a healthy option for us. Now just as we are beginning to get our lives back from that horrendous experience of a constant unhealthy smell in the summer and blot on the landscape we are expected to put up with yet another bright idea which would possibly affect our health, and yet another massive blot on the landscape. And finally, all the careful planning of the dualling of the A421 giving great views over the man made lakes would be totally lost if all we could see in the background was a gigantic incinerator. Not in our backyard thank you very much. Hazel & Keith Hoar"

Donald Allan
"I am opposed to a plant which gets rid of other surrounding counties waste and feel that this is better suited each area or region getting rid of their waste within their own area region saving on contaminating other regions. Transporting the waste to the site with the risks that this brings with it. Also transporting the waste product out of the plant to its final destination brings more risk with the higher volumes of by product waste.The increased volumes of traffic in the area would cause major problems on an already overloaded system. The environmental impact on an area only starting to be more pleasant to the eye.The site would be very large and could be put to better use.Also we have had to put up with landfill for the last 20+ years burying waste from the surrounding regions and our region is only just starting to see the benifits of stopping this."

Natasha Mason
"- Our village is set between two landfill sites already, are we to be the dumping ground for the south of England as the garbage is already coming up from London. - With the Marsh Leys and Brogborough warehouse sites expanding our roads are already subjected to heavier traffic, adding this site to the area will increase the heavy truck traffic on roads that are already too busy. Even with the construction of the new a421 the smaller side roads are not built for the heavy traffic and the vibration can be felt in the foundation of houses in the area. - Visual eye sore to an area right by a forestry park that will be seen for miles - Long term health risks from the vapours - Yet another hit to the value of our properties"

David Nash
"Central Bedfordshire has long been a dumping ground for waste from elsewhere. The area has been blighted by London Brick then Easidsipose then Shanks and finally Waste Recycling Group. This has been in addition to the unpleasant if not toxic emissions from the now defunct chimneys at Stewartby and Ridgmont and Marston in the distant past. The traffic issues at the previous sites were never properly addressed and the damage to the roads as well as the additional filth and wind blown litter are not factored in by local councils, their only concern as with the company is revenue. The scale of the building is vast and from the Cranfield ridge will form an unsightly addition in the Vale. The area is only just recovering from all the gault clay extraction and the ending of landfill at Brogborough. The facility is clearly designed to maximise revenue and will be used by all other areas especially London to dispose of their waste for profit. This area does not need such a large incinerator to deal with Bedfordshires waste. The area has for too long been a dumping ground for others waste. The scale of landfill in this region has been enormous. Now that is ending the thought of us becoming the incineration county of choice is repugnant in the extreme. If the incinerator is solely for Bedfordshire waste then I have less of an issue. This is enforceable by the local authority as it happens at landfill sites elsewhere. The smaller incinerator could then be sited in the bottom of a pit to minimise its impact visually. Overall I am against the Covanta development as proposed. It is unnecessarily large and intrusive and the repercussions do not seem to have been considered effectively. The one that has least weight but most impact is the simple fact of its ugliness in a regeneration area that has been blighted by extraction and fumes for far too long in any case."

RUTH DREW
"I am writing to register my objection of the proposal for Rookery Pit South at Stewartby. Please respond to the following questions:- 1. Why Stewartby in Bedfordshire? 2. Why should we be asked to consider such a terrible proposal? 3. Why should we be asked to take Buckinghamshire’s waste? Buckinghamshire has much waste land where properties and communities would not be so close! 4. What other sites have been considered? 5. How will this help with Co2 reduction? 6. What toxins will be dispersed which will poison us? 7. Is it not true that Covanta have already been sued in the States? What Notices have been served on them in the States from Environmental Agencies? Have they been indicted? If so, for what? Why therefore do we trust them with our lives and that of our future generations? 8. Do NIRAH and Centre Parcs still want to commit to this area with this facility proposed? Who would want to visit NIRAH and Centre Parcs near this facility? 9. How is incinerating considered recycling? Is the Government not said to be committed to recycling not burning?! 10. What about the devastation to the environment by 900 lorries per day going to the site? 11. Why is the chimney proposed to be so high because the toxins are so bad the we need to send it higher into the sky to share the toxins? 12. Visually this chimney would be an eyesore. 13. What emissions are expected? What materials are proposed to be burnt? 14. Who would measure the discharges throughout the year? Objections are:- 1. There will be a loss of wildlife habitat in an area that has naturally regenerated over many years and has already served well the communities local and other for waste facility in the past, leave us alone now!! 2. The road infrastructure will not cope will the volume of traffic. 3. Lorries and higher predicted traffic levels with noise and dust pollution, to which we do not even know the full extent yet, I suggest. 4. This facility is not to serve the local community against Government proposals that any such facility should serve the local area only if needed and there area no other solutions. 5. Recycling is required not incineration! 6. This facility will significantly increase the CO2 7. Information held by the RSPB on the breeding bird assemblage indicates that Gargeney has bred in the park historically and Pochard also potentially breeds. Cetti’s Warbler bred for the first time in 2009 (only the 2nd breeding attempt ever in Bedfordshire) and Bearded Tit may breed in the reed-beds. Water Rails certainly breed on the site – another scarce County bird"

Peter Mills
"My understanding currently of this issue raises the following brief points - Safety to Beds residents of a plant on this scale, what safety history does Coventa have and of this exact type does it run.What enviromental and public concerns exist elsewhere -The design is believed to be a large landscape 'blot' which is not in keeping with surrounding views - Bedfordshire (Beds) already has a number of landfill sites taking in other counties rubbish, a complex of this size is only likely to expand this service.. Bedford is NOT a generic rubbish tip and this may well attract greater volumes in the future Infrastruture, noise, and danger of transporting the by product waste of this facility"

Camilla King
"I am concerned about the pollution both water and air bourne for those using Stewartby sailing pit adjacent to this development. For the rest of Bedforshire it is an eyesore and is to be constructed far too close to civilisation. Marston Forest park was designed for the environment and leisure not to have a huge commercial building towering over it destroying the peace and tranquility of the area - Bedford Council get your consistency right either recreation or commercial development both together do not work."

Robert Cain
"The impact of building a large incinerator at Rookery Pit south will have a negative impact on the local community and area. The area around the site is just starting to be regenerated after years of industrial activity has scared the landscape. Locating an incinerator next to the country park will stop people visiting this area. The unknown protential of hazardous air emmissions could have severe implications for health. Air quality has improved since the closure of the brickworks, making the area more attractive for leisure activities and improved health. The area was once only known due to the negative effect of brickwork emmissions and landfill site, this will return and make the area less attractive to live in. House prices will be affected, as many would be buyers won't want to live near an incinerator, protentially stopping people being able to sell the homes. The impact of lorry movements through local roads pose noise and dust problems. Traffic will increase and cause safety concerns along the access route. The advantages of the A421 improvements will be provided as the de-trunked old A421 will become a rat run for HGV vehicles constantly going to site. Incinerating waste will reduce recycling efforts, increase pollution of hazardous emissions. Polluting the atmosphere will not help. Like many other residents I moved to Marston Moretaine to use the country park, the incinerator will destroy this ammenity, a backwards step in the regenerating of an area scared by years of industrial activity."

Graham Bellamy
"I am very concerned about the potential for toxic chemical emmissions from burning waste. I am not convinced that the performance of toxic "scrubbing" from waste gasses can be consistent or maintained at 100% effectiveness. The potential effect on the surrounding population in Bedfordshire and the effect on wildlife could be so severe that applying the precautionary principle this proposal should not be permitted. Greater effort should be made to recover usable and recyclable material from waste and the rest stored until safe technology exists to recover it."

Gemma Randall
"These are my concerns in brief about the proposed Covanta incinerator. 1. Incinerators are outdated and are not sustainable. They seriously undermine recycling and other waste strategies as they are in direct competition with recycling. We should be aiming for zero waste by reducing, recycling and reusing, not incinerating. 2. The size of the proposed incinerator is huge, out of character with the surrounding area and would dominate and spoil the beautiful, rural landscape of the Marston Vale. 3. Incinerators are polluting. The adverse effects on health must be considered. Covanta has been fined on numerous occasions in the USA for excessive emissions of poisonous, toxic chemicals. These violations are not isolated incidents but are occurring all too often. The thousands of dollars in fines imposed upon Covanta have not discouraged them from further polluting. 4. The local phenomenon of temperature inversion must be taken into account. Residents of the Marston Vale have only recently been able to enjoy fresh, clean air since the closure of the Stewartby brickworks. Hanson had been emitting sulphur dioxide well above permitted levels for years, yet the brickworks did not get closed down until 2008. In the meantime we had to breathe substandard and polluted air. Houghton Conquest was particularly badly affected, with the pollution lingering over us for countless hours every single week. 5. Incinerators are a huge waste of energy. They only capture small amounts of electricity at the same time as destroying large amounts of reusable materials. Zero waste practices such as recycling and composting are environmentally sound and serve to conserve three to five times more energy than incineration. More than 90% of materials currently disposed of in incinerators and landfills can be reused, recycled and composted. 6. Covanta has stated that 80 permanent jobs would be created. Considering the amount of the investment this is a very small number of jobs. The U.S Department of Labor cited Covanta for serious violations of safety rules and the U.S. National Labor Relations Board charged Covanta with maintaining illegal work rules at 46 Covanta facilities throughout the U.S. 7. A new Centre Parc at Warren Wood is due to open in 2013 and will have a significant local economic benefit including the creation of 1500 jobs on site. It will attract a great number of visitors to the Parc who will also hopefully visit local sites and amenities. An incinerator would have an adverse effect on tourism in our area. 8. Covanta's proposal to bring in waste from so many other counties is totally unacceptable. The dualling of the A421, when completed, would have eased some of the existing congestion on our local roads but with the predicted extra 900 vehicle movements a day, it would again become congested. Lorry movements every 36 seconds would bring so much extra noise and pollution to our small villages. In conclusion, this incinerator could potentially impact on the Marston Vale's attractiveness as a place to live, work and visit."

David Fudger
"I object to the project because its operation will involve the use of a very tall and visibly intrusive chimney that will emit waste gases and particles. The emitted substances will fall upon the surrounding area as close as a few metres and up to distances of 50 kilometres or more. The composition of the emissions will include substances that are toxic to humans and other lifeforms on contact or as a result of its accumulation in the soil and rainfall washing it into water supplies."

Prowse Irene
"After just seeing the light at the end of the tunnel regarding the completion of the tip at Stewartby and Ridgmont and the prospect of clean non obnoxious smelling air and an end to the lorries that have crowded our roads especially when detouring due to accident or hold up on the 421 and carting their toxic and foul smelling loads through our area we now find that we're under threat yet again and will end up not being able to enjoy our gardens when the wind is in our direction as the chimney will be just about the right height to blow its foul fumes over Cranfield and surrounding districts."

Nicholas Watson
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects these are drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; Air Emissions As a parent of two children I am concerned that the emissions from the EfW may have long term detrimental health implications for surronding communitites, particularly in view of reports that Covanta has been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. Landscape and Visual Impact The size of the proposed plant is entirely inappropriate in a fundamentally rural setting such as Marston Vale which, other than the former brickworks, has no other substantial structures. It will create a blight on the surrounding communities, its tower and unsympathetic structures denigrating the views from all over the Vale. As resident of Ampthill it is clear to me from the artist's impressions, included in the exhibition literature, that the breath-taking views that we currently enjoy from our historic park, and which contributing to making living here such a pleasure, will be destroyed forever. This form of industrial structure is incongruous and entirely inappropriate. Noise Noise from both the large volume of HGV's and the Plant itself will be considerable, with the consequential disturbance and have a disrupting effect on surrounding communities. Socio-Economic There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. Traffic and Transport Impacts The traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network and the traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale."

John Tomlin
"Unacceptable visually, and environmentally. Hazardous emissions and unacceptable transportation of toxic ash through our community on roads not planned to coupe with the large additional associated heavy goods vehicles. Although the proposed route is intended to be the A421 how long will it be before the already over congested A5120 from M1 junction 12 through Westoning and Flitwick will be used (by-pass promised in 1976 following fuel tanker explosion ???). Totally unacceptable to receive waste from other areas outside Bedfordshire - our landfill sites have alreay been filled with, amoungst others, the waste from London - Bedfordshire has in fareness 'done its bit' to provide waste diposal facilities for others and does not deserve the further burden of an incinerator. The 'payback' of 'power generated from waste' is grossly over rated when compared with the power used by incinerators. More emphasis must be put on manufacturing industry to reduce unrecycleable waste and on the education of the public to be more recylce conscious. Twenty first century technology must surley be more advanced such that the need to burn our waste is avoidable!"

Peter A Hunter
"This incinerator is the best thing that could happen to the county and the planet. By taking waste from other counties, which we already do for landfill we are using their shortsightedness to reduce the cost of our electricity. A lot of energy has already been spent creating the waste that we throw away, instead of throwing more energy away trying to bury nour waste the incineration solution requires less further energy investment to dispose of the waste but also holds the promise of creating more energy than it uses. This county already deals with the traffic problem of waste trucks and with the new roads it will have even less impact. Where else would you put it?"

David Fisher
"The proposed facility is of such an enormous size and has a 30+ year operating life span. As such it would blight the residential amenity and economy of local residents for generations with its resulting adverse visual impact, loss of wildlife habitat, high traffic levels, associated noise and dust pollution, and cumulative harmful emissions. None of the proposed benefits of the facility presented by Covanta are guaranteed and the facility is far more likely to be detrimental than benign in achieving the proposed benefits e.g. 1) A lower cost of incineration will discourage sustainable recycling of waste. 2) Incineration contributes significantly to atmospheric CO2 and produces other more harmful gas emissions not produced by landfill. There is no significant market for all the hazardous fly/bottom ash produced as a by-product of incineration leaving landfill as the main outlet for disposal, where these materials are far more toxic than the original waste from which they are derived. 3) The planting of a trees and laying down of new paths in the vicinity of the incinerator is not likely to transform the community forest in the Marston Vale sufficient to detract from the adverse impact of , a huge noisy waste incinerator and gas plume visible from miles around and additional HGV traffic congestion on local roads. 4) The handful of jobs created at the facility would be more than offset by significantly greater job losses from new or existing businesses that are deterred from operating in the shadow of such a controversial facility. 5) Long term inflexible contracts required to recoup the enormous costs of the facility are unlikely to be cost effective for local authorities as market conditions and legislation change. There have been reports in the US that Covanta has had several legal improvement notices served on its incineration plants and been fined for repeated emissions violations. If these reports are correct I am concerned about the Company's ability and commitment to operate the proposed facility fully in accordance with current environmental legislation throughout its operational lifespan."

Rosemary Fisher
"The proposed facility is of such an enormous size and has a 30+ year operating life span. As such it would blight the residential amenity and economy of local residents for generations with its resulting adverse visual impact, loss of wildlife habitat, high traffic levels, associated noise and dust pollution, and cumulative harmful emissions. None of the proposed benefits of the facility presented by Covanta are guaranteed and the facility is far more likely to be detrimental than benign in achieving the proposed benefits e.g. 1) A lower cost of incineration will discourage sustainable recycling of waste. 2) Incineration contributes significantly to atmospheric CO2 and produces other more harmful gas emissions not produced by landfill. There is no significant market for all the hazardous fly/bottom ash produced as a by-product of incineration leaving landfill as the main outlet for disposal, where these materials are far more toxic than the original waste from which they are derived. 3) The planting of a trees and laying down of new paths in the vicinity of the incinerator is not likely to transform the community forest in the Marston Vale sufficient to detract from the adverse impact of , a huge noisy waste incinerator and gas plume visible from miles around and additional HGV traffic congestion on local roads. 4) The handful of jobs created at the facility would be more than offset by significantly greater job losses from new or existing businesses that are deterred from operating in the shadow of such a controversial facility. 5) Long term inflexible contracts required to recoup the enormous costs of the facility are unlikely to be cost effective for local authorities as market conditions and legislation change. There have been reports in the US that Covanta has had several legal improvement notices served on its incineration plants and been fined for repeated emissions violations. If these reports are correct I am concerned about the Company's ability and commitment to operate the proposed facility fully in accordance with current environmental legislation throughout its operational lifespan."

Owen Jones
"Firstly I have to say that, in principle, I am supportive of an energy from waste/incineration facility to deal with Bedfordshire's residual waste problem - that is to deal with all waste left over after reduction, reuse and recycling measures have been put in to effect. However, I have a reservation about this particular scheme. As I understand it 40% or thereabouts of the waste to be processed will be from sources outside Bedfordshire. I believe that local policy (Bedfordshire Waste Strategy 2005) is to resist importing waste from outside the county. It is my opinion that a smaller EFW facility dealing with Bedfordshire's waste only would be more appropriate. My interest in this scheme is that I will be affected by emissions and any landfill tax will affect my local council tax."

Mrs L M Singer
"I wish to register my objection to the construction of an incinerator at Rookery South, which will be detrimental in many ways to the quality of life of all residents in the area, generating traffic of waste lorries and emissions that have not been adequately assessed. The structure itself will be visually intrusive. The incinerator is not needed for locally-generated waste and will not bring community benefits that outweigh or even marginally compensate for the detrimental effects on our lives."

Mr T.. Walker
"The Covanta development will: [1] Be far too large for the area. It will at best be an eyesore, at worst, a complete disaster. [2] Not be in keeping with the ongoing rural regeneration of the Marsden Vale nature reserve development in the surrounding area. [3] Generate vast volumes of road traffic and vehicle waste fallout [dust mud etc],with huge heavily laden vehicles going to and from the site day and night. [4] Pump out massive quantities of spent unwanted by-product, including carbon monoxide amongst many others through its colossal 105 m high incinerator stack. [5] On the face of it be benefiting only the developers, officials and the like. [6] Not benefit the local inhabitant’s quality of life in any way."

Siobhan Buckley
"I am against the building of Covanta Incinerator for the following reasons:- The detrimental impact on health due to the nano particles of toxic ash (lead etc) going into the bloodstream and then brain. What future does this offer our children? I have concerns regarding the disposal of toxic ash after the incineration. There will also be and added impact on our health by increased traffic bringing in the waste. The volume of traffic will impact on surrounding villages In Bedfordshire we recycle 50% of our waste, why should we have to therefore import from several other counties their waste to feed this ghastly incerator? What is ECO friendly about this? The incinerator will have an impact on tourism and the further development of tourism, which brings in the main revenue to Bedfordshire. It will be a carbuncle on the surrounding countryside. Why should we have an incinerator rather than dealing with our Bedfordshire only waste in a more sustainable way"

Jane North
"My main concern is for the health and well-being of local people. Not only will the landscape change inextricably, quality of life will be reduced. The amound of lorries proposed are to use the detruncked A421 passing close and through some villages. This will increase the noise level considerably and trigger breathing difficulties in may people. I understand that the lorries will be arriving all day and most of the night. Everyone's health will suffer. My other concern is the nanoparticles produced by the incinerator. There is no evidence to suggests that this is safe. Indeed research has proved that they are impossible to contain and the toxic elements of mercury, led and other toxic chemicals will be breathed in by many people, causing untold health implications. Again we are all condemned, but not just locals, people in other counties where the air bourne particles will spread to. This will affect the land and our lakes. Where will the waste come from? Beds does not generate enough. I am opposed to trucking in waste from all over the country blighting the inhabitants of our villages and turning us into a dumping ground for everyone elses rubbish."

DENISE GRIFFIN
"I am extremely unhappy about this project going ahead. We just get rid of one air polluting element in the stewarby brick works and we have to fight another one in the form of the Covanta waste incinerator. I am extermely concerned about the quantity of lorries using the new A421. Why does this corner of Bedfordshire always have to be to the rubbish dump of the country?"

Hazel Ward
"I object to Covanta plans to build a massive incinerator at Rookery South. The size will dominate the rural landscape, the height of 43m and length of 200m of the main building is excessive and the chimney of 105m will dwarf everything in the vale. Traffic will be a major problem, huge quantities of waste will be brought into the site by lorries continuously, affecting all surrounding areas. I am also very concerned about pollution. The local area is already a major hotspot for asthma and other diseases related to pollution. How will safety emissions be monitored and controlled? I note that Sulphur Dioxide emissions from brick manufacture were monitored as being well above legal limits, yet the authorities were powerless to do anything. Will this happen again with this site? I also do not see the need for a large incinerator. I am concerned about waste being imported from outside the local area. Stewartby landfill is due to close, brickmaking has ended and the area has started to regenerate, this will all stop with the building of an incinerator. I do not see any benefits for the Covanta incinerator, it will blight the local community and I can only see negative effects. I am also concerned that this area has had a hugely disproportionate share of the adverse effects from waste disposal, mineral extraction and highly polluting industrial activity. The operators of this site have been guilty of numerous planning applications incrementally extending the scope and duration of activity, with each extension claiming to be the last. Enough is enough! The locals have put up with the filth, pollution, traffic, noise, disgusting smells and adverse health effects for far too long."

Henry Lafferty
"Introduction I would like to register my opposition to the siting of an incineration plant at Rookery Pit, Bedford. My objection is based upon the fact that I am a long-standing resident in Bedfordshire with grave concerns as to the safety and environmental impact of incineration, and is informed by the fact that I am a shareholder in and director of a UK company that has been formed to commercialise the internationally patented Gasplasma® system that can be used on a local scale to convert non-recyclable MSW to energy, Plasmarok® and little else (typically less than 1% residual waste). Incineration Incineration is yesterday’s technology addressing tomorrow’s problems. It is only economic at large scale. The proposed plant at Rookery Pit will be a physical “blot on the landscape”, with a large stack and, in particular, will require significant quantities of waste to be transported over long distances to feed its voracious appetite. Incineration: • can only do one thing, burn waste and use part of the heat generated to generate electricity using a low-efficiency steam cycle, • leaves 15-25% of the input volume as residual waste that still has to be disposed of, some of it as hazardous waste, • depends upon downstream clean-up systems to ensure that harmful substances (such as dioxins and furans) are not vented to the atmosphere, and • has a significantly adverse carbon footprint. Rookery Pit Whilst the Stewartby area has been industrial for some years the proposed incinerator will dwarf in scale any of the buildings that have been seen in this locality and the chimney stack will dwarf even the brick chimneys, The people of Bedford know well how often the smell from the brick chimneys can be obnoxious (and who knows how harmful to health). If the gas-cleaning system does not work properly then, even if the system shuts down once detected, harmful pollutants will be emitted to atmosphere, A wide range of wildlife has established in the area and will be threatened by the proposed development and, Traffic movements will be several times greater than they need to be, threatening lives and the environment. Alternative solutions There are alternatives to Incineration and I am best placed to comment upon the Gasplasma® system for reasons stated. Gasplasma®: • is economic at lower scale than Incineration (typically 100,000 to 150,000 tpa) which means that it can deal with local waste locally, reducing waste miles, • is carried out in a standard industrial unit without an enormous stack, • destroys or prevents the formation of dioxins, furans etc as part of the process chemistry and is less dependent upon gas clean-up to meet environmental targets, • produces a clean, hydrogen-rich syngas with many uses, including but not limited to the generation of electrical power on site through a gas engine or turbine (with much higher electrical efficiency than the steam turbines that incineration facilities have to use0, • leaves negligible residual waste (<1%) and, • has a significantly beneficial carbon footprint."

Brian Ward
"I object to Covanta plans to build a massive incinerator at Rookery South. The size will dominate the rural landscape, the height of 43m and length of 200m of the main building is excessive and the chimney of 105m will dwarf everything in the vale. Traffic will be a major problem, huge quantities of waste will be brought into the site by lorries continuously, affecting all surrounding areas. I am also very concerned about pollution. The local area is already a major hotspot for asthma and other diseases related to pollution. How will safety emissions be monitored and controlled? I note that Sulphur Dioxide emissions from brick manufacture were monitored as being well above legal limits, yet the authorities were powerless to do anything. Will this happen again with this site? I also do not see the need for a large incinerator. I am concerned about waste being imported from outside the local area. Stewartby landfill is due to close, brickmaking has ended and the area has started to regenerate, this will all stop with the building of an incinerator. I do not see any benefits for the Covanta incinerator, it will blight the local community and I can only see negative effects. I am also concerned that this area has had a hugely disproportionate share of the adverse effects from waste disposal, mineral extraction and highly polluting industrial activity. The operators of this site have been guilty of numerous planning applications incrementally extending the scope and duration of activity, with each extension claiming to be the last. Enough is enough! The locals have put up with the filth, pollution, traffic, noise, disgusting smells and adverse health effects for far too long."

Michelle Dyson
"Having researched the impact of the Incinerator I would put forward these objections as follows: Environment and Health Covanta themselves have proved neglectful in their stewardship of the environment. There have been cases in America where similar plants have been built and Covanta has been fined Hundreds of thousands of dollars for emitting cancer-linked chemicals into the atmosphere. Nearly 550 tonnes of ash will need transporting away from the site every day and I am concerned that the vehicles involved in this will not be safe enough to ensure the heavy metals being transported don’t leak into the local atmosphere. Emissions from the Incinerator can affect an area of up to 15 miles radius from the site. Whilst the site is in a rural area the potential problems caused by the emissions could affect up to 150,000 people. Most significantly- there is a move from Central Government and the EU to look for alternative waste disposal plans. It is expected that Private Companies and Local Authorities will come forward with plans that have the least impact on the environment. When a product is created and thrown away the best way to deal with it is through re-use. The second best way is to recycle the product and the worst ways to deal with it are to either throw it in a hole in the ground or incinerate it. Incineration does not reclaim the whole of the energy originally used to make the product in the first place. It is a grossly inefficient way to deal with our waste problems. Not only this, but it has negative impact on the drive to reduce our carbon footprint as a nation. Account must be taken of the damage created to European and UK policies on reducing our carbon emissions. Covanta cannot use the reclamation of energy to offset this impact as an argument as the reduced confidence residents have in the system will have a much larger impact on this issue. Add to the equation the large number of vehicle journeys needed to ‘feed’ the sites capacity, as well as the fact that many of these journeys will be made from a considerable distance from the site (at least six counties will need to contract their waste disposal to this incinerator to make it profitable) and the site will have a considerable negative impact on the policy of carbon reduction. Traffic Flows & Road Safety On much smaller plants the traffic impact of the large trucks used to transport waste in and ash out has been considered excessive in certain areas. This Incinerator is to be much larger than most and will result in at least one lorry every minute in order to achieve capacity and efficiency within the site. The site itself is not best suited to such a significant impact on the traffic flow and the knock on effect to the village of Stewartby will dramatically reduce the current level of road safety. There will also be a major impact on the quality of life for local residents by the number of traffic movements. Controls will need to be put in place to stop the large vehicles from travelling down some of the narrower roads in the area. Whilst signs are available to deter large vehicles from accessing certain routes these cannot guarantee that drivers will desist from making such journeys and thus putting drivers and pedestrians at greater risk on these narrow roads. The use of such vehicles on these roads will also have a major impact on the lifespan of the road surface. Who will foot the bill for such damage when it is caused? Since Bedford Borough Council has declared that it will not be using incineration to dispose of its waste and it is clearly seeking alternatives that are more conducive to an environmentally aware Authority why should Bedford Borough residents have to suffer the financial cost of this traffic? Visual Amenity The images shown of the proposed development do not show the full visual impact of the site on the local countryside. This building will tower over the local landscape and will be seen for miles around. As a rural site it will have a major impact on the lives of residents for many miles, affecting several local villages severely. This can have a serious psychological affect on residents. Indeed, the proposed chimney will be the tallest man-made structure in the whole of Bedfordshire, being taller than the nearby Cardington hangars where airships including the R101 have in the past been built. Democratic Deficit I am well aware that the size of the development has been carefully construed to take the decision on this application away from local representatives. What is worse still is that the decision in the first place to site this proposal at Stewartby, but just across the border from the controlling Authority of Bedford Borough Council, means that the representatives of those residents most closely affected by the proposal have a significantly reduced impact on the application. If Buckinghamshire County Council is so keen to develop this method of disposal for their waste then surely it should be sited within the bounds of that Authority? However, many residents in Buckinghamshire have protested against proposals for incineration in their own county. If representatives, at any level of Government, are to be truly accountable then they should do the right thing and develop their proposals in their own area. It is also the case that I have only picked up that Central Beds Council is consulting on this thanks to Facebook! It is symptomatic of the border issue that I have not been formally consulted by Central Beds Council, despite the fact that the proposal will have a dramatically negative effect on the lives of local residents, especially those who live in Stewartby. In concluding I implore those making the decision on this proposal to consider the above and if the impact on local residents does not draw you to a conclusion that this proposal is not right then hopefully an understanding of the negative impact this development will have on driving forward positive environmental strategies for dealing with waste disposal will."

Tom Ward
"I object to Covanta plans to build a massive incinerator at Rookery South. The size will dominate the rural landscape, the height of 43m and length of 200m of the main building is excessive and the chimney of 105m will dwarf everything in the vale. Traffic will be a major problem, huge quantities of waste will be brought into the site by lorries continuously, affecting all surrounding areas. I am also very concerned about pollution. The local area is already a major hotspot for asthma and other diseases related to pollution. How will safety emissions be monitored and controlled? I note that Sulphur Dioxide emissions from brick manufacture were monitored as being well above legal limits, yet the authorities were powerless to do anything. Will this happen again with this site? I also do not see the need for a large incinerator. I am concerned about waste being imported from outside the local area. Stewartby landfill is due to close, brickmaking has ended and the area has started to regenerate, this will all stop with the building of an incinerator. I do not see any benefits for the Covanta incinerator, it will blight the local community and I can only see negative effects. I am also concerned that this area has had a hugely disproportionate share of the adverse effects from waste disposal, mineral extraction and highly polluting industrial activity. The operators of this site have been guilty of numerous planning applications incrementally extending the scope and duration of activity, with each extension claiming to be the last. Enough is enough! The locals have put up with the filth, pollution, traffic, noise, disgusting smells and adverse health effects for far too long."

Lucy Ward
"I object to Covanta plans to build a massive incinerator at Rookery South. The size will dominate the rural landscape, the height of 43m and length of 200m of the main building is excessive and the chimney of 105m will dwarf everything in the vale. Traffic will be a major problem, huge quantities of waste will be brought into the site by lorries continuously, affecting all surrounding areas. I am also very concerned about pollution. The local area is already a major hotspot for asthma and other diseases related to pollution. How will safety emissions be monitored and controlled? I note that Sulphur Dioxide emissions from brick manufacture were monitored as being well above legal limits, yet the authorities were powerless to do anything. Will this happen again with this site? I also do not see the need for a large incinerator. I am concerned about waste being imported from outside the local area. Stewartby landfill is due to close, brickmaking has ended and the area has started to regenerate, this will all stop with the building of an incinerator. I do not see any benefits for the Covanta incinerator, it will blight the local community and I can only see negative effects. I am also concerned that this area has had a hugely disproportionate share of the adverse effects from waste disposal, mineral extraction and highly polluting industrial activity. The operators of this site have been guilty of numerous planning applications incrementally extending the scope and duration of activity, with each extension claiming to be the last. Enough is enough! The locals have put up with the filth, pollution, traffic, noise, disgusting smells and adverse health effects for far too long."

David TUCK
"I moved to Marston when the bricks works closed and the pits had shut. Now I find that the lorries will return, a new more odious chiomney will be built and our lives will be blighted again by the Rookery South Resoure Recovery Facilty. We do not want it. It will ruin the area. This area gone through years of being ravaged by industrialists out for cash and themselves. Surely it must somone else's turn. Find out where Malcolm Chilton lives and build it there."

Nola Todhunter
"I wish to register my concerns about the Rookery South project for the following reasons. It is a poor solution to the issue of waste management. Incineration merely disguises the problem rather than encouraging more sustainable innovations. In Bedfordshire we have made good progress with recycling and composting and more can still be done. The Stewartby area has been scarred by industrial projects in the past and much has been done to regenerate amenities for the community and wildlife - to install a vast incinerator makes no sense for the community. This project may suit neighouring counties that will be able to dump their rubbish here and not live with the consequences - it relieves them of the responsibility for dealing in a more satisfactory manner with waste. Where is the bottom ash and fly ash going to go ? these contain harmful chemicals. Particulate sizes that are released into the atmosphere are very small and there is no research about their effects - it does not mean they are harmless."

Keith Russell
"SIZE:- The structure will overpower the local rural surroundings. TRAFFIC:- Huge quantities of waste will be imported into the Marston Vale.Waste traffic would have to come off the newly built A421 on to local roads causing congestion. NEED:- I do not believe there is a need for any incinerator let alone such a large one. The Vale will start to regerate after Stewartby brickworks close 2011. BENIFITS:- I don't believe the incinerator or the suggested community benitits will enhance the local area, or outweigh the negative effects. EMISSIONS:- I am worried about the emissions that will be generated and how they will be monitored. Covanta have already been fined in the USA for infringement of safety legislation."

Robert Nicholls
"I am concerned about the effects on the environment of any emissions from the plant. I have lived in the Marston Vale area all my life and many times witnessed the effect of temperature inversions on the smoke emitted from the brickworks chimneys. Local farmers were of the opinion that the 'fall-out' from brickworks chimneys affected the health of their cattle. This problem went away as the brick factories closed, but may well return if the Covanta incinerator goes ahead. The increase in HGV traffic in the area will almost certainly reduce the quality of life for people living in the surrounding villages, and the negative impact on the skyline of such a large plant and chimney complex."

Derry Young
"The massive industrial structure will dominate the rural landscape, right next to the Forest Centre. We do not want huge quantities of waste imported into the Vale - giving concern to the detrimental effect the waste lorries will have on the area. We do not need such a large incinerator now that the vale has started to regenerate, nor imported waste from other areas. There is also concern about the emissions generated, and how they will be safety monitored - and the effect on the surrounding landscape."

Geoff Young
"The massive industrial structure will dominate the rural landscape, right next to the Forest Centre. We do not want huge quantities of waste imported into the Vale - giving concern to the detrimental effect the waste lorries will have on the area. We do not need such a large incinerator now that the vale has started to regenerate, nor imported waste from other areas. There is also concern about the emissions generated, and how they will be safety monitored - and the effect on the surrounding landscape."

Harry Clark
"I object to the site for the following reasons, firstly the size. the height being a dominating 43m tall will have the same affect as the snow dome in central milton keynes which is roughly the same size traffic from the site will also be a huge factor. i worry about the effect that these lorries will have travelling through the local villages the vale has already started to regenerate and there is no need to hinder this. in terms of emissions i believe that Covanta has not to good enough detail studied the effect of tempreture invbersions on the vale. benefits to this incinerater also seemed to be far outweighed by negatives."

D.J.Shurety
"After many years suffering the brick industry fumes both in Flitwick and to a lesser degree in Bedford and particularly whilst skiing at Stewartby we finally had clean air to breath, now this unacceptable regressive proposal.As a founder member of SWSC and first commodor skiing I have watched with pride the progressive enviromental improvement to the lake and its surounding. This proposal will totally destroy this wonderful leisure facility for people from a wide area originally so generously provided by Sir Ronald Stewart of The London Brick Company."

Mrs Tracey Duffy
"the proximity of the site to Stewartby, local housing, and the Marston Forest Centre. The Forest Centre has recently been nominated as one of the three Best Environment Projects across the whole of the UK. Would the 400,000 visits a year it currently attracts wish to visit the area if their enjoyment is hampered by the view of this facility and the consequent emmissions from the stack. the prominence of the proposed building and stack. Both Centre Parks and Nirah are building tourist areas within the same vacinity. How is the site of a huge incinerator and chimney going to be an attraction to come to Bedfordshire for either a holiday or day out. - the redevelopment of the site. This area was supposed to be part of the local plan for rural regeneration. Our rural areas are slowly being eroded due to housing developments etc. We must endeavour to protect our green environments both for future generations and wildlife conservation. - this facility is going to be taking waste from outside of Bedfordshire so is not therefore even of any benefit to the local community. - there is no need for such a large waste management facility when there are others being proposed by the local councils (Central Beds and Bedford) in the area. We already have waste management facilities at Brogborough. Surely it makes more sense to develop this area further particularly as it is far nearer Junction 13 for the M1 and therefore easier for transport routes. - the ruining of the rural landscape, including the views from Ampthill Park and Houghton House. - concerns about the temperature inversions - fly ash is a health hazard and with Covanta already under litigation in the USA for its emissions it is therefore concerning how emissions from the stack may impact the local area. - concerns about the massive increase in traffic by HGVs going in and out of the site from 5am every day. The roads have not been planned for this increased usage. - concerns of the increased CO2 emissions created by the huge number of trucks and from the stack."

Stuart Page
"I am a local resident, and therefore represent myself as a concerned individual regarding the local environmental effect this proposal has on my locality."

Clive Stallwood
"I feel that the planned development should not proceed as: The application was lodged in the last Government Administration under draft National Policies: the current Government has changed it's stance and application should be made or tested withthe current administration's criteria With the scale of emissions, the life time of the plant, and Covanta's record of prosecutions in several states in the US I consider there is a signiifcant risk of permitted levels to be exceeded"

Andrew Long, M.Sc., FCILT on behalf of Bedford Commuters Association (a Rail User Group)
"That the Covanta application for a DCO does not include any reference to private siding connections for rail freight use - to either the Marston Vale railway line (west side of proposed site); nor to the Midland Main Line (east side of proposed site). The site sits geographically between the two railway lines! Given the proposed annuals tonnages into (& out of) the facility & its catchment area, this is a very serious ommission. How can the proposals be sustainable if everything is via road/HGVs? It is understood that Covanta have not consulted the Rail Freight Group, or individual Rail Freight Operators (GB RailFreight, Freightliner, DRS, EWS/DB Schenker, etc.). Why? They have not included in their proposals a new passenger station on the Marston Vale railway line to serve Rookery South. This could be delivered under a Section 106 or 278 Agreement (or similar)."

Joanne Hickman
"Ifell that this should not proceed. I appreciate this type of unit is required, however they should be positioned as close to the arterial Motorway or Rail infrastructure as possible and not on land where large quantities of vehicles are required to transport the waste to and from the facility. I totally disagree with procceding with this planning application."

Jim Duguid
"My representation is to object to the proposed building of a LARGE INCINERATOR by Covanta at Rookery Pit, Stewartby. The location is awful due to being closely adjacent to The Millennium Country Park, which is just beginning to mature into a beautiful wildlife facility visited by many, many people throughout the year, it is wonderful to walk and cycle around and will not benefit at all from this proposal. Marston Vale has just recovered or even still recovering from many years of brick making, since the cessation the air quality is noticeably improved and we do not want to revert to the previous situation. We are informed that this facility produces dangerous waste which is difficult to dispose of in particular toxic waste called Fly Ash and dioxins straight into the air not all of which can be filtered out of the smoke plume, also emitted are nanoparticles of which there are no present controls over yet can travel hundreds of miles. Nanoparticles can be absorbed straight into blood stream when breathed in and contain harmful metals like lead and cadmium. Marston Vale has a natural phenomenon called temperature inversion which means that in certain still days the smoke plume from the chimney will fill up the vale, people who have lived in the vale for long time can remember the vale filling up with smoke from the brick furnace chimneys. Since the smoke plume from the incinerator cannot be guaranteed to be 100% safe it should therefore be avoided. Destroying waste by incineration is not good for the planet, we should be recycling everything possible to make earth's resources last for generations ahead, incineration destroys forever essential raw materials. Bedfordshire already has advanced plans to recycle via the 'BEar' project to meet European legislation due to be enforced in 2020, so we don't need this incinerator to comply. The projected increase in lorry traffic (900 a day) through the vale from all possible directions significantly goes beyond the current capacity of the road infrastructure so should therefore be avoided. The plant when up and running is estimated to required 60-70 staff , recycling centres will require significantly more, so will have negligible effect on local employment. Covanta have been constantly pulled up in the USA for not complying to pollution levels, that is because they cannot actually meet their stated levels within the incineration process, it is no surprise that there have been no new incinerators built in the USA since 1995. In conclusion, it is my considered view that the above points render the building of an Incinerator completely unviable and more effort should be put into finding better and more environmentally friendly solutions. Regards Jim Duguid"

Peter Metherall
"Incinerators generate a hazardous waste called Fly Ash. Will this then be moved off site to licensed landfill sites for such waste? By road through local villages? Or is there to be a second development of part of Rookery Pit South to become a licensed site for landfill of hazardous waste? Which then takes in hazardous waste from other locations, by road, through our villages? These questions need answers. The lack of clarity about the emissions from the incinerator chimney. At this moment there are no systems in place to determine the quantity of extremely toxic nano particles that are known to be present from burning non-recyclable waste, as at present it is only particles of 10 microns and upwards that are measured. Incinerators need feeding to be economically viable. As Bedfordshire increasingly recycles, where will the rubbish come from? The surrounding counties and beyond? Travelling through our villages? Clogging up even more the new A421 and our surrounding roads? Offering an incinerator has the potential to damage the push for increased recycling – so we lose both ways! These questions need answers. The environmental impact with increased traffic to and from the site. The natural lorry route will be on/off the new A421 at the Marston Moreteyne junction then travelling to and from the site behind the houses and the playing field of the village. The new A421 was designed to cope with existing traffic problems and some elements of growth. The predicted volume of lorries (900 vehicle movements per day) and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area such as this potential development at Rookery Pit South will be beyond the capacity of the road and continue relentlessly between 5am until 11pm. The sheer size of the building 75% of which, according to Covanta, will be above the existing edge of Rookery Pit, i.e. visible. This will dominate the skyline and negatively affect the Country Park as the building will be up against the railway line right by the footpaths of the Park. We will also lose the night sky with severe light pollution from the site operating 24/7. We will have permanent loss of a uniquely quiet area with its operating 24/7, plus the loss forever, of a rural landscape currently a haven of wildlife. Finally on a personal level, I suffer with COPD a chronic lung condition and have only in the last 18 months managed to improve my condition to a bearable level thanks to the improved clean air in this area since the closure of the brickworks. There is medical evidence that many others who also suffered from the pollution from the brickworks chimneys, have measurably improved since their closure. Do we really want to regress to more air pollution from an extremely costly giant incinerator, costly economically, costly to the environment and ulltimately , the planet, when we have much cheaper, more environmentally friendly methods of managing and reducing our waste. The answer is a resounding NO."

Steph Last
"I object to the proposal for an incerator on the following grounds:- Environmental impact - toxicity of emissions are not understood sufficiently -detrimental new industrial development in an area currentlyregenerating from historical industrial use - visual impact - overbearing and intrusive from a very wide area - will cause increasedtransport issues in the vale and surrounding major roads. - the need for importation from outside the county of waste to ensure economic viability of incinerator - Potential for increased importation of this waste from other areas as local area increases recycling. Economic viability of project - will not produce employment or economic benefit to local community."

Dr J Galliara
"1:benefits of Covanta incinerator to the community are unclear and seem to have more negative effects 2: We are concerned about the emissions that will be generated 3: We understand that there will be huge increase in lorries causing impact on environment"

David Cheadle
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because of the followingdetrimental effects to the local population, namely, (1) Air Emissions: The cumulative long term impact on the health of residents anxious about the EfW stack emissions over the life cycle of the plant accentuated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion within the Marston Vale. (2) Artificial Light: There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. (3) Visual Impact: The sheer size of the EfW and stack (accentuated by the plume) will materially impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (4) Noise: There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. (5) Traffic and Transport Impacts: The traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network and the traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road."

Lynne Cheadle
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because of the followingdetrimental effects to the local population, namely, (1) Air Emissions: The cumulative long term impact on the health of residents anxious about the EfW stack emissions over the life cycle of the plant accentuated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion within the Marston Vale. (2) Artificial Light: There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. (3) Visual Impact: The sheer size of the EfW and stack (accentuated by the plume) will materially impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (4) Noise: There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. (5) Traffic and Transport Impacts: The traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network and the traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road."

Sam Kirby
"I am opposed to the incinerator at Rookery South"

R Buchanan on behalf of Great Denham Parish Council
"Great Denham Parish Council is concerned that development of the Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station will lead to increased heavy vehicle traffic passing the village of Great Denham via the newly opened Bedford Western Bypass. The Bypass is already the cause of concern to residents due to noise and speeding. The increase of heavy traffic will exacerbate these problems with impatient drivers/bikers overtaking slower moving heavy traffic and produce increased noise/pollution from the movement of vehicles taking waste to the site."

Simon Whitham
"As a Sailing member of Stewartby Water Sports Club (SWSC), I object on the following grounds: The club was set up to promote leisure activity in a pleasant enviroment. During normal operations the 530 daily vehicle movements (One vehicle every 52 seconds), the majority of which will be noisy HGV trips, will make peaceful use of our leisure areas impossible. This includes: * The SWSC Club House is within 100m of the proposed access route to the RRF affecting our peaceful enjoyment of the patio area, club and grounds. * The club event camping area is with 50m of the proposed access route, and will suffer from permanent light pollution. * The clubs Water Ski Launch and Recreational Area is within 30m of Green Lane and will be severely affected by the increased noise from HGV Traffic. Sailing, the key sports at SWSC, is totally dependent on wind strength, direction and stability. The building will be over 40m high and the operational area some 500m or more wide, this is likely to have highly disruptive effects on the wind's strength, stability and direction. I do not believe that Covanta have demonstrated that the RRF (in non-technical terms) will not have a detrimental effect on the air and water quality of Stewartby Lake. Sailors inevitably fall into the water and the risk of exposing cut skin to water borne contamination is very high. Also the air emissions from the EfW stack give serious concern about air quality and long term health implications. In the sky above the Stewartby Lake there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Marston Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. The dust, odour, artificial light, smoke, steam and insect infestation are all likely to impact SWSC. The effects of dust and air pollution not just on our health, but also on boat finishes and covers are a concern. I am particularly concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. This is not something we'd like to prove was inadequate before acting!! The RRF site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. Stewartby Water Sports Club, Marston Vale Millennium Country Park and surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. An oversize Energy from Waste plant will fundamentally affect the rural landscape and its regeneration. Of particular concern is the affect on the amenity value of Stewartby Lake as a Water Sports Venue and is negative impact on membership numbers and volunteering. Taken to it ultimate conclusion this could affect the viability Stewartby Water Sports Club."

Mrs.Diane Walton
"I can see no benefit whatsoever to the building of this huge incinerator, but the downsides are many. Emissions, we know they will affect Aspley Guise, the old brickworks did! Traffic will increase, Aspley Guise is already used as a ratrun to the M1.A huge building of this nature will completely set back the beginnings of regeneration in a much maligned area."

Allan Wright
"My concerns regarding this proposal are: Air Emissions About reports that Covanta have been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. They also haven’t been given consent for any new site since 1995. In the sky above the Marston Vale there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. This plant would produce nano particles, which can pass directly into the blood via the lungs. They are so small existing control methods and regulation can’t account for them. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. This is a tourist environment not an industrial one. Landscape and Visual Impact The Covanta Rookery Pit stack would be higher than the long disused brickworks chimneys and the plume will accentuate it. The sheer size of the Covanta plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value Noise Noise has only been considered in terms of ‘average’ levels so no adequate account been taken of intermittent noise such as that from rattling of empty HGV’s Local and Regional Waste Management We promote local responsibility in the collection and disposal of waste – the proximity principle. The Covanta proposal will override attempts to deal with waste locally. Burning waste works directly against sustainability. It encourages over comsumption, stops inventive solutions to improve recycling and depletes limited natural resource. The bottom ash produced is toxic containing, for example, lead. This can go into building materials, which in time will be demolished and release lead into the environment. We have our own local waste management project - The BEaR Project - which is currently evaluating the first stage of the tender process so they can short-list the bidders to come forward with solutions that will best meet local needs Socio-Economic The project proposes to export electricity serving the energy needs of 82,500 homes, broadly equivalent to the housing energy needs of Bedford and the Marston Vale. It has never been explained how residents will directly benefit from this green electricity and how this figure of 82,500 is arrived at. The proposed 60-70 jobs this will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns. More employment would result from recycling schemes. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity. Traffic and Transport Impacts Significant vehicle movements to and from the site – arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week on Bank Holiday weekends will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community The transportation of upwards of 585,000 tonnes of rubbish per year will take place along the de-trunked old A421."

Janice Wright
"My concerns regarding this proposal are: Air Emissions About reports that Covanta have been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. They also haven’t been given consent for any new site since 1995. In the sky above the Marston Vale there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. This plant would produce nano particles, which can pass directly into the blood via the lungs. They are so small existing control methods and regulation can’t account for them. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. This is a tourist environment not an industrial one. Landscape and Visual Impact The Covanta Rookery Pit stack would be higher than the long disused brickworks chimneys and the plume will accentuate it. The sheer size of the Covanta plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value Noise Noise has only been considered in terms of ‘average’ levels so no adequate account been taken of intermittent noise such as that from rattling of empty HGV’s Local and Regional Waste Management We promote local responsibility in the collection and disposal of waste – the proximity principle. The Covanta proposal will override attempts to deal with waste locally. Burning waste works directly against sustainability. It encourages over comsumption, stops inventive solutions to improve recycling and depletes limited natural resource. The bottom ash produced is toxic containing, for example, lead. This can go into building materials, which in time will be demolished and release lead into the environment. We have our own local waste management project - The BEaR Project - which is currently evaluating the first stage of the tender process so they can short-list the bidders to come forward with solutions that will best meet local needs Socio-Economic The project proposes to export electricity serving the energy needs of 82,500 homes, broadly equivalent to the housing energy needs of Bedford and the Marston Vale. It has never been explained how residents will directly benefit from this green electricity and how this figure of 82,500 is arrived at. The proposed 60-70 jobs this will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns. More employment would result from recycling schemes. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity. Traffic and Transport Impacts Significant vehicle movements to and from the site – arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week on Bank Holiday weekends will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community The transportation of upwards of 585,000 tonnes of rubbish per year will take place along the de-trunked old A421."

Lucy Bywater
"I believe this will severley compromise the environment of the local area in terms of a large increase in heavy traffic and reduced air quality. feel also it will have a very deterimental effect on the quality of life of residents in the immediate vicinity. I do not believe Covanta's statements on air quality and am worried by their track record in the United States. I believe the local PCT has concerns in this area. From a personal point of view, two members of my immediate family have asthma since moving to the town."

Lyn Davis on behalf of Hulcote and Salford Parish Council
"Hulcote and Salford Parish Council object to the Covanta proposal and would like to raise their concerns as outlined below. Hulcote and Salford Parish Council intend to explore these issues in more detail in a further written submission at the examination stage. Location The proposed site is in a rural landscape wholly unsuitable for an industrial development on this scale. The proposed building is huge and will dominate the skyline and landscape, the visual impact being exaggerated by the plume, this added to the scale of the operation running on a 24/7 basis will negatively impact the Marston Forest country park which is an important local amenity and result in the permanent loss of a uniquely quiet area, important wildlife habitat and the wider rural landscape. We are also concerned that approval of this application will encourage further industrialisation of the Marston Vale to the detriment of the rural environment and the residents and is in direct conflict with other plans for the area including the expansion of the Marston Forest and tourism. We do not believe that there is any justification for a facility of this size in Bedfordshire. For the incinerator to be economically viable it will need to be fed with large amounts of waste, this could be potentially damaging to efforts to improve recycling facilities in Bedfordshire and result in waste being brought in from an increasingly larger area of the country. It is unreasonable to expect the residents of Bedfordshire, who have lived with substantial quantities of other peoples waste for many years, to continue to be the rubbish dump of the South East. Traffic and Infrastructure The volume of HGV traffic and long operating and delivery hours of the site will be detrimental to the quality of life for local residents. The upgraded A421 has been designed to cope with the current traffic volume with some element of growth, but does not allow for the hundreds of vehicle movements per day which this site will generate in addition to this element of growth. It is inevitable that there will be incidents that require closure of the A421 and the impact on local villages of diverted traffic will be immense. Hazardous Waste and Emissions The local community are greatly concerned about the emissions that would be generated from the site and the disposal of the hazardous Fly Ash produced by the incinerators. There is anxiety among the community about the hazardous waste being removed off site, being transported through the villages. Equally there is anxiety that Rookery Pit will be granted a license as a hazardous waste landfill site for the disposal of the Fly Ash in which case it will be able to take hazardous waste from other locations, again being transported through the villages. A further cause of unease is the apparent poor safety record of Covanta in the USA and its reported treatment of staff in its American operations which have been reported in the British press."

Miss L Davis
"Hulcote and Salford Parish Council object to the Covanta proposal and would like to raise their concerns as outlined below. Hulcote and Salford Parish Council intend to explore these issues in more detail in a further written submission at the examination stage. Location The proposed site is in a rural landscape wholly unsuitable for an industrial development on this scale. The proposed building is huge and will dominate the skyline and landscape, the visual impact being exaggerated by the plume, this added to the scale of the operation running on a 24/7 basis will negatively impact the Marston Forest country park which is an important local amenity and result in the permanent loss of a uniquely quiet area, important wildlife habitat and the wider rural landscape. We are also concerned that approval of this application will encourage further industrialisation of the Marston Vale to the detriment of the rural environment and the residents and is in direct conflict with other plans for the area including the expansion of the Marston Forest and tourism. We do not believe that there is any justification for a facility of this size in Bedfordshire. For the incinerator to be economically viable it will need to be fed with large amounts of waste, this could be potentially damaging to efforts to improve recycling facilities in Bedfordshire and result in waste being brought in from an increasingly larger area of the country. It is unreasonable to expect the residents of Bedfordshire, who have lived with substantial quantities of other peoples waste for many years, to continue to be the rubbish dump of the South East. Traffic and Infrastructure The volume of HGV traffic and long operating and delivery hours of the site will be detrimental to the quality of life for local residents. The upgraded A421 has been designed to cope with the current traffic volume with some element of growth, but does not allow for the hundreds of vehicle movements per day which this site will generate in addition to this element of growth. It is inevitable that there will be incidents that require closure of the A421 and the impact on local villages of diverted traffic will be immense. Hazardous Waste and Emissions The local community are greatly concerned about the emissions that would be generated from the site and the disposal of the hazardous Fly Ash produced by the incinerators. There is anxiety among the community about the hazardous waste being removed off site, being transported through the villages. Equally there is anxiety that Rookery Pit will be granted a license as a hazardous waste landfill site for the disposal of the Fly Ash in which case it will be able to take hazardous waste from other locations, again being transported through the villages. A further cause of unease is the apparent poor safety record of Covanta in the USA and its reported treatment of staff in its American operations which have been reported in the British press."

Peter Wakefield on behalf of Railfuture
"There is no reference to connections from the site to the national railway freight network, even though the site is adjcent to two major rail routes, the Midland Main Line with its north and south connections and the Marsden Vale route, which set to become a signifcant east-west rail route with connections via Oxford as well as via Bletchley. These are proposals for very large tonnages in and out of the site and the.lack of a rail connection is a very serious ommision. Rail is by far the most sustainable transport mode for heavy goods and this project should not go forward without railway connections being provided from the outset."

Richard Baker
"I have grave concerns about the health and wellbeing of local residents and wildlife, flora and fauna. I live in this area as i found living in town affected my asthma. myself and others with breating difficulties do not need this. There is also the hazardous waste that is a by product that is to be transported on local roads that are a concern. I feel that there has not been enough research in to other methods of disposal."

Craig Drew
"Please do not go ahead with this proposal my objections are :- 1. It will have a massive visual impact. 2. Adverse health affects to residents most likely 3. There will be a loss of wildlife habitat in an area that has naturally regenerated over many years and has already served well the communities local and other for waste facility in the past, leave us alone now!! 4. The road infrastructure will not cope will the volume of traffic. 5. Lorries and higher predicted traffic levels with noise and dust pollution, to which we do not even know the full extent yet, I suggest. 6. This facility is not to serve the local community against Government proposals that any such facility should serve the local area only if needed and there area no other solutions. 7. Recycling is required not incineration! 8. This facility will significantly increase the CO2"

Paul Drew
"My objections are :- 1. It will have a massive visual impact. 2. There will be a loss of wildlife habitat in an area that has naturally regenerated over many years and has already served well the communities local and other for waste facility in the past, leave us alone now!! 3. The road infrastructure will not cope will the volume of traffic - 900 lorries anticipated !. 4. Lorries and higher predicted traffic levels with noise and dust pollution, to which we do not even know the full extent yet, I suggest. 5. Not serving the local community only against Government proposals that any such facility should serve the local area only if needed and there area no other solutions. 6. Recycling is required not incineration! 7. This facility will significantly increase the CO2 8. Unknown effects on residents health"

Kirstie Drew
"Please do not go ahead with this proposal my objections are :- 1. It will have a massive visual impact. 2. There will be a loss of wildlife habitat in an area that has naturally regenerated over many years 3. The road infrastructure will not cope will the volume of traffic anticipated. 4.. Noise and dust pollution from lorries and higher predicted traffic levels to which we do not even know the full extent yet. 5. This facility is not to serve the local community against Government proposals that any such facility should serve the local area only if needed and there area no other solutions. 6. Recycling is required not incineration! 7. This facility will significantly increase the CO2 8. It is not known how the plant will affect the healt of residents over the years."

Jennifer Powell
"As a Power Boat Racing member of Stewartby Water Sports Club (SWSC), I object on the following grounds: During maximum throughput 768 vehicle movements, the majority of these will be noisy HGV trips this will make peaceful use of our leisure areas impossible. This includes: The SWSC Club House, within 100m of the proposed access route to the RRF affecting our peaceful enjoyment of the patio area, club and grounds. The club event camping area, within 50m of the proposed access route, will be severely affected by the increased noise from HGV Traffic. Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. Our enjoyment is ruined by a view of the RRF, the building will be over 40m high and the operational area some 500m or more wide, this will have disruptive effects on the winds strength, stability and direction. We do not believe that Covanta have demonstrated that the RRF will not have an effect on the water quality of Stewartby Lake. Air Emissions - There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I am concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Stewartby Lake there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Marston Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. SWSC, Marston Vale Millennium Country Park and surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation are all likely to impact on SWSC. There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. This is of particular concern for the SWSC Event Camping Area The RRF can process many times the size needed for Bedfordshire waste, I object to the out of Bedfordshire importing of waste and the resulting environmental impacts There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. Of particular concern is the affect on the amenity value of Stewartby Lake as a Water Sports Venue and its negative impact on membership numbers and volunteering. Taken to it ultimate conclusion this could affect the viability Stewartby Water Sports Club. For these reasons above we propose that the IPC should conclude that this proposal is the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area and in the wrong location."

izzie pickering
"I am worried about the impact of the plant on traffic particularly at M1 Junction 13 and surrounding routes, air, noise and light pollution from the plant, and the impact on the landscape of the Marston Vale."

Martin Powell
"As a Power Boat Racing member of Stewartby Water Sports Club (SWSC), I object on the following grounds: During maximum throughput 768 vehicle movements, the majority of these will be noisy HGV trips this will make peaceful use of our leisure areas impossible. This includes: The SWSC Club House, within 100m of the proposed access route to the RRF affecting our peaceful enjoyment of the patio area, club and grounds. The club event camping area, within 50m of the proposed access route, will be severely affected by the increased noise from HGV Traffic. Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. Our enjoyment is ruined by a view of the RRF, the building will be over 40m high and the operational area some 500m or more wide, this will have disruptive effects on the winds strength, stability and direction. We do not believe that Covanta have demonstrated that the RRF will not have an effect on the water quality of Stewartby Lake. Air Emissions - There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I am concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Stewartby Lake there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Marston Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. SWSC, Marston Vale Millennium Country Park and surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation are all likely to impact on SWSC. There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. This is of particular concern for the SWSC Event Camping Area The RRF can process many times the size needed for Bedfordshire waste, I object to the out of Bedfordshire importing of waste and the resulting environmental impacts There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. Of particular concern is the affect on the amenity value of Stewartby Lake as a Water Sports Venue and its negative impact on membership numbers and volunteering. Taken to it ultimate conclusion this could affect the viability Stewartby Water Sports Club. For these reasons above we propose that the IPC should conclude that this proposal is the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area and in the wrong location."

godfrey harrison
"I do not see the need for such a massive structure in this area,which would dominate the skyline for miles surrounding. The area is currently in the process of regeneration,which would be mostly if not totally destroyed by this project. The massive increase in lorries travelling through local villages will have a detrimental effect on quality of life. I am concerned about the effects of emmissions from the chimney of this structure and on the effects on the health of the local population. I see no benefits for the local population,only negative effects."

Diana Palmer
"Covanta should not be allowed to build this plant that will blight the landscape for miles around. Residents of the surrounding area, including Kempston, suffered many years of adverse atmospheric conditions, including smells, whilst the Stewartby brickworks were in operation. After a time of healthier air quality, of benefit to all, it would be iniquitous for a firm with a documented record of air pollution violations (in the US) to be allowed to jeopardise the health of residents again. The dramatic increase in HGV traffic that would ensue, should this application succeed, would completely negate any benefits that the dualling of the A421 will achieve. Given the very strong and well-supported and reported opposition to this application at both grass-roots and local authority level, a positive outcome to this vexatious application would completely fly in the face of this Government's commitment to the Big Society. This application must not be allowed to succeed."

Dominic Duggan
"I work for a company that supplies emissions monitoring equipment for incinerators. If approved and built, the plant will operate under the Industrial Emissions Directive, gaseous and particulate emissons from the the stack must be monitored and reported to the Environment Agency. I believe that the operators must be required to fit the best available emissions monitoring technology including systems to meet not only current but future monitoring requirements. These future requirements, under consideration by European Working Groups at this time, include installed dioxin and furan sampling systems, mercury emissions monitors and systems for the measurement of greenhouse gas emissions. Publication of comprehensive and high quality data from such emissions monitoring will help to allay the concerns of the public affected by this facility."

Angela Lowell
"I disagree with the proposed Rookery Pit, Stewartby incinerator I have got 3 children that live in the Bedfordshire area I am very concerned about this project and the damage it could do to the area in respect of toxins, fly ash, level of increased traffic, noise impact, impact on wildlife and scenery. I regularly walk around the country park and this would have an incredible impact on this. Something like this would ruin this area and totally disagree with it being built here. Surely there must be another area in the whole of the uk that is more 'in the middle of nowhere!' I also can't believe that in this day and age incinerating our waste is an option. Bedfordshire recyles considerablly well and I feel this would discourage other counties not to recycle so well if they had the option to just put there waste on a lorry to be burnt!"

Richard Mann
"1. Based on Covanta's record in the United States I am not convinced that they will ensure that no toxic substances are released into the environment. 2. The toxic effect of nanoparticles released in fly ash is, as yet, under-investigated while bottom ash is already known to contain heavy metals and other potentially damaging substances. 3. As Befordshire recycles approx. 50% of its waste, a plant this size will have to import huge amounts of waste from other areas, placing an unfair burden on this county's roads. 4. The vast size of the proposed structure will have a very deleterious effect on the Marston Valley which has been substantially reclaimed as an area of considerable beauty with significant tourist and recreational potential. 5. After many years of absorbing other authorities' waste as landfill it is grossly unfair that Bedfordshire should be expected to continue into the forseeable future by incinerating it."

Fiona Denchfield
"As a Sailing member of Steartby Water Sports Club(SWSC) I object on the following grounds; During normal operations 530 daily vehicle movements with maximum throughput of 768 vehicle movements ,comprising mainly HGV trips, will make peaceful use of our leisure facilities impossible. These include; The SWSC clubhouse which is within 100m of the proposed access route to the RRF The club event camping area which is within 50m of the propsed access route The club's Water Ski Launch and Recreational Area which is within 30m of Green Lane and will be severely affected by the increased noise from HGV traffic Angling pitches and our Sailing area (closest to the RRF at about 850m) will have peaceful enjoyment ruined by the view of the RRF."

Tracy Johns
"I object strongly to the Covanta incinerator. Not only will this will spoil the landscape next door to the Forest Centre in the Vale but there will be a large increase in traffic, something that is already a problem in our village. The increase in lorries will have detrimental effects on our roads and environment. We already have recycling/regenerating plans in place for our own waste and I do not want to have waste imported into our local area from districts outside. There is likely to be an increase in emissions and any increase will have an impact on our area. I don't believe that Covanta has adequately considered/monitored temperature inversions in the Vale nor how they plan to safely disperse the emissions from the stack. I firmly believe that neither the incinerator nor the proposed community benefits will enhace my local area nor will they benefit my children in the future. We are working hard to create a greener future for our children, and this will not benefit what we have already achieved."

Keith Alexander-Buckley
"My objections to this proposal are based on the following observations: Firstly, the situation of the proposed incinerator in Marston Vale is in a very scenic, naturally rich area which has only recently been permitted to recover after years of clay mining and brick production. Secondly, the increased traffic associated with bringing waste from a wide area to this site in its rural location is bound to both require significant increases in the road infrastructure and traffic levels, further damaging the immediate environment and increasing nuisance to the local residents and many people from around the wider area that use the countryside. Thirdly the incubator will have a negative scenic effect on the Marston vale Forest Centre which is a greatly enjoyed for its peace and tranquillity by numerous people and businesses. Finally I consider that there are more appropriate brown field sites in Luton or Bedford with pre-existing infrastructure to support this kind of industrial activity with minimal impact to those areas and permitting the natural environment in Marston Vale to continue to recover and be used as a relaxing area by the people of Bedfordshire and around."

Chris Notton
"(No Information Supplied)"

Sarah Allison
"I am concerned that the quality of air and water will be adversely affected in relation to Stewartby Water Sports Club Ltd. The water will no longer be safe for children and families to enjoy being in, whilst water skiing and sailing. The peace enjoyed whilst camping at the lake will be ruined with noise and light pollution and the abundance of wildlife including swans, a multitude of bird llife, small mammals and newts will be driven from their habitats. Visitors to the lake, who come from as far afield as America, The Ballearics, France, Cyprus and Africa to club members who live in Cheshire, Lincolnshire and Warwickshire, as well as Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire will look elsewhere for recreation and leisure and thus tourism for the area will be reduced, consequently affecting the local economy."

Carol Carter on behalf of Flitwick Town Council
"1. Air emissions and possible long term health implications. 2. Biuodiversity and Geological Conservation - proposed site adjacent to County park looking at re-forest the Marston Vale - will the oversize of the waste plant fundamentally undermine this. 3. Dust, odour, smoke, insect infestation, artificial light - the proposal will lead to loss of night sky with adverse light polution. 4. Noice - due to the increase in vehicular movements 5. Local and regional waste management - there is already a waste management project running in the county - The BEaR Project and is presently evaluating the first stage of the tender process. 6. Socio-Economic i. How will residents directly benefit from this green electricity and how is the figure of 82,500 arrived at. ii. Believe the 300+ jobs initially being created for the construction of the site will be imported temporarily and will leave the area when completed. iii. No guarantees that jobs will be offered to local people. iv. This will also have a detrimental effect on existing property prices, which will depress economic activity. v. Do not feel the incinerator will become a popular tourist attraction. 7. Traffic and Transport impacts i. Significant vehicular movements to and from the site operating 6 days a week between 5 am and 11 pm. ii. The A421, presently being upgraded to cope with existing traffic volumes - will this be able to cope with additional vehicular movements. iii. The waste to be transported by HGV's using the new M1 Jct 13, duelling with the A421. At the present time there is sufficient capacity to handle anticipated traffic flow, but the figures do not include increased vehicular movements for Covanta. iv. There apprears to be no alternative route should the A421 be blocked/closed."

Paul Keogh
"I object to the Covanta Incinerator application for the following reasons: 1) Traffic on local roads. The amount of Lorries transporting the waste to this site will produce unacceptable levels of noise and vibration in and around my property and will only increase in number once the plant becomes fully operational. I find it very hard to understand why waste could not be transported to this site by rail as it is going to be positioned between 2 railway lines. 2) Pollution I am deeply concerned about the type and amount of emisions.Huge chimney stacks will be erected to emit gaseous substances and particulates, some of which are harmful. As I understand it the track record of this company concerning emissions from existing plants in the US is not exactly exemplary. I do not trust this company to be honest about the kinds of materials or the amount produced from the incineration process. I am concerned about the long and short term effects upon my health from these emissions. 3) Effect of value of my property The proposed incinerator will be about a mile from my property. It will be supplied solely by road using heavy goods vehicles. That means to me that Lorries will be passing only 20ft away from the back of my house, on the old A421 as they drive to this site. I have been told it could be as many as 600 movements a day although it could eventually be higher. My house already shakes when a large lorry goes past and I am deeply concerned about the effect of 600 Lorries a day thundering past my house. The impact of this can only devalue property prices because of its negative impact on the local area. 4) The effect on the local environment Building a huge incinerator plant in the middle of the forest of Marston vale and between the villages of Marston Moretaine and Stewartby, supposedly within a conservation area, is obviously wrong. It will be on the doorstep of the millennium park and will be very visible from all aspects spoiling the enjoyment of anyone visiting the park. I am also worried about the noise and light pollution from this plant. We have just had the brickworks at Stewartby close, which for many years spread sulphur gases over the surrounding area and have finally got clean air to breath. This has been a great relief to me, as an asthma sufferer, my quality of life has improved significantly. It does not seem fair that we are now being threatened with an incinerator plant which will have a huge detrimental effect on this area and the people living in it for many years to come. The building works for this proposal will also be very disruptive. For the past 2 years we have endured the new A421 road works which have had a big impact, albeit the final resulting improvements to the road will be positive. The proposed incinerator will not in any way benefit me or the people living in and around this area."

Paul Randall
"After carefully researching the subject, I am objecting to the proposed Covanta incinerator for the following reasons: 1. There would be a huge increase in the volume of traffic, especially from Junction 13 of the M1 to the site. The roads are already heavily congested and the long awaited opening of the new A421 dual carriageway is being built to benefit local residents living and working in the area who have been continually subjected to long delays on their journeys for years. The noise and pollution associated with an extra, predicted 900 vehicles would be immense. 2. The Marston Vale is a rural area. An incinerator at the proposed site would ruin the landscape. However it is designed and built, because of its enormous size, it would be visible from miles around. 3. Incinerators are very expensive to build and very expensive to run. The cost of running incinerators in the USA together with public opposition have plagued Covanta. 4. The amount of electricity which would be produced from such a massive incinerator would be negligible. 5. The number of jobs created would be very small and the people employed would not necessarily be local people. 6. The incinerator would have a negative impact on tourism, especially on visitors to the new Centre Parc and local attractions such as Woburn Safari Park. 7. Incinerators emit dangerous toxins. According to the USA’S Environmental Protection Agency, even after using modern scrubbing equipment, burning municipal waste produces nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and trace amounts of mercury and dioxins along with the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. With the UK's Health Protection Agency stating that incinerators “do not pose a significant threat to public health” and Covanta saying that the emissions “will not have unacceptable effects on local air quality” is simply not good enough for 2010. If there is any threat to human health whatsoever then incinerators of any size should not be built. We must also consider Covanta’s history of polluting in the USA. 8. Incineration undermines recycling efforts. An incinerator would be competing for the same products that we want to recycle. Our goal in Bedfordshire, and also in the UK, should be for zero waste with reducing, reusing and recycling. Recycling will create far more jobs, create far less pollution and save more energy. I feel that an incinerator would be an environmental failure and a public health failure and of no benefit to local people. Covanta have not been able to build new incinerators in the USA because of health concerns and public opposition and we should not let them build in the UK. Even if incinerators were 100% safe, which they are not, I would be opposed to them because they are simply not sustainable. In addition Covanta would still need to use landfill sites to bury the residual, highly toxic flyash which would constitute 25% of everything they would incinerate."

Mrs rbara Wheeler
"I would like you to take into consideration my very serious objection when you make your deliberation on the Covana application. I and many others do not consider incineration to be the best way forward for waste disposal. Already in Central Beds we have increased our recycling by 50% and this figure will increase. Incineration is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity so threfore is a waste of energy. It would create few jobs and is very poor as far as economic investment. Noise and pollution are other factors - the infrastructure needed to build such a giant facility and obvious lorry movements both then and when operational day and partially night time 6 days a week plus Bank Holidays. As for air pollution we know that Incineration produces toxic ash in the form of Dioxins and Furans. This is a very serious health risk with Marston Vale Middle School situated down wind from the proposed site. If these elements are not regulated we have been led to understand that the nano particles can travel some way and stay in the air stream having serious health repercussions on us all. How much does air pollution control equipment cost? Don't we still need landfill for the bottom ash? All this seems very depressing, I live in a lovely area having moved to Ampthill three years ago to enjoy my retirement and have a good quality of life. I am now faced with the prospect of a monstrosity which would completely blight the landscape for miles around and be known as a dumping ground for waste from many Counties in England. My fears would be that once built they would want to expand and all our efforts on recycling, composting, re-use etc. be fruitless. What have we done here to even have this considered? Incineration does not help global warming. Covanta are out to make a mint at our expense. If it was such a good waste management system why are so many people throughout the Country opposed to it?"

mark norman
"I am a member of the Stewartby water sports club, together with my wife and 3 children. My wife also leases the catering rights on the site from the water sports club management committee. I ama dinghy instructor and take an active role in the growing youth and schools coaching at a small peaceful family friendly club. Many of the members use the club as a bolthole away from the rat race of modern life and a place to relax. The suggested minimum vehicle movements, one a minute or so will greatly impact on the site. We regularly camp at the site, and the traffic will conrtinue long after dark, and at dawn. The building will be huge, and the heat generated together with the building size, must have some detrimental effect on the wind strength, and direction. Even the small trees at the waters edge, and the mounds by the forest centre affect the wind, we accept these as part of sailing, but the building may have a massive effect. Water will be pumped into the bay at the end of the sailing lake. regularly fall in as do my children, and the children I teach. What have covanta done to demonstrate they have an efficient waste water monitoring system. Particularly as their US plants have a less than glowing record and have been served improvement notices. In the past the brickwork chimney emmisions caused damage to boat covers and boat finishes, is there any evidence that the emmisions won't do the same again , and more importantly what about me and my family breathing it in! I understand the principal of the plant being 'non smelly' with the furnace drawing air in and stopping the smell, but what of the lorry a minute, the lorries stink, having worked in the area for some 30 years, I have experienced the smell form lorries travelling the A421, and queueing to get in the waste sites, the lorries won't just drive around until the 5am opening they will park up and queue to be first in, on Green lane. Don't say they won't as they have caused congestion on the A421 before now. I accept that something has to be done about waste, but why import someone elses again, we are just about to reach the end ogf filling holes with someone elses rubbish The whole ethos of the country park and vale forest provides the perfect setting for a water sports club, we have worked hard to increase our sailing section membership with the particular emphasis on families, who is going to want to join a sailing club next to a huge incinerator and chimney? Of particular concern is the affect on the amenity value of Stewartby Lake as a Water Sports Venue and is negative impact on membership numbers and volunteering. Taken to it ultimate conclusion this could affect the viability Stewartby Water Sports Club. Thank you Mark Norman"

Felicity Buswell
"I wish to state my objection with to the proposal to build an incinerator at Stewartby. SInce the closure of the brickworks, the air quality has really improved. This is particularly significant given the high incidence of asthma in the area. The nearby Marston Vale country park at and regeneration of the forests of the area have produced an area of great and growing beauty and have made significant progress towards regenerating this landscape. An incinerator would be a retrograde step. My family and friends use the Marston Vale country park for recreational purposes on a regular basis throughout the year. Our lifestyles and health are enhanced by the outdoors opportunities it provides us with. If the incinerator were built i would not wish to go near it and would fear for the health of the failies living in its shadow. Please do not build this incinerator. Please consider the local people and in particular the local children. Thank you for considering my objections."

Mr Peter Neale
"1. The proposed facility is of such a size and scale that it will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site was always considered to lie within an “area of great landscape value” and whilst the weight attributed to this definition may have changed the sites relationship to some of the best panoramic views in Central Bedfordshire have not. It will detrimentally affect the views from the vale to the surrounding Greensand Ridge; and the panoramic views from the ridge across the entire vale, especially those seen from Ampthill Park, will be materially impaired. 2. Rookery pit is in a totally rural area and is not directly served by major transport infrastructure. Lorries travelling to and from the site carrying waste and/or toxic ash will have leave the A421 and travel along a de-trunked local road and a village access road passing close to housing and community facilities. 3. Vehicles will be moving in and out between 0500 and 2300 causing noise and disturbance. This will be greatest in the early morning when empty lorries leave the site and the background noise is low. 4. There is growing evidence that the discharge from the chimneys will carry nano particulates smaller than 10 microns and that these are highly injurious to health. This area suffers from climatic conditions which mean that any such discharge can remain within the vale for long periods. 5. As knowledge expands so exposure limits will fall. This has already happened within this industry. Why should the current limits be any more correct than the previous ones? This expansion of knowledge may have much to do with the reason that this company has not succeeded in gaining permission to build any new plants in its home country for some considerable time. 6. Once operating the plant needs a constant tonnage to stay viable; this will reduce the necessity to increase recycling and will remove the incentive for more innovative and engineered solutions."

Rachel Long
"Concerned about long term health issues regarding the incinerator and the emissions from the stack, concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. Serious concern that the proposal will cause a cumulative impact over the 30 year + life cycle of the plant either within the Marston Vale and/or Bedford and Kempston. The proposed site is adjacent to Marston Millenium country park which we use regularly with our children and friends and family and we believe that an Energy from Waste plant will undermine the purpose to re-forest the marston Vale area. OUR surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life. The sheer size of the building will dominate the skyline – most of which will be visible above the existing edge of Rookery Pit. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices – which in turn will depress economic activity."

Mrs EM Coulson
"1. The infrastructure in the area cannot support the increase in traffic and in particular heavy goods vehicles. 2. The pollution is unacceptable. 3. It must be wrong to be transporting this material around the country 4. The location is one where there is a natural history interest"

kathryn underhill
"I am of the understanding that Covanta are giving a false impression that the proposed incinerator would be a safe and effective form of generating energy from waste. It has been demonatrated that this is the most unefficient and negligent waste disposal scheme. It seems that America opted out of installing these monsterous machines ( having not had any new incinerators opened since 1995), and Covanta think that they can make money by imposing these processing plants on our small country. They seem to have brain washed the environmental agencies, making them think that the expensive air filtering devices will not allow any emmisions of harmful toxins. Covanta representatives are sating that air regulations are so tight, there would be no harmful pollutants! NANOPARTICLES are so small that they pass through these filters, into our atmosphere, being suspended in the air allowing them to travel long distances, potentially across counties, being inhaled, passing through alveoli into the blood stream and across the blood brain barier! That's the first major, unforgivable flaw. Secondly, the ash produced is toxic and a massive waste problem in itself - this has to go somewhere. I understand that some of this waste product has the potential for use in building materials. The toxicity may be locked away temporarily, but if it's sanded or demolished/refurbishment of buildings takes place, partcles are released into the air to be inhaled. Thought that lessons may have been learnt from the problems and health concerns raised with the similar use of Asbestos. Im nearing my 500 word limit, lets look at the published facts and figures. It would be negligent for the government to allow incineration of waste, we are already doing well with recycling/composting. Industries need more incentives to reduce packaging, and we as a country need to reduce the amount of waste or we wont have a world to pass on to future generations. I compost, re-use bags, recycle, grow organic, unpackaged fruit and veg, others do too, but everyone needs to be on board. I want to start a family, but don't wish to bring them into a world which has no hope!"

G M Richardson
"IPC Application Rookery South 1) The proposal disregards true sustainability 2) It relies on road transport for material coming into the site and I can only assume it will mean that there will be road transport for materials exported from the site dispersing through the local villages? 3) Past experience of proposals for the burial of low grade radioactive material in nearby Elstow pits by NIREX (?) indicates that trust in professional integrity is unwise; protest groups can uncover important facts. 4) The scale of the operation does not fit with Central Bedfordshire's needs 5) Consequently there will be adverse effects upon our environment our employment our amenity our health our socio-economic welfare 6) Central Bedfordshire was once affected by the air-pollution from both the firing and the transporting of the clay bricks dug from the extensive underlying clay fields. Now there are plans for increasing the number of tourists in this region. The proposed development will have an extensive and cancerous footprint right in the middle of environmental and recreational friendly developments."

a.w.reeve
"I am concerned that the good work done in the Millenium Park may be adversely affected due to the constant passage of construction and waste-carrying traffic. The height of the buildings (chimneys.etc) will be an unsightly feature in such an attractive part of our countryside."

Mr S Morris
"Toxic fly ash being removed from the site being driven through our villages and towns at what price? What is the cost of human life? To place this incinerator in such a location is beyond belief. There are no benefits, increased traffic of huge quantities of waste being imported to the vale. A building of substantial size equalling the height of Milton Keynes snow dome and some 200 m long. A 105m high chimney spewing out emissions and who knows what else. I think it’s a crime and I am against this Covanta Incinerator due to the health and location issues."

andrew brocklebank
"1. The structure is too large. It will completely dominate the landscape. 2. Waste will create large traffic flows, as it is being brought in by road, despite the proposed site being located between 2 operational railway lines. 3. With the closure of the brickworks and the imminent ending of landfill, the Vale is beginning to regenerate. This plant will set regeneration back years. 4. I remain unconvinced about the safety of the emissions which will emanate from this plant. 5. I am concerned that there will be no incentive for Covanta to sort rubbish as it arrives, so as to avoid incinerating recyclable material. 6. I cannot envisage any significant benefits arising which would counterbalance the environmental damage which this operation will cause."

ingrid wallace
"i am unhappy about the size and magnitude, the ammount of trafficing of waste to the site, safety isssues, emmissions. smaller more manageable options should be considered not this monpolosing giant."

Richard Cawkwell
"I have the following objections to the proposal. • The siting is completely inappropriate; it is too close to existing towns and villages such as Stewartby, Houghton Conquest, Marston Moretaine, Millbrook and Ampthill and will have deleterious impacts on all these communities. It also relies exclusively on the road network and makes no attempt to use an adjacent railway line for the transport of materials. • It is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park - a wonderful local resource which will be seriously and detrimentally affected if this development goes ahead. The noise from constructing and then operating the plant will effectively prevent any enjoyment of this Country Park. In this context I am particularly concerned about the planned 530 daily lorry movements (ie an average of one every 2 minutes) adjacent to two sides of Stewartby Lake; the noise and air pollution from these lorries will adversely impact on all users of this currently peaceful community facility. • The size of the project also means that waste will inevitably have to be transported over long distances (by road) to supply the incinerator; I am concerned about the wider noise and air pollution that will result from these movements. • It is entirely speculative and contradicts the waste strategy being developed by the three Bedfordshire local authorities. This has its preferred option to use Rookery South for landfill and for the strategic recovery of locally arising waste only. The proposal would prejudice the achievement of this local waste strategy. It also seems contrary to the Prime Minister’s views that such proposals should be decided locally (Hansard 30 June 2010). • The site is in a vale which means that its detrimental visual and other impacts will be perceived and felt over a huge area. These include direct and indirect ecological and environmental impact in terms of habitat loss; impact on the enjoyment of the surrounding countryside from the network of public footpaths both adjacent to the site and in its vicinity; and impact on the enjoyment of the historically significant Ampthill Park and Ampthill Conservation Area. • The siting also means that whatever is emitted from the 105m stack will directly affect surrounding settlements - particularly those that are at a higher geographical level than the bottom of the vale. In this context, I would point out that the top of the stack is 136 m AOD: spot heights for the Greensand Ridge in Ampthill Park (according to OS maps) are 116m and 125m AOD. In other words, users of the Park and Ampthill residents will be breathing air at more or less the same level as that which is at the top of the stack and will have greater exposure to whatever pollutants the stack emits. This concerns me for both the short and long term health impacts (see also next bullet point). • I note that the applicant’s parent company has been prosecuted for breaches of environmental standards in the United States: I therefore have no confidence that the applicant will adhere to environmental standards in this country. Most recently, I note that Covanta is being sued in the US for dioxin pollution and that this led to their incinerator at Wallingford being shut down."

Richard Cawkwell on behalf of Jane Cawkwell
"I have the following objections to the proposal. • The siting is completely inappropriate; it is too close to existing towns and villages such as Stewartby, Houghton Conquest, Marston Moretaine, Millbrook and Ampthill and will have deleterious impacts on all these communities. It also relies exclusively on the road network and makes no attempt to use an adjacent railway line for the transport of materials. • It is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park - a wonderful local resource which will be seriously and detrimentally affected if this development goes ahead. The noise from constructing and then operating the plant will effectively prevent any enjoyment of this Country Park. In this context I am particularly concerned about the planned 530 daily lorry movements (ie an average of one every 2 minutes) adjacent to two sides of Stewartby Lake; the noise and air pollution from these lorries will adversely impact on all users of this currently peaceful community facility. • The size of the project also means that waste will inevitably have to be transported over long distances (by road) to supply the incinerator; I am concerned about the wider noise and air pollution that will result from these movements. • It is entirely speculative and contradicts the waste strategy being developed by the three Bedfordshire local authorities. This has its preferred option to use Rookery South for landfill and for the strategic recovery of locally arising waste only. The proposal would prejudice the achievement of this local waste strategy. It also seems contrary to the Prime Minister’s views that such proposals should be decided locally (Hansard 30 June 2010). • The site is in a vale which means that its detrimental visual and other impacts will be perceived and felt over a huge area. These include direct and indirect ecological and environmental impact in terms of habitat loss; impact on the enjoyment of the surrounding countryside from the network of public footpaths both adjacent to the site and in its vicinity; and impact on the enjoyment of the historically significant Ampthill Park and Ampthill Conservation Area. • The siting also means that whatever is emitted from the 105m stack will directly affect surrounding settlements - particularly those that are at a higher geographical level than the bottom of the vale. In this context, I would point out that the top of the stack is 136 m AOD: spot heights for the Greensand Ridge in Ampthill Park (according to OS maps) are 116m and 125m AOD. In other words, users of the Park and Ampthill residents will be breathing air at more or less the same level as that which is at the top of the stack and will have greater exposure to whatever pollutants the stack emits. This concerns me for both the short and long term health impacts (see also next bullet point). • I note that the applicant’s parent company has been prosecuted for breaches of environmental standards in the United States: I therefore have no confidence that the applicant will adhere to environmental standards in this country. Most recently, I note that Covanta is being sued in the US for dioxin pollution and that this led to their incinerator at Wallingford being shut down."

Thomas Cahill
"I wish to register my objection to the sighting of the proposed Covanta EfW plant at Rookery South in Bedfordshire. Some of those objections are: (1) A serious lack scientific data on the cumulative long term impact on the health of residents living in areas close to the EfW stack emissions over the life cycle of the plant. (2) To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. (3) The probability of the loss of even more night sky through light pollution. (4) The size of the EfW and stack will be a monumental blot on this essentially rural landscape and thereby destroy the many magnificent panoramic views. (5) There will be significant disturbance from the noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. (6) The EfW will undermine and discourage recycling. (7) According to some experts the electricity generating capacity of the EfW in terms of supplying average domestic consumption is exaggerated. (8) EfW assembly will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area and the remaining permanent jobs will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns – of which there can be no guarantee, will be offered to local people. (9)There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (10) The traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network and the traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. (11) Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. One need only stand on the ridge at Millbrook or at the top of Ampthill Park to appreciate the utter inappropriateness of this project in Marston Vale. Thank you for considering these objection"

Dr Ibtisam E Tothill
"I and my family object strongly to Covantas plans to build a massive incinerator at Rookery South or any of the surrounding rural areas. The rural landscape and also air quality has just started to recover at Cranfield and the valley from closing of the landfill. This incinerator will have massive negative effect on both if it is to be commissioned. I am very worried about the emissions that it will be generate and the toxic aerosols and their impact on ours and our children health. A valley is not a suitable place for an incinerator where toxic fumes even at low levels can concentrate and become harmful as their levels will be elevated. The smell which will be generated is also unacceptable to us as the people who have chosen to live in this rural area or to visitors to the area such as students of Cranfield University who at this stage have no idea about this massive incinerator and its impact on their health. I don’t believe that there are any community benefits that can be generated from having waste incineration or disposal in the valley as all will be outweigh by the negative effects generated by this. Hope that you will listen to the hard working people who live in this area."

Emma Turner
"I am object to the proposals for several reasons: Size - this is a massive structure that will dominate our landscape, particularly after years of brick making - finally Marston Vale is starting to recover. It is also extremely close to the beautiful Forest Centre which is used by so many people and which is a valuable habitat for many sorts of wildlife. It is absurd that it is intended to site it so close to it. Traffic - there will be many waste lorries travelling through surrounding villages to take waste and remove toxic fly ash. It is clear that this will adversely affect our environment and our health. Emissions - I am very worried about the emissions that will be generated and how they will be safely monitored. Covanta has not adequately considered temperature inversions in the Vale, and how they may affect the safe dispersal of emissions from the stack. Benefits - there is no way that this incinerator will in any way enhance our local area, or outweigh the negative effects. I have two young sons who will be growing up within a few kilometres of the proposed incinerator. I am extremely worried about the impact that it may have on their health and growth."

Kathie Halson
"I am opposed to the proposed Covanta Incinerator for several reasons: * The fact that not only would it be used for all the waste from Bedfordshire, but also the waste of up to another six or seven counties! * The amount of lorries that would need to pass through Marston Moretaine, which would cause a horrific amount of traffic in an already busy village, not to mention damage to the roads and noise from early in the morning until late at night. *The fact that we would not really know what was being burned and the huge possibility of toxic ash in our air. *The fact the the proposed building is to be around the same size as Wembley Stadium and the chimneys even bigger than the ones we already have to put up with! This would be a hideous blot on our landscape and ruin the view from the park and turn our village into a horrible industrial place. *The effect that the incinerator would have on our house prices if it went ahead!"

Chris Short
"As a Water Skiing member of Stewartby Water Sports Club (SWSC), I object on the following grounds: During normal operations 530 daily vehicle movements (One vehicle every 52 seconds). During maximum throughput 768 vehicle movements (One vehicle every 33 seconds). The majority of these will be noisy HGV trips that will make peaceful use of our leisure areas impossible. This includes: * The SWSC Club House is within 100m of the proposed access route to the RRF affecting our peaceful enjoyment of the patio area, club and grounds. * The club event camping area is with 50m of the proposed access route * The clubs Water Ski Launch and Recreational Area is within 30m of Green Lane and will be severely affected by the increased noise from HGV Traffic Angling pitches and our sailing area (which is closest to the RRF - approx 850m) will have the peaceful enjoyment ruined by a view of the RRF Sailing one of the key sports at SWSC and is totally dependent on wind strength, direction and stability. The building will be over 40m high and the operational area some 500m or more wide, this will have disruptive effects of the winds strength, stability and direction. We do not believe that Covanta have demonstrated that the RRF (in non-technical terms) will not have an effect on the water quality of Stewartby Lake. Air Emissions - There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I am concerned about reports that Covanta have been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Stewartby Lake there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Marston Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. Stewartby Water Sports Club, Marston Vale Millennium Country Park and surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. An oversize Energy from Waste plant is will fundamentally affect the rural landscape and its regeneration. The RRF site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation are all likely to impact SWSC. Of particular concern are the effects of dust and air pollution on boat finishes and covers. There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. This is of particular concern for the SWSC Event Camping Area The RRF can process many times the size needed for Bedfordshire waste, I object to the out of Bedfordshire importing of waste and the resulting environmental impacts Of particular concern is the affect on the amenity value of Stewartby Lake as a Water Sports Venue and is negative impact on membership numbers and volunteering. Taken to it ultimate conclusion this could affect the viability Stewartby Water Sports Club."

Eric Harvey
"The surrounding area has been designated as a country park and an area of natural beauty. Home not only to people who cherish a village way of life, but to many species of natural wildlife. Having spent public money on the surrounding area to facilitate the above, it strikes me as a major retrograde step to build such a monstrous structure, which would certainly be a pollutant and have a negative impact on the countryside and all of its inhabitants. The structure, given the vast flat plain surrounding it, would be visible for many miles, including its discharge. The mainly "B" road system would also bear a large increase in heavy goods traffic as it is understood that the rail system would not utilised for transport, in or out. Such a structure and its purpose, if it has to be built at all, should be in an already industrialised area. The site of a disused brickworks would not be categorised in such a way, given the open countryside in its vicinity. Having recently moved into a new development in the area and noticed the difficulties that the developer faced in acquiring planning permission for simple domestic dwellings, for many of the reasons cited above, it is hard to understand how it could be possible to grant permission to build an industrialised structure in open green belt and with the potentially negative ecological impact."

David Hoy
"1. The Rookery Pit site is totally unsuitable for the building of an incinerator as it is in an improving rural landscape. The chimneys of the brickworks have finally stopped in the last couple of years and the Country Park has been developed into a leisure facility for thousands of visitors per year, who want to enjoy the countryside and wildlife. Stewartby Lake is also used by hundreds of people for recreational purposes and there are proposals to build the NIRAH Project nearby and a Centre Parcs. People are not going to want to visit any of these places if an incinerator is built slap-bang in the middle of them. 2. Bedfordshire is increasingly recycling a higher percentage each year and would not have enough waste to sustain this size of incinerator - which means waste would be imported in from all the surrounding Counties as it has to be fed 24 hours a day. The rural villages around this site cannot handle 900 movements of lorries per day/night with all the noise and air pollution that comes with it and the wear on the local roads. The lorries would have to pass next to the Children's Park at Marston Moretaine and local houses. 3.This incinerator would generate hazardous waste called Fly Ash, which in turn would probably end up in landfill - more lorries would have to take this away, back through the villages, unless they propose to dispose of it in a pit nearby. This ash is good for nothing and causes harm to the environment - leaching toxins into the surroundings. 4. The size of the proposed incinerator and chimney would be a massive blot on the landscape that could be seen for miles around and would be totally out-of-place in such a rural setting. The emissions from the chimney would damage the health of people in the surrounding villages and for miles around. There is no guarantee about what will come out of the chimney - nano particles can go straight into the blood stream containing harmful toxins. 5. Burning our waste in incinerators is not sustainable for the future of our planet. We would just be destroying valuable resources forever instead of recycling them so that they can be used again. Our resources are valuable and we should be moving to a policy of zero waste and investing in larger recycling facilities. A lot of business would benefit from this and it would create more jobs."

Roger Wheeler
"I would like to voice my objections to the proposal of a giant incinerator at Rookery Pit South for the following reasons. 1. Incineration is not the best way to manage our waste, manufacturers should be made more responsible and accountable to contain a zero waste strategy. 2. Noise and fumes caused by the movement of lorries to and from the site, this would be incredible as the incinerator needs to be fed 24/7. 3. The destruction of a place of beauty with extensive wild life and a magnitude of fabulous birds driven away by so called progress. 4. Pollution caused by the mere burning of waste and the ash residue left from the incineration which I understand could end up being used by the construction industry. 5. This would have no benefit to the residents, in fact it would bring yet another eyesore to the countryside which I understood was intended to encourage more tourists to the area not drive them away. In conclusion why are you even considering an American firm as there are plenty of innovative British waste management companies?"

J.V.Peat
"Dangerous Emissions from chimney- not proven safe on other plants run by Coventa,have been fined in USA for dangerous emissions. Amount of road traffic -lorries carrying waste ,6 days aweek 5am till 11pm Marston Vale has suffered enough over the years with this problem from other pits,and brickworks. Should not be importing waste from other areas,enviromentally unsound, best disposed of locally with smaller plants. Visual impact on vale and new forest,and villages. In certain weather conditions,fall out will descend on Kempston and Bedford,this was previously found with brickworks chimneys. Impact on proposed aquarium and further traffic problems, likewise with Centreparks developement,will also impact on new village development at Elstow /Kempston Hardwick."

Lisa Frangiamore
"I have serious concern regarding emmisions from the EfW stack, and the cumulative impact over the long life cycle of the plant, particularly due to the local air inversion phenomenon in this area.The size of the plant is disproportionate and inapropriate to its surroundings.The project discorages recycling. There is no sorting of waste at site to remove materials that could otherwise be recycled. and potential users have no obligation to dispose of only non-recyclable material. The increased volume of traffic movements will lead to constant disruption and disturbance."

Lucy Cronin
"I would like to formally register my objection to the sighting of the proposed Covanta EfW plant at Rookery South in Bedfordshire. My objections comprise: (1) A serious lack scientific data on the cumulative long term impact on the health of residents living in areas close to the EfW stack emissions over the life cycle of the plant. (2) To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. (3) The probability of the loss of even more night sky through light pollution. (4) The size of the EfW and stack will be a monumental blot on this essentially rural landscape and thereby destroy the many magnificent panoramic views. (5) There will be significant disturbance from the noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. (6) The EfW will undermine and discourage recycling. (7) According to some experts the electricity generating capacity of the EfW in terms of supplying average domestic consumption is exaggerated. (8) EfW assembly will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area and the remaining permanent jobs will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns – of which there can be no guarantee, will be offered to local people. (9)There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (10) The traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network and the traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. (11) Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. One need only stand on the ridge at Millbrook or at the top of Ampthill Park to appreciate the utter inappropriateness of this project in Marston Vale. Thank you for considering these objections."

David Ford
"My concerns to this proposal are as follows: The proposed size of the facility and the proposed location will have a negative visual impact that is not in keeping with the amenities of the Community Forest, Forest Centre and Millennium Country Park situated on an adjacent location. The proposed facility will cause a significant increase in the number of large heavy goods vehicle movements down Green Lane to bring the waste into the proposed facility also generating extra CO2 emissions and pollution. With the currently planned extra housing in the area this will put a considerable extra load on the existing road infrastructure. The incineration of waste will produce emissions and by-products both gas and solid matter some of which will be toxic and will require further disposal either on site or else ware requiring more vehicle movements. The proposed facility will generate gas emissions (pollution) to the atmosphere. These proposed emissions will be controlled to remove the toxic elements generated in the incineration process. There have been a number of instances where the control of similar incineration process has broken down and allowed the emission of toxic gasses that exceed the permitted levels. As I reside within half a mile, down wind of the proposed location have concern about the health implications should such an event occur."

Andrew Itzinger
"I feel compelled to voice my objections to the proposed incinerator that is to be located at Rookery Pit. Without prejudice, I consider this an ill thought-out proposal on a colossal scale. This proposed facility is too large for a rural site creating a negative impact on the landscape and to have this monstrosity running efficiently; waste will need to be transported in from all over the country, creating more pollution. On the case of incineration, this is the least environmental friendly way of disposing of waste, as the residual furnace ash is toxic and will need to be disposed of in landfill, creating more pollution. On the case of pollution, I have grave concerns about CO2 emissions on the surrounding areas by increased traffic, particulate matter from the chimney with the total net impact this Incinerator will have leading to poor air quality "particulate matter" – which has been estimated to reduce people's lives, also leading to damage to wildlife and agriculture."

Mrs V A Bacon
"A written objection to the proposed development on the grounds of its unsuitability to its location;size;the principle behind its purpose;the resulting by-products;transportation issues;the companies track record for causing pollution and the resulting health problems/local hospitals ability to cope with the increased poor health of the affected community."

Dr C Humphries
"I object to the proposed incinerator for the following reasons: Size - the huge industrial structure will dominate the local, rural landsacpe. Traffic - Lorries transporting waste will be travelling through to the incinerator from a large radius, during long proposed delivery hours. These are likely to have detrimental impact on the local towns and villages, and what are already busy rural roads. Emissions - The incinerator will generate emisisons and there has been no research done on what toxic effects these may have on the health of those living in the vicinity or the local environment."

John Ashby
"The character of the area would be changed due to the massive increase of the volume of lorries that would be delivering waste to the facility, the size of the proposed chimney and accompanying buildings, the emission of toxic nanoparticles, the landfill of toxic boiler ash. Since the closoure of the London Brick works, the area has returned to its rural character with facilties such as the Forest Centre and a proposed development by Center Parcs, bringing with it the potential of the creation of a substantial number of local jobs. With a massive waste disposal facility in the area the develop by Center Parcs would be put in doubt. Waste disposal chimneys release highly toxic nanoparticles. These remain in the atmosphere for a long time and can travel substantial distances in that time. This presensts a serious health hazard for local residents and those living further away. The ash from waste disposal facilities is toxic, usually with such elements as heavy metals. This ash would have to be disposed of locally or transported to other sites."

Elinor Ashby
"My main concern with this type of recycling plant is the detrimental effect of carcinogenic emissions, toxic ash and the nano particles that will pervade the surrounding area affecting the health of residents, (including unborn children) and the wildlife habitats, which have increased due to the efforts of the support for the Forest Centre in Marston Vale. Further concerns are the amount of traffic from Bedfordshire and surrounding counties that will travel for many hours each and every day on local roads. We are a small county and it is inappropriate that we should be dealing with waste from larger counties. This will affect the wear and tear on local roads (creating costs for local tax payers), emit pollution on the surrounding area from vehicle emissions and the waste products they carry and increase noise levels and traffic risks for local residents. Essentially I still believe that we should tackle the recycling issue in a different way by reducing the need for excessive packaging on our goods by taxing the suppliers who insist on triple packaging on many goods, increasing current recycling, including using human waste to generate electricity and dealing with toxic waste more effectively in order to preserve Marston Vale as a popular tourist centre, as shown by the Forest Centre and the accepted application by Center Parcs which will also generate employment in the area. Any recycling project will be detrimental to this aspect of life, tourism and employment within the area. The Brickworks and our landfill sites have caused problems for many years with pollution, invasions of flies and ghastly odours over the years. Give Marston Vale a rest and allow it to become a rural area supporting tourism in the future. My main concern with this type of recycling plant is the detrimental effect of carcinogenic emissions that will pervade the surrounding area affecting the health of residents, (including unborn children) and the wildlife habitats, which have increased due to the efforts of the support for the Forest Centre in Marston Vale. Further concerns are the amount of traffic from Bedfordshire and surrounding counties that will travel for many hours each and every day on local roads. We are a small county and it is inappropriate that we should be dealing with waste from larger counties. This will affect the wear and tear on local roads (creating costs for local tax payers), emit pollution on the surrounding area from vehicle emissions and the waste products they carry and increase noise levels and traffic risks for local residents. Essentially I still believe that we should tackle the recycling issue in a different way by reducing the need for excessive packaging on our goods by taxing the suppliers who insist on triple packaging on many goods, increasing current recycling, including using human waste to generate electricity and dealing with toxic waste more effectively in order to preserve Marston Vale as a popular tourist centre, as shown by the Forest Centre and the accepted application by Center Parcs which will also generate employment in the area. Any recycling project will be detrimental to this aspect of life, tourism and employment within the area. The Brickworks and our landfill sites have caused problems for many years with pollution, invasions of flies and ghastly odours over the years. Give Marston Vale a rest and allow it to become a rural area supporting tourism in the future."

DEREK EATON
"I feel most strongly that this waste disposal should not be sited in this area. Apart from the inviromental impact the sheer number of heavy lorries required first of to build the facility and then to bring the waste material, try crossing the M1 at rush hour and see the lenght of traffic build up. Followed by the incineration with all of the possible pollution released in the atmosphere. I would ask the question who will be making a profit out of the residents inconvenience"

Christopher Randall
"I wish to object to the proposed Covanta incinerator for the following reasons; 1. The visual impact on the landscape of the Marston Vale. The main building height would be 43m and the stack 105m. However it is designed it would be visible for miles around. 2. The financial consequences. Incinerators are promoted as “privately financed”. Covanta would secure contracts from local authorities who would be contractually obliged to deliver so much rubbish to the facility for years or risk heavy financial penalties. This would restrict future innovation in waste management. 3. The small number of jobs that would be created. The amount of money spent on incinerators goes into expensive, complicated equipment. Considering how much incinerators cost to build, apart from the number of jobs created during the construction phase, only 80 permanent jobs would be created. 4. Incinerators undermine recycling schemes. This giant incinerator would need to be fed and it would be fed with rubbish which could have been recycled or reused. If a community puts its efforts into reusing, repairing, recycling and composting and more kerbside recycling programmes, then many more jobs would be created. 5. The small production of energy. The energy produced does not justify the huge costs in building incinerators. They have to be run for several years before there is a net production of energy. 3-5 times more energy is saved in recycling. 6. Effects on human health. Even if the most stringent pollution conditions were imposed upon Covanta, no one would be able to measure the actual pollutants until after it was built. There are no incinerators anywhere in the world that do not pollute. Covanta have been fined numerous times in the States for emitting carcinogenic substances. When these incinerators malfunction, they cause widespread pollution. 7. The effect on our roads. This is a rural area and Covanta plan to use Green Lane in Stewartby which, as the name suggests, is a country road. An estimated extra 900 trucks and cars on our country lanes would be intolerable. Covanta have said that they will monitor HGV movements. How would they ensure that trucks did not use our villages? 8. Temperature inversion. We are in an area where pollutants are trapped at ground level instead of them being circulated away by convection currents. We endured this when the polluting Stewartby brickworks were operating. 9. Each local authority should be responsible for its own waste management programmes. Bedfordshire, which has a 50% recycling rate, should be encouraged to increase this rate and not be responsible for the waste from other counties. 10. 25% of everything incinerated is converted to toxic fly ash. I have yet to read how Covanta propose to dispose of the thousands of tonnes of fly ash and how much this would cost. If they use landfills, then this is the very thing we want to stop. 11. An incinerator would have a detrimental effect on tourism. We need to encourage visitors not deter them."

Mrs S Herget
"Vehicle movements to and from the site - arriving and departing between the hours of 5am and 11pm 7days a week / 6days a week on Bank holiday weekends. This will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community. I have serious concerns about long term health implications from the emissions of the EFW stack"

Lee Tysoe
"I am very concerned concern about emissions from the plant and long term health implications to everyone in the area and also the fact that incineration discourages recycling and contributes significantly to atmospheric CO2. I am also concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in America. Proof that they do not provide what they originally stated. The proposed site is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale. An oversize Energy from Waste plant will fundamentally undermine that purpose. The surrounding villages are within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life. The site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. The sheer size of the building will dominate the skyline. The Covanta Rookery Pit stack will be higher than the long disused brickworks chimneys. The plume will accentuate the stack visibility. The sheer size of this proposal will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. This site will materially impair the panoramic views from the ridge across the entire Vale, especially those seen from Ampthill Park. There will also be noise from the plant itself. It has never been explained how residents will directly benefit from this green electricity and how this figures stated by Covanta have been arrived at. Covanta exaggerate their electricity generating capacity in terms of meeting average domestic consumption. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices – which in turn will depress economic activity. The new A421 was designed to cope with existing traffic problems and some elements of growth in Bedford Borough. The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road. Thus far there has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed project on communities beyond the Marston Vale but within Bedfordshire."

andrew weeks
"The development of this incinerator raises a number of concerns which are listed as follows: 1. Air Emissions from the incineration process. We do not understand the long term health implications from the release of nano particles as a consequence of burning waste. These health implications would not just be confined to the Marston/Bedfordshire area. What testing regime would or could the EA impliment to monitor these emissions and what has been agreed as a safe level. If a safe level has been agreed for nano-particulate emissions will evidence be provided to support this? Covanta appear to fall foul of the US EPA in their ability to meet emission levels so what guarantees are there that they will be able to meet levels set for the site at Rookery Pit? 2. Traffic. No consideration has been made for delivery of waste by rail in order to reduce the pressure on the existing road infrastructure. There is no designated turning off the recently dualled A421 to serve this proposed facility so vehicles will be using local 'minor' roads. This situation will be exacerbated if the new A421 dual carriageway is shut for any reason. Odour and noise from vehicles will be an ongoing issue for local residents. The scale of the proposed incinerator means waste will be hauled from a large radial distance so increasing the number of lorries on roads. This does not appear to fit very well with the proximity principle in dealing with waste. 3. Socio-economic factors Long term health issues associated with incineration. Decrease in house values near an incinerator. The area is becoming more reliant on tourism as indicated by the Forest of Marston Vale Forest Centre, an approved Center Parcs application and potential NIRAH project. This type of facility will do nothing to enhance the amenity value or attract visitors to the area. 4. Landscape/Biodiversity Current landfill sites are in theprocess of closing and entering the restoration phase. This will enhance the visual quality of the Vale. A development of this scale will impact heavily on the visual amenity of the Vale, particularly form elevated views along the Greensand Ridge and from the Forest Centre. Nature has adapted to human intervention and has reclaimed Rookery Pit to provide a diverse habitat. 5. Waste should be viewed as a resource not a problem Raw materials and energy contained in discarded objects are becoming increasingly valuable. Breaking the cycle of dependency on raw materials and energy usage associated with processing and manufacture should be promoted. Burning of 'waste' is an inefficient way of producing small amounts of energy and does not reduce our reliance on raw materials and consequent energy demand. As a by-product of the incineration process fly ash and bottom ash are produced in large quantities and are potentially hazardous waste materials in their own right. There is still a reliance on landfill to treat wastes from the burning process. Recycling and re-use of materials is preferred to incineration/energy from waste according to the waste heirarchy. Recyling and re-use of waste has the potential to create more jobs than an incineration facility through collection, separation and re-processing operations. This should be actively encouraged. Bedfordshire currently recycles approximately 50% of waste produced. This can be further improved through promotion and encouragement. With an incinerator on the doorstep what will happen to recycling rates and targets? A burning option provides a 'quick solution' to a waste 'problem'. However, it stifles development and innovation in waste recycling and re-use during the operational life of the plant. It is for these reasons that the development of incinerators should not go ahead, not only in the Marston Vale but throughout the UK."

Anne Bladon
"My objections to the Covanta proposal are as follows: •An incinerator will forever change the character of the local area •Incineration contributes significantly to atmospheric CO2. I am extremely concerned about the amount of toxic nanoparticles which will be released into the atmosphere. This will cause a great health risk to both humans and wildlife. •Covanta are currently being sued for the second time in the USA for dioxin pollution, so they have a recent history of failure to operate to the required safety standards. •Incineration will greatly discourage recycling and composting in this area. Currently Bedfordshire Council has a good record of recycling. If the incinerator is built then they will be unable to work towards more sustainable solutions for waste management as vast quantities of waste will be required for the incinerator. •There will be a huge increase in traffic levels and associated noise and dust pollution in the local area. •The proposal to draw huge proportions of the waste processed by the plant from surrounding counties is unacceptable. I do not agree that Marston Moretaine should be responsible for dealing with several counties waste. We should not be turned into a huge dumping ground. •There will be a loss of wildlife habitat in an area that has naturally regenerated over many years. •There will be a detrimental effect on local housing prices, very few individuals will want to live in such close proximity to an incinerator. •Tourism in the area will be greatly affected. The Forest Centre will certainly not attract many visitors if a large incinerator is sited in such close proximity and in fact tourism to the whole county will be affected. •The Covanta Incinerator proposal will create a few jobs, but I feel that an investment in other more environmentally friendly solutions, such as waste source separation and door- to-door collection of waste items would create many more jobs for the future. •The Incinerator proposal is not an environmentally friendly solution and I strongly feel that we should not even be considering it as an appropriate waste management solution."

Roger Lander
"The project may affect the air quality in Aspley Guise The project will substantially increase traffic flow in the area The project will have a negative effect on the Marston Vale habitat"

Joan Hawkes
"My Questions are:- 1. What are the incentives offered to central government if the incinerator is built? 2. According to my GP Bedfordshire has one of the highest rates of asthma in the country. Would the incinerator’s toxic fumes increase the rate of asthma and chest infections? 3. The geography of Marston Vale leads to an inverted atmosphere where the air in the valley is trapped for a time with no escape. How many days per year does the atmosphere invert? Is the chimney high enough to take the toxic fumes out of the valley on such days? 4. If toxic substances were detected in the emissions, how long would it take to shutdown the incinerator in an emergency? Before shutdown how much toxic waste would be released and how many people would be exposed? 5. My family lived on Bedford Street in Ampthill 12 years ago and on the days that the wind was a Northerly the fumes from the brick works would come into the house. The smell was unpleasant and sometimes my son would start wheezing and eventually was diagnosed with asthma. Would the chimney be sufficiently tall to take the toxic fumes above Ampthill on such days? (We moved to Norfolk then the Lancashire for 12 years and his asthma disappeared within a few weeks of moving and did not return.) 6. Household waste is an unknown chemical cocktail. Do Covanta know the exact chemical nature of the toxic fumes they will be emitting? Can they guarantee 100% they will not lead to health problems in the local community? 7. If they are unsure of what they are putting into the incinerator how can they know what will come out? Can the company guarantee the toxic fumes will be free from unpleasant smells and carcinogens? 8. It is reported that Covanta has a poor safety record in the USA. What guarantees are they making that this will not happen here? What guarantees did they make in America and did they fall short of their guarantees? Are they trustworthy? 9. The fact that incineration adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere suggests we are not addressing the issue of waste recycling by building an incinerator? The waste will come from the East Midlands and Eastern Counties so how will transporting all that waste address carbon emissions? 10. If our aim is to reuse, reduce and recycle why is the government considering an incinerator that requires more waste to keep it running? When the incinerator has exhausted the local waste will it then need to bring waste in from further afield? These are just a few questions that come to my mind. I would be grateful if you could address these questions in the enquiry because I am very concerned about this issue and believe it is the duty of the Government and Covanta to give the local people a full and honest answer to all our questions? Thank you, yours sincerely. Joan Hawkes"

Simon Hawkes
"My Questions are:- 1. What are the incentives offered to central government if the incinerator is built? 2. According to my GP Bedfordshire has one of the highest rates of asthma in the country. Would the incinerator’s toxic fumes increase the rate of asthma and chest infections? 3. The geography of Marston Vale leads to an inverted atmosphere where the air in the valley is trapped for a time with no escape. How many days per year does the atmosphere invert? Is the chimney high enough to take the toxic fumes out of the valley on such days? 4. If toxic substances were detected in the emissions, how long would it take to shutdown the incinerator in an emergency? Before shutdown how much toxic waste would be released and how many people would be exposed? 5. My family lived on Bedford Street in Ampthill 12 years ago and on the days that the wind was a Northerly the fumes from the brick works would come into the house. The smell was unpleasant and sometimes my son would start wheezing and eventually was diagnosed with asthma. Would the chimney be sufficiently tall to take the toxic fumes above Ampthill on such days? (We moved to Norfolk then the Lancashire for 12 years and his asthma disappeared within a few weeks of moving and did not return.) 6. House hold waste is an unknown chemical cocktail. Do Covanta know the exact chemical nature of the toxic fumes they will be emitting? Can they guarantee 100% they will not lead to health problems in the local community? 7. If they are unsure of what they are putting into the incinerator how can they know what will come out? Can the company guarantee the toxic fumes will be free from unpleasant smells and carcinogens? 8. It is reported that Covanta has a poor safety record in the USA. What guarantees are they making that this will not happen here? What guarantees did they make in America and did they fall short of their guarantees? Are they trustworthy? 9. The fact that incineration adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere suggests we are not addressing the issue of waste recycling by building an incinerator? The waste will come from the East Midlands and Eastern Counties so how will transporting all that waste address carbon emissions? 10. If our aim is to reuse, reduce and recycle why is the government considering an incinerator that requires more waste to keep it running? When the incinerator has exhausted the local waste will it then need to bring waste in from further afield? These are just a few questions that come to my mind. I would be grateful if you could address these questions in the enquiry because I am very concerned about this issue and believe it is the duty of the Government and Covanta to give the local people a full and honest answer to all our questions? Thank you, yours sincerely. Simon Hawkes"

David Toland
"I oppose the energy from waste incinerator proposed for Rookery Pit South due to the size and scale. It will be the largest incinerator in England. This proposal is in opposition to the new Government's position on waste management - "zero" waste strategy. The air quality has improved in the area of Marston Vale since the closure of the brickworks. There is a danger of toxic ash and dioxins being released from the stack into the atmosphere and entering our food chain. Past records show problems caused by incineration, CO2 and toxic ash, it is therefore totally unacceptable for such a plant to be built anywhere. The size of the plant will have a visual impact in Marston Vale and surrounding areas. House values will drop. The number of vehicles bringing waste to meet the demands of this plant will have a huge impact on local roads, what state will the roads be in in a few years. Covanta's representative said they would not contribute towards the upkeep of the local roads, for example Green Lane into Stewartby, and the old A421 detrunked road. The new A421 will bearly be able to cope with existing traffic let alone the volume of lorry and associated traffic from the incinerator plant. The noise and dust created by these lorries. Toxic ash and fly ash will have to be transported to landfill along our local road. Rail freight not made a condition in support of Covanta's application. The plant would encroach on the Forest Park which has seen the regeneration of the area and enjoyed by many members of the public especially at weekends. I would have concerns re the agencies who have responsibility for managing energy from waste plants and as monitoring by Covanta is self-reporting will other bodies make checks as well. This plant will be a waste of energy, it will not encourage recycling. The amount of waste to keep this plant will reduce recycling schemes. More energy would be saved by recycling than incineration. Surely the aim for the future is more recycling not less. Central Beds. County Council are now recycling 50% of our waste, by 2020 this could rise to approx 75% and there will be no need for this incinerator. The Covanta proposal will override attempts to deal with waste locally. Should one local authority be allowed to discharge its responsibilities for waste management by entering into an agreement with a private contractor to build a plant for the sole management of that authorities' waste in another local authority area. As the plant will be running 24/7 the true noise nuisance has not been truly evaluated. We will be locked into this proposed facility for 25 years, financially we will pay regardless on what changes occur in the future re reduced amounts of non-recyclable waste. This proposed facility takes us into outdated technology and should be stopped immediately as it does nothing to benefit the local community and does not make economic sense."

Georgia Gritton
"Object to the building of an incinerator on the following main points: 1. The health implications as a result of the waste material produced by the plant 2. The detrimental aesthetics of a huge, ugly building on the currently green landscape 3. The lack of an actual NEED for this plant in the local area - waste would need to be brought in from outside areas to feed the plant 4. Extra strain on the already congested roads 5. Probable reduction in local house prices due to the proximity of the site 6. More GREEN solutions should be found to disposal of waste and production of energy, including recycling and using wind farms 7. Further employment opportunities will be brought to the area by the building of the CentreParcs centre and the NIRA site - both projects are much more fully supported by the local people and are much better for the environment"

Mrs C Murawski
"I have objections on grounds of: SIZE: The main building will be 43m tall and the chimney will be 105m. Marston Vale was designated as one of the 12 national community forests and every effort has been made to enhance the recreational value of the area. All this work will be undone if Covanta's plans go ahead. TRAFFIC: The will be a large increase of lorries through local villages importing waste from a wide radius. There will also be lorries removing toxic fly ash from the site. This will impact on road safety and maintenance. LOCAL NEED: Stewartby Landfill Site will be closing next year and the Vale is beginning to regenerate after years of unpleasant smells, flies, plastic bags being blown around in the wind & heavy lorries ruining local roads. There would be no benenfit to the local community - absolutely the opposite. EMISSIONS: How will the emissions be monitored safely? Covanta has not adequately considered temperature inversions in the Vale and how they may affect the safe dispersal of emissions from the stack. BENEFITS: I do not believe that the incinerator, or the proposed community benefits, will enhance the local area. Nor do I accept that the negative effects, namely pollution, increased traffic & health risks have been fully explored."

David Funge
"At this stage I am broadly in support of the project however I wish to reserve my representations until more detailed information has been made available"

Mary Bean
"The proposed waste site will cause traffic problems for surrounding villages and the M1 exit 13. I am against the proposal to build the waste site."

Geoff Gardner on behalf of Hanson Building Products
"1.The Covanta proposals are contrary to planning policy. 2.The proposals would have an adverse and cumulative effect on development of other land in the locality, which is a planning priority. 3.The proposals seek to manage waste from a very wide catchment area which is unsustainable. 4.The proposal would be wholly reliant upon road transport which is unsustainable, although the site adjoins a railway. 5.The proposed access routes are inappropriate for this type and scale of facility. The routes include Green Lane (a two lane minor rural road in poor condition and a level crossing) and Stewartby Way (running through Stewartby village). 6.Such other objections which will be formulated in due course."

Mrs Edwards
"Having lived in the Marston Valley area for over 25 years with all the pollution from the brickworks, landfill and the traffic generated I was looking forward to a greener, cleaner environment across the whole valley. I really do not want to see an exceptionally tall chimney and have not been convinced that emissions will be safely dispersed. My health has suffered because of previous air pollution and I do not want incinerator emissions in the air or heavy traffic being diverted through Cranfield when there are problems on the A421."

Carole White
"This plant will need to take in refuse from a large part of UK, therefore this is not a local solution to waste and may go against implementation of recycling and reuse strategies. The site will operate 24/7 causing disturbance to residents nearby. The roads have not been built to cope with the volume of traffic that this site will generate. Covanta have not proposed the use of rail. The technology to deal with potentially toxic emissions from the chimney is imperfect; monitoring will be minimal and ineffectual. This is a risk to the health of people and animals over a wide area. Covanta have been served with legal notices in the USA because of such emissions. The Fly Ash left after burning of the rubbish will also be toxic, and have to be taken away to a landfill site, moving this is another potential risk to health. Bedfordshire has aspirations to be a tourist destination; who will knowingly wish to come to an area dominated by this large plant and massive chimney pushing out substances that might injure their family. It is hoped that many more jobs will be created out of tourism than from Covanta. The majority of jobs constructing the plant would go to contractors not from this area. In operation, the site is expected to require a staff of 60-70. This is much less than the potential from tourism. Covanta make much of the energy that will be created but how the figure is arrived at is not stated, so must be regarded as a pure guess. This should not override the negative factors for the local area of this proposal."

Alan Headford
"1. I am very concerned about the possible impact on traffic in our village of Aspley Guise 2. I am very concerned about the possibility of air, noise and ligth polution. 3. I am very concerned about the impact on Marston Vale - after many years of being awful with knut holes etc, it is now trying to become a pleasant wooded area."

Robert Mason
"I am concerned mainly by the environmental impact any such plant would have on the surrounding area, not only immediate but over a much larger area, say 20 to 30 mile radius. Also, Increased traffic flow and noise. Impact on the surrounding villages, and access to the plant. Impact on the current country park and nature reserve. Visual impact. I used to live in Rushden, Northahts, some fifteen to twenty miles to the north. When the wind blew from a southerly direction, I could smell the odours coming from the brick works. I believe Covanta are currently under investigation in the USA, concerning toxic emissions from one of there plants. Concerning the Rookery Pit proposed development, they have been very careful not to specify that any emissions would not be harmful. Any development could lead to catastrophic effects on the human and animal population in a very large surounding area, the effects not necessarily being immediate."

Susan Hilton
"I wish to object to the proposed Resources Recovery Facility at Rookery South Bedfordshire on the following grounds. 1. The facility would generate substantial additional traffic movements in the locality causing traffic congestion and pollution of local and trunk roads. The nearby M1 junction 13 is now being upgraded to take additional local traffic and this proposal was not taken into acount when the junction improvements were planned. 2. The waste for the plant will be brought from a wide catchment area- as Covanta have stated. In the long term waste from the wider region will be imported into an essentially rural area. 3.The visual intrusion of the proposed plant will be detrimental to the landscape. Both light pollution- from a plant operating all day and night, and the actual building and chimney will dominate the landscape over a considerable distance . 4. The generation of poisonous fly ash from the plant could cause local pollution- either through toxic emmissions or by presenting danger if transported from the site by lorry."

John Hilton
"I object to the proposed development. The plant will take refuse from a very wide area bringing a considerable number of HGV movements 6 days a week and through an 18 hour day, to an already congested road network. The chimney will be extremely high and will therefore detract from the visual amenity of the surrounding area, in particular the Greensand ridge. Ridgmont sits approximately 70 metres above the proposed plant and will therefore be likely to be affected by the effluent despite the height of the chimney. There will be toxic waste produced which must be disposed of which will carry an element of risk. the 24/7 operation of the plant will result in an unacceptable addition to the light pollution of the area. In summary there are inherent dangers associated with the plant, there will be additional traffic congestion and highway danger and there will be a loss of amenity. it is unnecessary to take the waste from surrounding counties just to make a profitable operation."

Vanessa Dilley
"My husband & I are principally concerned about the impact of traffic on the village of Aspley Guise and the likelihood of air noise and light pollution in the local area."

peter phillips
"The worked out brick-clay quarries along the Marston Vale within Central Bedfordshire have long been used for land-fill for waste within and outside the county. The area has been recognised as having been blighted by this use and efforts are in progress to rectify the situation, particularly since land-fill sites within the Vale have come or are coming to the end of their life. Now we have a proposal for an Energy From Waste plant within the Vale. My representation is on two grounds: increased lorry traffic to and from the proposed site, and visual impact. Increased lorry traffic: To be efficient, such an enterprise will need to attract waste from a large area,including the surrounding counties and operate around the clock. This will result in a significant increase in lorry traffic, which has not been included in the design of the newly upgraded A421. Visual impact: I understand from the proposals that the chimneys of the waste plant will be of a height to be clearly visible from afar and be unable to screened with trees. Central Beds has had more than its far share as a dumping.ground for other's waste."

Janet Mann
"Inappropriate position next to new country park dedicated to improving the environment. Community benefits such as tree planting a facilities for enjoying the countryside will be badly affected. Bedfordshire has a good record of recycling and waste management but to feed an incinerator of this size vast amounts of waste will have to be trucked in from a great distance. This will tax the capacity of of the road network and local village roads will be affected when the traffic is backed up on the A421 and will be compounded by the working hours 5am to11pm six days a week. This huge plant will dominate the country side and be a blight on the landscape over a large area. Tourism, which contributes greatly to the economy of Bedfordshire will be adversely affected. I understand that Covanta are facing legal action in America because of repeated environmental violations - excessive emissions of dioxin (a notorious carcinogen} If this project goes ahead emissions will be spread over a very wide area of the county I am also concerned about the disposal of waste from the incinerator. ."

Dr B A Lawton
"HEALTH: Incineration produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and harmful acid gases ie: hydrochloride, hydrogen fluoride, sulphur dioxide, NOx. Incineration produces toxic nano particles that are NOT monitored or filtered out from the combustion process. They include toxic metals: Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, Arsenic, Chromium plus dangerous compounds such as: PCB’s, PCDDs (dioxins), PCDFs (furans) and other nasty compounds. Non of the above would be filtered out from the highly expensive pollution filtration part of the plant. These toxic nano particles enter the bloodstream via the lungs and enter organs of the body, including the brain. Dioxins accumulate in the fat and the only way to get rid of them is to have a baby (who would be full of these toxins). Because these nano particles are so minute (light weight), they stay suspended in the air for long periods of time and spread across a wide area until being washed out by the rain (Bedford is a relatively low rainfall area). Nano particles are accumulative both in the air, food and in the body. Temperature inversions are common in the Marston Vale. This results in polluted air settling in the Vale and not being circulated. Any pollutants, especially nano particles, will accumulate and stay suspended in the valley. The Vale is a crop growing area with beef and dairy cattle grazing on the land. It has been well documented the relationship between dioxins and health issues. These nano particles are inhaled or consumed from foods, especially beef and milk. Recommendations from Institute of Medicine, 2003: “Do not build incinerators within 50 km of food production - particularly grazing animals”. TOXIC FLY ASH WASTE: Generated from incineration cannot be re-cycled but ends up as toxic landfill. This ash contains toxic metals plus other compounds that will leach into water supplies. SUSTAINABILITY – Zero Waste: Incineration is NOT sustainable. For survival of the planet, it is important to recycle / reduce residual waste and NOT burn it. Bedford council do an excellent job at recycling. TRAFFIC: High concern regarding heavy goods vehicles using the overused A421 and other routes in the area. These will increase traffic jams and add noise pollution. The increase in diesel fumes will add to the pollution in the Vale. Concern that once the plant has been commissioned, Covanta will have to expand the collection area in order to feed the massive incinerator. Resulting in more traffic on our already overloaded road system. Vehicle movements: 900/day (18 hrs) approx 50 per hour! ENVIRONMENTAL: Millennium centre is an amazing wildlife area offering superb walks and escape for nature lovers. Building the proposed Covanta plant next to it will dramatically spoil the area and dramatically reduce visitors to the area. This incinerator will change the character of the landscape for ever. Throughout Bedfordshire are superb views across the Vale but this will change if this eyesore gets built. Loose valuable dark site (astronomy). A serious negative impact on wildlife habitat. FINANCIAL: High concern house prices will drop if incinerator is built."

Jeremy Perkins
"I have strong concerns about the following: Heavy pollution levels (air, noise, light) Severe increase in traffic in an area that does not have the infrastructure to cope with this increase: Significant vehicle movements to and from the site will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the roads The size of the building will dominate the skyline and it will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and will materially impair the views The proposed site is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale. An oversize Energy from Waste plant is will fundamentally undermine that purpose. The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity."

andrew lane
"Dear Sir/Madame I wish to object to the current planned proposal for an EfW plant planned at Rookery pit, Stewartby by Covanta. After spending time speaking with representatives at the public meeting held in Stewartby serious concerns still remain. The reasons for objection are: Standard mathematical model used by local authorities to calculate stack emissions and where they will land (ADMS), which has limitations on which parameters that are used. No data has been provided for PM2.5 which goes directly to the inner lung, where most lung cancers develop. • Particulates attaching themselves to water particles which are heavier than dust particulates for the same VMD (volume mean diameter). • Cleaning the inside of the stack, which I presume will have to be done at some stage, if so, what size particulates will be released, quantity, and more importantly what chemical composition will they be. • The Marston Vale is known for its inversion conditions, no evidence has been supplied for these conditions which will concentrate any emissions. • The prevailing wind will bring the majority of pollutants directly over our village, these will include waste, noise, odour and dust, which we have past experience of despite assurances from operators’. The proposed operating hours will ensure that these will significantly reduce the quality of life for the local community. • No creditable scientific evidence of long term health issues due to other atmospheric pollutants clouding any trends. • The stack will dominate the skyline and dominate the area. • House prices will crash, trapping people living here as they will not be able to afford to move due to discrepancies of prices. Covanta have 4 new facilities in the pipeline, from Covantas’ own efficiency data, each plant significantly differs which is due to different designs. If this is the case, some are very much more efficient than others, so why aren’t they all constructed to the same most efficient design? Scale. Scale of efficiency arguments are not robust or sustainable. Unfortunately it appears to be a scale of profit rather than a scale of efficiency argument. This is only a short term plan, when the EU or Government recycling levels changes again and there is less combustible waste available, which it will, new waste will have to be sourced from even further afield compounding a transport and pollution problems even further. With all the extra housing and development being witnessed and planned for the Marston Vale this level of additional heavy traffic is totally unacceptable."

maxine lane
"Dear Sir/Madame I wish to object to the current planned proposal for an EfW plant planned at Rookery pit, Stewartby by Covanta. After spending time speaking with representatives at the public meeting held in Stewartby serious concerns still remain. The reasons for objection are: Standard mathematical model used by local authorities to calculate stack emissions and where they will land (ADMS), which has limitations on which parameters that are used. No data has been provided for PM2.5 which goes directly to the inner lung, where most lung cancers develop. • Particulates attaching themselves to water particles which are heavier than dust particulates for the same VMD (volume mean diameter). • Cleaning the inside of the stack, which I presume will have to be done at some stage, if so, what size particulates will be released, quantity, and more importantly what chemical composition will they be. • The Marston Vale is known for its inversion conditions, no evidence has been supplied for these conditions which will concentrate any emissions. • The prevailing wind will bring the majority of pollutants directly over our village, these will include waste, noise, odour and dust, which we have past experience of despite assurances from operators’. The proposed operating hours will ensure that these will significantly reduce the quality of life for the local community. • No creditable scientific evidence of long term health issues due to other atmospheric pollutants clouding any trends. • The stack will dominate the skyline and dominate the area. • House prices will crash, trapping people living here as they will not be able to afford to move due to discrepancies of prices. Covanta have 4 new facilities in the pipeline, from Covantas’ own efficiency data, each plant significantly differs which is due to different designs. If this is the case, some are very much more efficient than others, so why aren’t they all constructed to the same most efficient design? Scale. Scale of efficiency arguments are not robust or sustainable. Unfortunately it appears to be a scale of profit rather than a scale of efficiency argument. This is only a short term plan, when the EU or Government recycling levels changes again and there is less combustible waste available, which it will, new waste will have to be sourced from even further afield compounding a transport and pollution problems even further. With all the extra housing and development being witnessed and planned for the Marston Vale this level of additional heavy traffic is totally unacceptable."

peter hetherington
"I strongly object to the proposed plans for the large energy plans at Stewartby. It will be again a dreadful health hazzard and eyesore. We have only just got rid of the one at Brogborough. No we do not want it!!!"

Andrew Budd
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because of the detrimental effects listed below: (A) Air Emissions (1) The cumulative long term impact on the health of residents from the EfW stack emissions over the life cycle of the plant, accentuated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion within the Marston Vale. (2) The stack emissions will blow straight across Ampthill when the wind is in that direction – the stack does not project its emissions high enough to clear this elevated area. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (3) To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park (a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale) would be a retrograde step ecologically, leading to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation (4) There will be severe light pollution at night. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact (5) The sheer size of the EfW and stack (accentuated by the plume) will materially impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise (6) There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management (7) The EfW will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. (G) Socio-Economic (8) The electricity generating capacity of the EfW in terms of average domestic consumption is exaggerated. (9) The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the EfW for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. (10) EfW assembly will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area and the remaining permanent jobs will have a negligible effect on overall local employment. (11) There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts (12) EfW-related traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure, with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network. Traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. (13) Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines, all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. (14) There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the EfW on communities beyond the Marston Vale. For the above reasons the IPC should conclude that this proposal is the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area and that the EfW is in the wrong location."

Marjorie.Thorburn
"I strongly object to this planning application on the basis of the potential impact that it will have on the village I live in as well as surrounding villages and access roads. The inevitable increase in HGVs serving this proposed site using J13 of the M1 will impact on traffic through Aspley Guise. I am also concerned about the impact of noise, the quality of air and light pollution arising from the plant directly or knock on effects of servicing the plant."

Mr K Woolhead
"Years of brick making and landfill, have, and are, coming to an end in the Marston Vale. The regeneration of the area has been well underway over the past years with tree planting and numerous walk and cycle ways encouraging visitors to the area. The construction of the proposed facility in the middle of the vale is therefore extremely unwelcome. The existing landfill operation at Stewartby which has been operating for nearly 40 years is due to end soon. Vehicle movements at present are around the 200 mark of which half are made early in the morning due to the 4.30am opening on the site licence. Movements then seize from mid morning. The vehicle movements at the proposed facility would triple, and movements will come further down Green Lane than they do at present as well as continuing throughout the day. The visual impact for the surrounding areas of the stack and building will be a significant blot on the landscape overshadowing the Marston vale Visitors centre as well as the Water sports Club. It is also purposed that there will be waste imported from other authorities which is a continuation on from the landfill operations in the area in the past and at present where Bedfordshire has been used as a dumping ground for North London and Hertfordshire’s waste. Add to that a 24/7 operation with noise and possible omissions pollution from the stack and the ash from the process is hardly a step forward for an area which is slowly healing from years of brick making and land filling."

John Abbey
"SIZE - The massive structure will dominate the rural landscape, dwarfing everything in the Vale. TRAFFIC- Huge quantities of waste will be imported into the Vale from all over the region. Toxic fly ash will be removed from the site. We are worried about the detrimental damage that the waste lorries will do to our roads whilst travelling through our towns & villages. NEED - We don't need such a large incinerator. The Vale has started to regenerate so we don't want waste imported in from out of the region. EMISSIONS - We are worried about the emissions that will be generated and how they will be safely monitored. BENEFITS - We don't believe that the incinerator, or the proposed community benefits will enhance the local area, or outweigh the negative effects."

Mr Roger Willoughby
"The Covanta Incinerator (without dressing it up in more politically acceptable language) should not be built for the following reasons: 1) Much work has been done making the area pleasant, green and the home of an outstanding forest centre for this to just be the foreground to a huge incinerator pouring out smoke and being visited by extensive waste lorry traffic. 2) There is already too much traffic in the surrounding area and, even with the upgraded A421, the impact of the delivery of large amounts of waste from outside the local area has clearly not been thoughtfully considered. 3) If the plant is necessary, why is it not being built next to a major motorway to minimise the additional pollution and carbon footprint from the delivery lorries? It could easily be built on land that is not close to green or urban areas to minimise the risks to both those types of areas from the use of the facility. 4) From an ideological point of view, incineration is NOT the answer, better packaging, reducing, recycling and reusing is the solution. Incineration is not sustainable- and certainly not for the residents of the area receiving everbody else's waste."

Andrew Lockley on behalf of Milton Keynes Friends of the Earth
"The proposals do not represent the Best Practicable Environmental Option, as they crowd out recycling and waste minimisation options. The large size of the plant creates and inherent risk of haul contravening the proximity principle."

Leah Batham
"1. Covanta’s track record suggests it will not be able to adhere to UK legislation on emission of pollutants. Covanta’s activities in the US set a precedent that does not bode well for Bedfordshire. It has been cited and fined for violations of emissions laws on several occasions. In the past four years this includes at least 2 instances in Connecticut, 3 instances in New Jersey (at 3 different plants) plus violations in Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Florida. In South Carolina, Covanta is now hoping to build a plant that will incinerate waste from both North and South Carolina. In an area of high unemployment, it is pressuring the state government to change a law that limits how much waste a company may burn per day. Is this really a company anyone would want to do business with? A company that has consistently failed to abide by the laws of the states it operates in? Even if we accept the need for an incinerator (which I don’t), shouldn’t we be looking for a company with a better track record to build it? 2. Waste management should be local: The transportation of large quantities of waste over considerable distances to feed an incinerator flies in the face of any logical attempts to reduce carbon emissions and pollution. The fact that Covanta wants to do this by lorry rather than rail (with two railway lines nearby) suggest the company is not in the habit of looking for the least ecologically damaging solutions. The lorries will be adding considerably to the pollution produced by the plant itself. This will add to the level of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere in the entire region, not just around the incinerator. Waste should be managed locally. Each community/council should be responsible for its own waste and deal with it within its own community. Exporting waste into someone elses community is irresponsible, especially when it adds to the council’s carbon footprint by creating “waste miles”. 3. Incinerators are not the answer to the waste problem. There are other ways to deal with waste that are less harmful to the environment. Recycling is the most obvious method of reducing landfill, but there are other measures as well. However, an incinerator of the type proposed by Covanta requires a continuous supply of large quantities of waste. The result of this demand will be that councils will tempted to choose the “easy option” of incineration rather than recycling. Studies that claim the opposite are generally based in the US, where recycling is not as widespread as in the UK, or funded by the incinerator industry. The end result is that items that could have been recycled will be incinerated, and future innovative ideas for reducing or recycling waste will never see the light of day. Incineration is a step backwards, not forwards."

Susan Young
"I am against the Rookery South proposal as I am very concerned about any emissions that may be caused, whether dangerous or offensive, and I do not think it is a good site because it takes rubbish from other counties which have to be transported to this site in Central Bedfordshire. If a shared collection is required it should be at a fairer place for all concerned and nearer to roads which can take the amount of traffic generated. I object to the proposal for Rookery Pit as I think there will be far too many traffic movements through the countryside for a plant of this size. Any site that is proposing to take waste from other counties should be placed near the boundaries of those counties and not in the centre of one of them. I also object as I have grave concerns regarding the safety of residents due to the possibility of dangerous emissions and disposal of residue. Covanta do not have a good safety record with regard to emissions and so I strongly object to us and the community being put in jeopardy."

Richard Brotherton on behalf of Ministry of Defence
"The Ministry of Defence has no objections to the proposed Rookery South Waste Generating Station. However, due to the height of the chimney stack, we recommend 25 candela omni directional red lighting or infra-red lighting is installed at the highest practical point in the interests of air safety."

Phillip Hoare
"Covanta's plans for Rookery South Pit fail a number of criteria. 1, Their system is a proven HEALTH RISK to residents, wildlife and the general environment. 2, They are untrustworthy as a business. The "selective" submissions and obfuscation of their technical and management teams have been well documented in the USA. 3, The increased transport burden will disrupt an overstretched transport system. 4, Their plans must be seen alongside other plans fpor the region such as the extra housebuilding in Wixams and Marsden vale as well as Nirah and the possible Centre Parcs development. Covanta will poison these as well. 5, Lastly, Covanta will destroy for ever the atmosphere within Bedfordshire both metaphorically and literally."

BRENDA LEE
"This will be the largest incinerator in England and its size will dominate the local skyline. If the emissions are as safe as they claim why is there a need for such a tall chimney. This chimney will be higher than the long disused brickworks chimneys. Emissions will be spread for many miles and the effect on the public ill not become apparent for many years. The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere is an unacceptable contribution to climate change. House values will drop. Because of the size of the plant and its demand for waste a great number of lorries will be using our local road. Covanta's representative said they would not contribute towards the upkeep of Green Lane into Stewartby. Hazardous waste will have to be transported along our local roads to landfill sites. Toxic ash and dioxins could blow off these lorries or will Covanta build a new landfill on site. The increased volume of traffic may cause accidents and holdups and the noise from empty lorries will effect local residents. This incinerator will be built adjacent to the Mellinium Park and the joy of the Park will be destroyed for its many visitors. Waste should be treated as a commodity. Recycling offers enormous potential for job creation, far more than the company states they will offer. Incineration destroys valuable resources, e.g. paper and wood, there would be less demand for trees to be cut down. Recycling saves three to five times as much energy as incineration does. Surely the aim for the future is more recycling not less. If this plant is going to work for 30 plus years technology in the meantime will have come up with more biodegradable ideas. Waste produced by shops and businesses will fall in the future not rise. We will become less of a throwaway society. It is universally agreed that recycling and composting is favoured over incineration. Central Beds County Council are aiming at recycling 70% of their waste by 2020 and if they achieve anything like this there will be no need for this incinerator. As the plant will be running 24/7 the true noise nuisance has not be evaluated. We, as residents, living in this locality to where this plant is proposed feel it will have a detrimental effect on us and the local community. We will be locked into this scheme for 25/30 years. Locally we will pay regardless of what the future brings re recycling. The future should be biodegradable technology not 20th century outdated technology. There is no benefit to us locally and the proposal is in opposition to the new Government's position on waste management - zero waste strategy."

Dawn Sutherns on behalf of Ampthill Town Council
"Ampthill Town Council objects to the proposal as detailed below and intends to explore these issues in more detail in a further written submission and at the examination stage. Air Emissions • Residents are concerned about reports that Covanta has been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA which has lower standards than the UK. • There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. • In the sky above Marston Vale there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. When inversion is not occurring the prevailing wind is south westerly. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation • The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation • There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from site operating 24/7. Landscape & Visual Impact • Sheer size of the building will dominate the skyline – most of which will be visible above edge of Rookery Pit. • The size of the plant will have a major impact on the visual quality of the landscape and will adversely impair the views from the Vale to the surrounding Greensand Ridge and the panoramic views from the ridge, especially those seen from Ampthill Great Park, a Grade II listed historic park and Houghton House ruins, a Grade I English Heritage site. • The facility could attract additional industrial activity which would further alter the rural character of the Vale. • The stack would be higher than the disused brickworks chimneys and the plume will accentuate the stack visibility. Waste Management • Promote local responsibility in the collection and disposal of waste – the proximity principle – unless where we voluntarily combine with other local authorities freely combine to form Joint Waste Authorities. • We need solutions that will best meet local needs. Socio-Economic • We are not convinced that the proposed facility will enhance the local economy as there is no guarantee that the jobs ongoing or in consideration will be offered to local people. • An incinerator will not become a popular tourist destination. Traffic • There is concern that traffic will come through Ampthill when there are problems on the motorway. • Significant vehicle movements to and from the site will lead to immense and ongoing disturbances to the local community. • There is no assessment, nor proposed mitigation provided beyond the A421. • The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road. Future Changes to Draft National Policy Statements • We reserve the right to raise any additional issues to those outlined above that may arise from any future amendments to the draft National Policy Statements."

Hester Finn
"Firstly, the Connecticut Attorney has filed a suit against Coventa for emitting excessive levels of a possible carcinogen. This is not the first suit that has been filed against this company so why would we want to consider this application when it there is a question mark hanging over emissions? Secondly and more importantly, the impact a plant of this size would have on our rural community is frightening - traffic impact on villages, roads [big heavy lorries], air, noise and light pollution. Now that brickmaking has ceased and the area has started to be rejuventated by the creation of the Forest Park why would we want to consider this type of huge project in Bedfordshire, taking in waste from such a large area. This project will be a major detriment to the area."

Robina Chatham
"I am concerned about the health implications of the emissions and the lack of checking of waste material before it is incinerated. For example, In the States Covanta have equipment to check for radioactive waste - this is not proposed for the UK installations as it is not a regulation in the UK, even though there has been a recent incidence of radioactive material going to landfill in the UK. I am also concerned about the additional and un-planned for traffic movements along the old A421. We live directly on the old A421 - noise and safely will be major issues. Two equestrian properties are located here, it would become impossible for us to cross the road safley on horseback or riding along the verge as we have done for the past 15 years. As present our homes shake when a lorry goes past - the new A421 planned to solve this problem. The Covanta proposal would mean more and heavier lorries than ever before."

Mark Randall
"I wish to object to the proposed Covanta incinerator for the following reasons; 1. It is not what local people want and it would not benefit local people. The 80 permanent jobs which Covanta have promised is so small considering how much money would be spent on building this incinerator. There is no guarantee that these jobs would even go to local people. 2. This project cannot be justified on environmental or economic grounds. Local authorities would have to commit to sending tonnes and tonnes of waste to the incinerator for, perhaps, as long as 25 years. This would prevent future recycling projects even being considered. Recycling creates many more jobs than incineration and does not damage the environment. We need to invest in sustainable recycling schemes, not waste money on incinerators. Incinerators are a short-sighted, “quick fix” option but they cause so much damage economically and environmentally. 3. The proposed site is in a completely rural area and would have such a devastating impact on the area. If this incinerator was built, not only would it be visible for miles around spoiling the landscape, it would change into an industrial area. This is not what the residents of the Marston Vale want. We chose to live here because of its rural location. 4. Incinerators release thousands and thousands of pollutants into the air, the most dangerous being nanoparticles. These nanoparticles would not even be monitored and there is no technology that can take out these pollutants. Scientific studies suggest that long-term exposure to fine particles of less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter called PM2.5 are associated with an increased risk of death from heart disease at all adult ages. Scientists so far have identified a few hundred substances from incinerators as hazardous. The Environment Agency has admitted that emissions limits are based on what is technically achievable and not what is safe for human health. 5. For every four tonnes of waste incinerated, at least one tonne is ash - 90% bottom ash and 10% fly ash. What do Covanta propose to do with the residual ash? If they bury it landfill they risk contaminating the ground water. 6. This incinerator would have an adverse effect on tourism. We will hopefully have a new Centre Parc opening in this area in 2013. There will be 1500 new, permanent, jobs created on site. Compare this to the 80 jobs Covanta are offering. The Centre Parc will attract hundreds of tourists to the area who will also enjoy other local amenities. In conclusion, we need to invest in reducing, reusing and recycling schemes which would be locally beneficial and environmentally beneficial. 80% recycling rates could be achieved and materials that cannot be safely recycled or composted must be phased out and replaced with sustainable alternatives. To protect residents now and future generations, we must not opt for a “quick fix”."

Mr Barrie S Franklin
"My main concern is about air polution, especially when the wind is from the east. I suffer from Asthma and any poor quality air makes my condition worse. Having got rid of the brickworks, the last thing anyone with my condition wants, is the air to be poluted again. However good the cleaning process for waste gasses is said to be, some polution will always return to ground level. Other concerns are about the increase in traffic through Aspley Guise and at the new M.1/J13, plus the impact of the proposed devopement ( far too big to be hidden) on Marston Vale's landscape."

Alan Apling
"The restoration of the Marston Vale is a rare opportunity to increase the stock of countryside, to the benefit of residents, who have suffered over many decades the empoverishment of the environment by minerals extraction and subsequent waste landfill, and visitors who would be able to enjoy an attractive extension of the existing rural context of Bedfordshire. The proposed Covanta incinerator would despoil the potential rural character of this part of the Vale over a wide area, due to the visual intrusion of the large buildings and extremely tall exhaust stack as well as the urbanisation and loss of tranquillity that would result from the heavy transport load required to import the amount of waste necessary for the plant’s operation to be viable."

tina mills
"My understanding currently of this issue raises the following brief points - Safety to Beds residents of a plant on this scale, what safety history does Coventa have and of this exact type does it run. What environmental and public concerns exist elsewhere? -The design is believed to be a large landscape 'blot' which is not in keeping with surrounding views - Bedfordshire (Beds) already has a number of landfill sites taking in other counties rubbish, a complex of this size is only likely to expand this service.. Bedford is NOT a generic rubbish tip and this may well attract greater volumes in the future Infrastructure, noise, and danger of transporting the by product waste of this facility"

Jane Joynson
"I belive the Rookery Pit energy from waste project has been badly thought through with regard to incineration as a way to dispose of household waste and the effect it will have on the surrounding community. I own a house in Marston Moreteyne which I have returned to from time to time but is currently rented. I now live in Renhold. The effects to health are unknown but we do know that particles will be ejected from the EFW plant. We do not want to risk our health from both the pollution from the plant and the increased traffic as it delivers its waste from the surrounding counties. The closure of the brickworks was a step in the right direction for the Marston Vale in an effort to clean up the area. The sulphurous smell has gone from the immediate area and also the surrounding villages, CentreParcs is arriving soon and the Forest Centre thrives. Let's make Marston Vale a desirable place to live and spend our leisure time, not a place where house prices drop and no-one wants to live."

Elizabeth Cranny
"Key points against proposed Rookery South facility Traffic congestion as waste is transported into our area from elsewhere Size of facility and height of main chimney in an area - Marston Vale - which has been developed as a country forest part and is recovering from being site of brickworks etc. Chimney will be seen for miles around and will be a blight on the rural landscape Pollution and emission issues of waste disposal."

John O'Brien
"Additional traffic (delivery lorries) utilising M1 J13 would put further strain on the area which is only just being improved as required to support current traffic levels. The plant would have a negative impact on the landscape. Noise pollution will be increased due to the operating requirements of the facility and also including the additional traffic. Air pollution is likely due to emanations form the facility."

Peter Anthony Male
"I object to the building of the incineration plant on the following grounds: TRAFFIC - I am concerned about the detrimental impact the waste lorries and other additional traffic associated with the site, will have on our towns and villages. The indicated consumption of waste material will require enormous numbers of lorry movements every day to feed the plant SIZE - The massive industrial building will dominate the rural landscape of the Marston Vale. I understand that the main building will be approximately 43m high and about 200m long. The chimney will be 105m high, dwarfing everything in the Vale. It will be highly visible from all over the vale, including Ampthill Park and Houghton Park. NEED - I am concerned about the negative impact the incinerator will have on the Vale, which has just started to recover, after years of brick making and landfill. AIR, NOISE and LIGHT POLLUTION - I am particularly worried about the emissions that will be generated, and how they will be safely monitored, along with the likelihood of excessive noise and light pollution."

Mrs Sheila Relton
"I am against this proposal for the very reason that it would impact upon my life and those of my family. This is because of the very nature of the proposal - i.e. the burning of waste and the toxic residue of that waste which would then go into the atmosphere and affect all members of the vicinity. The second objection is that the amount of heavy duty traffic that this would entail would be detrimental to the road system which surely could not cope with this, plus the additional fumes from such lorries would add to the fume filled atmosphere. Would such toxic fumes then go into the water system and thus be dangerous to the health of all residents affected? Has this proposal been fully reasearched to ensure the safety of everyone?"

Geof Lambert on behalf of CPRE Bedfordshire
"The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Bedfordshire branch seeks the continuing restoration of the Marston Vale for amenity, nature and leisure and opposes its reindustrialisation. Accordingly, we have fundamental concerns about the impact of the Covanta proposals in the Marston Vale area of Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) and wish to formally object on the following grounds: The development would be a prominent industrial feature jeopardising the restoration of an attractive and historic clay vale. It will be visible from great distances in all directions and will fail to ‘conserve the open character of the Vale’, as well as detracting from the setting of the listed Stewartby Chimney Stacks as a ‘landmark feature’, both requirements set out in CBC’s Landscape Character Assessment. Whilst it is acknowledged that visual mitigation has been attempted, we do not consider it possible to sensitively integrate a development of this scale into the vale area. The proposal should be deemed unacceptable when assessed against the relevant landscape and heritage policies of the CBC Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (CSDMP) document, and additionally PPS5 in respect of the chimneys. The development is stated to generate 718 HGV movements per day (although CPRE considers that this figure may prove to be a conservative estimate). CPRE is concerned that such an increase in traffic along the road between the site and the A421 will prejudice highway safety and impact on the local environment by way of fumes, dust and noise, to the detriment of local residential properties and the rural area. To this end, the proposal is contrary to Policies DM1 (in the instance that it is accepted by the IPC that this is a ‘renewable energy’ proposal) and DM3 of the CSDMP. Additionally, it is a concern of CPRE that the HGV traffic will have an urbanising influence on the vale and would be contrary to policy DM14. CPRE remains to be convinced that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on local ecology, habitats and air quality. The pit hosts amphibious reptiles and migratory birds and it is a concern that the approved Low Level Restoration Strategy (LLRS) will not be implemented as part of the Covanta proposals. An industrial development of this scale will almost definitely have a negative impact on locally sensitive receptors and should be deemed as being contrary to Policy CS18 of the CSDMP. Additionally, CPRE reserves the right to object on the following grounds as relevant: o Impact on the waste hierarchy and non-compliance with PPS1 and PPS10 (similar to the reason to refuse Covanta’s recent proposal in Middlewich, Cheshire); o Negative impact of the proposal on sustainable travel patterns, contrary to PPS1, PPS10 and PPG13, as well as relevant policies within the development plan; and o The prematurity of the proposal, in light of CBC’s ongoing competitive bidding process for a suitable waste management facility in the county, and the resultant lack of rigorous assessment in the way in which the heat and power generated will be distributed."

Clive Baker
"will object to Noise, Traffic, Material transported, impact of facility on landscape, disposal of residual waste. will dispute claims by Covanta on emissions and safety, amount of electricity to be produced, economics of the whole project. state preferred options for waste management"

John Gout
"Any further commercial vehicles ( HGVlorries ) through the Village of Aspley Guise will cause considerable danger at the narrow point of the main road. This is currently a very dangerous area due to the blind corner by the Blue Jade restaurant and further heavy traffic will make it considerably worse. Pollution , noise and impact on the landscape of the Marston Vale will be considerable from such a proposed development"

Mrs Julie Trotter
"Size - too big will dominate the rural landscape. Emissions - how will the emissions be safely monitored? Traffic - Hugh quantities of waste will be imported from all over the region - detrimental effect the waste lorries will have travelling through our villages Need & Benefit - we don't need such a large incinerator and I don't believe that the proposed community benefits will enhance the local area or outweigh the negative effects."

Nick Taylor
"I am a local resident and also work in the area. I firmly believe the proposed project will have a significantly detramental effect on house prices in the area. I am the manager of a local estate agency and have already seen the effects on the the buyers opinion of the area and prices. In addition I am a regular user of Ampthill park and feel the project will become an eye sore in an area of natural beauty."

Luan Hall
"Living in Flitwick , sadly I have heard very little about this rookery pit covanta proposal, even though it is only 6 miles away , I was advised a leaflet was being distributed but as to date nothing has been recieved about this development. Its infringement on a beautiful part of the country side is bad enough, but the long last effects it will have far out weigh the impact on the landscape. The fact that this waste, im lead to believe is not actually bedforshires waste, is a huge no no, the extra air immissions from the mountains of lorries due to bring the rubbish through Bedfordshire is going to be noisy and very unhealthy. The impact on health will not be good for our children, or their children... we are supposed to be developing a more green earth, not intoxicating it more. RECYCLE!!!!! this is the way forward, not burning it ..... If we burn every bit of material, this world will run out of re-usable resorces."

Dawn Pashley
"I oppose Covanta's plans to build an incinerator at Rookery South on the following grounds: - the structure will dominate the rural landscape - huge quantities of waste will be imported into the Vale and it will have a detrimental effect on our towns and villages - the Vale has now started to regenerate and it will have a detrimental effect on the wildlife - the emissions generated by the incinerator - the incinerator will not benefit the local community"

Derek Gell
"We have severe reservations about the potential long term health impact on the surrounding major towns and villages, both due to the gases directly generated, residual waste, and huge traffic movements"

Ross McLeod
"Environmental impact on area Visual impact on area Impact on infrastructure Impact on local community Possible health issues"

Dave Hodgson
"The following is a list of the key points I wish to make: • The Marston Vale has experienced years of being a ‘dumping ground’ for London and other areas, with a number of landfill sites used as waste deposit sites for authorities and companies from across the region and beyond. With landfill in the area reducing over the coming years, residents should rightly expect not to have to continue to experience the large-scale importation of waste from elsewhere into the Marston Vale. This would be inevitable under these plans, however, due to the vast capacity of the proposed facility. The capacity of the proposed plant is far in excess of the requirements of Buckinghamshire County Council, and could result in rubbish from across the country being driven into the area for burning. • A huge number of lorries using local roads would result from the proposals, causing congestion, damaging local roads and harming the quality of life of local residents severely • The extraordinary number of lorry movements will also have a detrimental impact on the local environment and on public health due to their effect on air quality. • The project will have a damaging effect on the wider environment. The climate change impact of incineration, or energy from waste, is greater than several other viable waste treatment technologies. In addition, the huge capacity of the proposed plant will very clearly militate against the task of waste reduction and re-use, which for obvious reasons sit higher in the waste hierarchy than waste disposal. A mass-burn incineration plant very clearly undermines these sound environmental principles. • I am opposed to the sheer scale of the proposed plant, which would be one of the largest waste incinerators in the country and would be a dominant feature on the Marston Vale landscape. Dave Hodgson Mayor of Bedford Borough"

Mr David Clements
"I am wholely against this development going forward. While I understand the need for renewable energy and an effective way of desposing of our waste this will be such a huge blot on the landscape and so close to my house. We have for years now put up with brick works and landfills and I think that it is about time that our communities were finally given a rest and someone else should 'share the load' by accomodating this monster building. I think building the furnace in a very deep quarry would be the ideal location as this would allow the 130m high structure to be concealed to a large degree. Also I am thoroughly unconvinced that this will pose no health threat to our community. For years the brickworks were saying that they're furnaces and chimneys were designed to shoot the toxic gasses high into the atmosphere. When I lived in Kempston you could regularly see the smoke go up... and come down on our town. WE DO NOT WANT THIS FURNACE IN OUR AREA. Many thanks, D.Clements"

t greenlees
"The area in which the incinerator is being proposed has been transformed in recent times into an area of outstanding beauty to protect both wildlife and the surroundings, for people to live and enjoy.The building being proposed is so big it would ruin the area permanently. This is not the right area for such a massive structure. This area needs to be protected and looked after with centre parcs and other tourist attractions being planned to bring employment to far more people than the incinerator.This area has suffered for years from unpleasant smell, emissions, traffic pollution from lorries and the waste being put in landfill sites and has at last started to close these dirty sites. This incinerator has not been proven safe with the state attorney of new jersey, america, filling legal action against covanta, for excessive emissions of dioxin , a carcinogen. I for one want to protect my young family against any risk from this dirt burner, Bedfordshire has a good record on recycling waste and we do not want to import waste from outside our local area. This incinerator is so big, it would dwarf everthing in the area and be a complete eye sore. I hope that no "Back handers " are being offered or promised by Covanta to get this planning through ."

Simon Woodcock
"The proposal of a incineration facility based at the Rookery South site should not be given approval for the following reasons: (1) The proposed technology will discourage recycling and development of greater, and more environmentally practises of disposing of waste and generating electricity (2) The proposed solution will have a large impact on the villages that will be directly impacted on a daily basis, and towns further afield. These include (but are not limited to): (a) The impact of large scale HGV traffic movements on roads that are unsuitable and not designed for this kind of traffic. This will also generate exhaust and noise pollution from these vehicles, as well as disrupt the local traffic patterns for affected residents. (b) Pollution from the incineration operations, upsetting and rural/semi-rural area, which is still recovering from the years of industrial activity from the brick factories. (c) The potential impact on the health of the local residents in the villages and wider populations around the incinerator. From initial web-based research, it appears Covanta already appear to have been cited and fined several times in the US for excessive emissions. (c) The site will be situated next to a lake and park area, which will impact on both the habitat of the park (affecting migratory birds etc), and the enjoyment of the park and it's facilities as a place for members of the public to relax and take their families. (d) Long daily operations that will disrupt the lives of the local surrounding villages."

A. McDorman
"I am against the proposed covanta incinerator for the following reasons: in the five (5) years I have lived at this address, I have endured the constant stream of refuse lorries going to the landfill every time I have to go on the roads, and I think it is shameful that, now they have stopped, we are now being asked to endure even more lorries over a longer period each day going to the incinerator. The new 421 is approaching completion and instead of enjoying the benefit of several years of disruption, the roads will be chewed up and backed up with the traffic for the incinerator. If it was for local rubbish, well, perhaps - but to have to truck in refuse from other areas? The incinerator will not be profitable or worth building without taking in a great deal more refuse than a very large area can produce. Will potentially recyclable goods be incinerated to make it worth while and because it is cheaper and easier in the short term? The brickworks chimneys have been closed down - now we have to look at an even higher more intrusive chimney with a massive plume which will probably affect the weather in the valley and probably the health of anyone with a respiratory problem. The jobs created will be negligible in number. The benefits? None for the residents who will actually live with this on a daily basis. This 421 corridor area has been the rubbish bin of the county for too many years. Things are finally becoming green and pleasant due to a lot of hard work by many dedicated people; the landfills are beginning to look better - to have this incinerator sited here is wrong. I try not to be a nimby and realise that solutions to our wasteful society have to be somewhere - I think the residents of the 421 corridor between the M1 and Bedford have done their bit for their neighbours in being home to the landfills in the past, having housing values decreased by potential buyers approaching via roads lacking in curb appeal and swamped with garbage trucks. Please do not replace the landfills with an incinerator."

Chris Thomas
"Bedfordshire needs to deal with its own waste, i object to Covanta touting for business around other counties in the UK. I also object to the following ; Lack of clarity around Covanta flouting USA safety, emission & employment laws. A registration online designed to deter people from proceeding. (try reading 7400 pages) 900 lorries per day adding to traffic congestion and subsequent exhaust polloution. The inappropriate placing of a "wembley" sized facility in the UK's flatest county. The effect this blot on the landscape will have on my house price. The effect the emissions will have on peoples health ie asthma, COPD etc Lack of information on effects of arsenic & other toxic emissions on the areas children. Disrespect shown to the people of Bedfordshire and their environment."

JOHN SKOYLES
"I wish to register my strong opposition to Covanta’s proposal to build an Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) at Rookery South Pit and believe that the IPC should reject the application on the following grounds :- Air Emissions With the closure of the brick works and landfill sites, air quality has improved. I do not want to see this regress. There will be a cumulative, long term adverse impact on the health of local residents which will be exacerbated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion in Marston Vale. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation The proposed EfW plant would have a serious detrimental effect on the ecology of the local area, specifically the Millennium Country Park which is being developed as a quiet haven for wildlife and leisure. It is probable that Rookery South will also be further industrialised subsequently. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke & Insect Infestation Light pollution will be severe and lead to a deterioration of the night sky. Landscape and Visual Impact The local skyline has much improved with the demolition of most of the brickwork chimneys. This development will dominate the skyline in a detrimental way and be a blot on this rural landscape. There will be a permanent loss of a quiet rural area. Noise The plant itself and the very high level of HGV movements will create a significant amount of noise in what is largely a rural location. The noise will continue over most of the day as the operating hours are far too long and are likely to be extended once the incinerator is built. Local & Regional Waste Management The proposal undermines the drive to maximise recycling. Off site disposal of toxic fly ash will generate further HGV movements causing more pollution, a safety hazard and further noise. It is likely that a licence will subsequently be sought for on site disposal. Steadily increasing recycling rates will reduce the incinerator’s source material supply leading to the expansion of the supply area and increase in lorry traffic. Waste should not be imported from other local authorities – each should manage its own waste within its own borders. Socio-Economic The amount of electricity to be generated has been exaggerated. Construction of the incinerator will largely be by non-local labour and the number of long-term jobs will be very small with negligible impact on local unemployment levels. Local property prices will be adversely affected leading to lower economic activity. Tourism is also likely to be badly affected. Traffic and Transport Impacts Planning for the new A421 and M1 Junction 13 did not take the proposed additional traffic into account. Nine hundred additional traffic movements per day will negate planned traffic improvements and vastly increase carbon emissions / noise. Experience at the Brogborough landfill site showed that lorries arrive earlier than the plant opens and cause a traffic logjam. The proposed plant is to be sited between 2 railway lines, therefore rail should be used to transport waste to and from the site."

bill cawte
"Traffic levels: Will increase due to the traffic to and from the proposed plant will increase, i.e. all infrastructure upgrades currently ongoing by the councils involved may only have included the existing levels of traffic and not any extra due to the proposed plant hence this will affect the highways dept and ultimately council tax rises for new roads,,, again. Health issues: The general health of all who live within a wide area of the plant ( due to current wind directions) will be affected, And for people with existing breathing health issues asthma etc this is a real concern that will also affect the NHS with more care issues. Pollution: Pollutant levels will increase, (both from the extra traffic and the plant itself) causing potential dust/dirt fallout (dependant on prevailing winds). Noise: The noise levels will increase as well due to the extra traffic and from the daytime workings of the proposed plant machinery along with a constant drone overnight which happens with 24 hr sites. Beauty spots: The local area has some wonderful views over rolling fields and these will be spoilt by the proposed plant, in the local area the Stewartby landfill site has taken away some of that beauty with a promise that all will be covered over at some time in the future, but this remains to be seen."

poppy weston
"we need to make the world a better place we dont want this monstrous incinerator in our area we dont want the toxic ash flying round our children go away and leave our area alone"

Gill Wiggs on behalf of Haynes Parish Council
"This Pariah Council has initial reservations about the scheme & would therefore like to register to receive further information in order that they can form a clear opinion. The principle points that the Parish Council is concerned about are: Health issues relating to effect of emissions on local residents Environmental impact on the local area from emissions Impact of excessive traffic movements Covanta’s reputation & track record The principle of bringing in waste from other parts of the UK"

Phil Williams
"I have concerns about traffic impact and air, noise and light pollution impact on marston Vale"

Mrs P Hughesdon
"1.The area is now free from brickdust pollution & regenerated by planting trees 2.There seems to be no clear understanding of how temperature inversions & wind conditions in the Vale are likely to affect emissions. 3. As the chimney is so huge nobody seems to have calculated how wide an area mayl be affected by emissions. 4.Increased transport of waste by lorries causing traffic disruption & their own pollution will add to the emissions over a wide area. 5. New houses are being built & the countryside is gradually being swallowed up from the direction of Milton Keynes which will in turn cause further pollution of the area. 6. Aesthetically, the chimney is a blot on the landscape. 7. Overall, this project is more likely to put the health & wellbeing of the local population & environment at risk."

Ms Wardle
"Sirs Yet more beautiful countryside wrecked by so called progress and necessity. The devastation of our fields and trees and the destruction of wildlife just so a waste company can set up home. Should this waste incineration plant actually be built the impact on Aspley Guise would be detrimental to our way of life. The increased amount of traffic WILL without doubt, badly affect the foundations of our older properties causing damage to their very structures. The weight of traffice will increase with more heavy good vehicles THUNDERING past our doorsteps. Trying to cross our lane will become more dangerous and cause more conjestion on our TINY lane! Having to live with the increase in pollution and noise would be a living nightmare."

Mrs. M. J. Bines
"I wish to register my total opposition to the proposed waste disposal facility at Rookery Pit, Stewartby on the following grounds: the facility would cause traffic problems locally with movement of waste to the site which have not been catered for within the present road system; the proposed building will not only cause light pollution (which is already of concern locally with the Marston Gate development; M1 lighting, etc.) but be a horrific blot on the landscape; the amount of electricity to be generated has not, in my view, been proven with the waste to be delivered to site; the emissions to be generated from the proposed waste disposal could be toxic and harmful to the local community, flora and fauna; the method of disposal of ash produced has not been specified clearly - is it to go into landfill, transported elsewhere (and by what means?) - and the future of the surrounding land could be at even greater risk from future toxic emissions if landfill is to be used."

Roy Brindley
"Concerns about health, local infrastructure and blight"

Edna Brindley
"Concerned about local infrastructure not being able to cope with additional traffic, possible impact on health of my family and negative impact on property prices"

Carol Watts
"I do not agree with Covanta's proposal due to the impact that this facility will have on the landscape, the air quality and the health of residents in Central Bedfordshire. I also do not agree with waste being shipped into Central Bedfordshire to feed this enormous incinerator and the resulting traffic on our roads."

Anna kaye
"I live very near to the rookery south pit and strongly believe that this application should not be allowed. I believe that their are so many reasons why this site is unsuitable eg the road infrastructure, close proximity to many villages, noise and air pollution and visual impact. What would us as residents gain from this incinerator? NOTHING. what do we loose? all the above. I have a two year old daughter, I live in Stewartby because it is quiet, safe and peaceful this will not be so if the incinerator goes ahead. Will my house price be affected? Would I be compensated? I also feel the Covanta are not telling the truth about themselves and fear they would exceed all pollution levels. If America have shut down sites due to pollution levels then obviously they do not do what they say. Once again I strongly believe if this application went ahead it would be the downfall of an up and coming county."

Steve Bishenden
"As a local resident I am incredulous at Covanta's proposal to construct such an antiquated method of waste disposal in such a beautiful rural area where it shall negatively affect such a massive amount of local issues, including, but not limited to, visual impact, toxic airborne pollutants and the significant traffic increase. In addition to these issues, I have serious concerns over Covanta's honesty in almost every aspect of their proposal, as so many of them have already been challenged at local meetings and they are midway through court proceedings in the U.S.A. for just such dishonesty. Irrelevant of the above, why should the country proceed into the next three or more decades with a means of waste disposal that is such an environmental disaster to start with. With the large quantity of bottom ash that must be land-filled, the method can only ever be 75% efficient. With Central Bedfordshire already recycling 50% of its waste, and the target increasing to 60% in the near future, why should we choose this ineffective method? Regarding the toxic airborne pollutants, these cannot be controlled effectively as I understand the European legislation does not regulate the release of particles as small as those produced by an incinerator. It is these which pose the greatest hazard to human health, and not just locally as these ‘nano-particles’ can travel great distances. Reduce, Re-use, Recycle. This proposal does none of them....what does it do?"

Adrian Bladon
"My objections to the Covanta proposal are as follows: •An incinerator will forever change the character of the local area •Incineration contributes significantly to atmospheric CO2. I am extremely concerned about the amount of toxic nanoparticles which will be released into the atmosphere. This will cause a great health risk to both humans and wildlife. •Covanta are currently being sued for the second time in the USA for dioxin pollution, so they have a recent history of failure to operate to the required safety standards. •Incineration will greatly discourage recycling and composting in this area. Currently Bedfordshire Council has a good record of recycling. If the incinerator is built then they will be unable to work towards more sustainable solutions for waste management as vast quantities of waste will be required for the incinerator. •There will be a huge increase in traffic levels and associated noise and dust pollution in the local area. •The proposal to draw huge proportions of the waste processed by the plant from surrounding counties is unacceptable. I do not agree that Marston Moretaine should be responsible for dealing with several counties waste. We should not be turned into a huge dumping ground. •There will be a loss of wildlife habitat in an area that has naturally regenerated over many years. •There will be a detrimental effect on local housing prices, very few individuals will want to live in such close proximity to an incinerator. •Tourism in the area will be greatly affected. The Forest Centre will certainly not attract many visitors if a large incinerator is sited in such close proximity and in fact tourism to the whole county will be affected. •The Covanta Incinerator proposal will create a few jobs, but I feel that an investment in other more environmentally friendly solutions, such as waste source separation and door- to-door collection of waste items would create many more jobs for the future. •The Incinerator proposal is not an environmentally friendly solution and I strongly feel that we should not even be considering it as an appropriate waste management solution."

Phil Howell
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station because there are serious environmental, health and social impacts including: 1. Emissions of harmful gases, particulates and other matter from the site over a wide geographical area 2. Increased air and noise pollution from heavy road traffic volumes serving the site 3. Light pollution 4. Impact on the flora and fauna of Marston Vale 5. Poor track record of the US parent company on compliance with environmental laws 6. Visual impact on the landscape"

Mrs S Skoyles
"I wish to register my strong opposition to Covanta’s proposal to build an Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) at Rookery South Pit and believe that the IPC should reject the application on the following grounds :- Air Emissions With the closure of the brick works and landfill sites, air quality has improved. I do not want to see this regress. There will be a cumulative, long term adverse impact on the health of local residents which will be exacerbated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion in Marston Vale. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation The proposed EfW plant would have a serious detrimental effect on the ecology of the local area, specifically the Millennium Country Park which is being developed as a quiet haven for wildlife and leisure. It is probable that Rookery South will also be further industrialised subsequently. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke & Insect Infestation Light pollution will be severe and lead to a deterioration of the night sky. Landscape and Visual Impact The local skyline has much improved with the demolition of most of the brickwork chimneys. This development will dominate the skyline in a detrimental way and be a blot on this rural landscape. There will be a permanent loss of a quiet rural area. Noise The plant itself and the very high level of HGV movements will create a significant amount of noise in what is largely a rural location. The noise will continue over most of the day as the operating hours are far too long and are likely to be extended once the incinerator is built. Local & Regional Waste Management The proposal undermines the drive to maximise recycling. Off site disposal of toxic fly ash will generate further HGV movements causing more pollution, a safety hazard and further noise. It is likely that a licence will subsequently be sought for on site disposal. Steadily increasing recycling rates will reduce the incinerator’s source material supply leading to the expansion of the supply area and increase in lorry traffic. Waste should not be imported from other local authorities – each should manage its own waste within its own borders. Socio-Economic The amount of electricity to be generated has been exaggerated. Construction of the incinerator will largely be by non-local labour and the number of long-term jobs will be very small with negligible impact on local unemployment levels. Local property prices will be adversely affected leading to lower economic activity. Tourism is also likely to be badly affected. Traffic and Transport Impacts Planning for the new A421 and M1 Junction 13 did not take the proposed additional traffic into account. Nine hundred additional traffic movements per day will negate planned traffic improvements and vastly increase carbon emissions / noise. Experience at the Brogborough landfill site showed that lorries arrive earlier than the plant opens and cause a traffic logjam. The proposed plant is to be sited between 2 railway lines, therefore rail should be used to transport waste to and from the site."

C Edwards
"I think it is potentially unsafe to have a waste incinerator in such a built up area. I attended one of the Covanta presentations and tried to find out about how they would remove dioxins from fumes emitted from the plant. I have since read that this technology is often flawed and in the US there have been incidents of pollution by this company in this sort of plant. Dioxins can cause cancer. We should be working to decrease pollutants in our atmosphere and we should be looking at increasing recycling. If we need power stations we should be looking at carbon free solutions such as nuclear or renewables."

Ken Jones
"object to the development on environmental grounds: much increased heavy vehicle traffic flow in the area effluent and air polution problems Unacceptable visual impact"

STEVEN ROWSE
"I believe that the proposal will undermine local waste strategies. Specifically, the proposal will not encourage recycling nor the increased production and research into degradable material. I therefore register an objection to the proposal."

Alexander Conlan
"SIZE -The massive industrial structure will dominate the rural landscape, right next to the Forest Centre. The main building will be 43m tall, the same height as the Snow Dome in Milton Keynes and 200m long. The chimney will be 105m, dwarfing everything in the Vale. TRAFFIC - Huge quantities of waste will be imported into the Vale from all over the region. Toxic fly ash will be removed from the site. We are worried about the detrimental effect the waste lorries wil have, travelling through our towns and villages. NEED - We don't need such a large incinerator. Now that brickmaking has ended and with Stewartby landfill closing next year, the vale has started to regenerate. We don't want waste imported from outside the local area. BENEFITS - We don't believe the incinerator, or the proposed community benefits will enhance local area, or outweigh the negative effects."

Mary Josephine Marr
"This part of Bedfordshire is at last seeing improvements for local residents. The proposed Rookery South Pit project will undo any good that the new A421 and Marston Vale projects bring to improve lives of local people. In my opinion it will bring pollution in all its forms. Pollution of the air, skies, the countryside. The number of heavy lorries with associated noise, air pollution, traffic build-up is not acceptable. What is being given to people with this project - nothing! The atmosphere - the fresh air we all want to breath, the visual improvement to the countryside, the loss of night skies, the well-being of all - all this will be compromised. This is a retrograde project and should be abandoned."

G CONLAN
"SIZE:The massive industrial structure will dominate the rural landscape right next to the Forest Centre. The main building will be 43m tall, the same height as the Snow Dome in Milton Keynes and 200m long. The chimney will be 105m high, dwarfing everything in the Vale. TRAFFIC: Huge quantities of waste will be imported into the Vale from all over the region. Toxic fly ash will be removed from the site. We are worried about the detrimental effect the waste lorries will have, travelling through our towns and villages. NEED:We don't need such a large incinerator. Now that brickmaking has ended and with Stewartby landfill closing next year, the Vale has started to regenerate. We don't want waste to be imported from outside the local area. EMMISSIONS: We are worried about the emissions that will be generated, and how they will be safely monitored. Covanta has not adequately considered temperature inversions in the Vale, and how thay may affect the safe dispersal of emissions from the stack. BENEFITS: We don't believe the incinerator, or the proposed community benefits will enhance local area, or outweigh the negative effects."

Gill Wiggs on behalf of Houghton Conquest Parish Council
"Houghton Conquest Parish Council objects to this proposal. A detailed submission has been sent."

Linda Butten
"We are concerned about the EMISSIONS that will affect our health and that of other local people. The Vale is about to return to being a beautiful green space with Forests, Lakes and Walks following the completion of the A421 bypass works, the closure of brickworks and the landfill. The Sustrans Cycle Route through the area provides access now and the potential canal will boost recreational access further, the incinerator will damage the area for many years to come. We understand that waste will arrive from a wide area, such an outstanding area should not be a destination for such waste, the large vehicle movements it will require and the emissions."

Claire Silva
"We have just begun to enjoy the benefits of the Marston Vale Community Forest and Millennium park and the siting of a huge incinerator in this area goes against all the efforts that have been made towards these projects. This is a rural landscape and particularly quiet at night. An incinerator working 24/7 would completely change both the landscape and the environment causing light and noise pollution as well ruining the landscape. There are not sufficient guarantees regarding the safety of emissions from the incinerator and the implications on health, especially those with breathing problems. Bedfordshire is a county which recycles on an ever-increasing basis. In order for the incinerator to be viable it requires rubbish. This undermines the message on recycling and would require waste to be imported from other counties to keep the incinerator viable. We do not have the infrastructure to deal with min 900 lorry movements per day between the hours of 5am and a 11pm."

Lesley Smith on behalf of Bedfordshire Councils Planning Consortium
"Bedfordshire Councils Planning Consortium (B.C.P.C) Summary of Views BCPC is deeply concerned with ALL ASPECTS OF PROCESS. The IPC and its processes are untested and restrictive; e.g. 500 words is insufficient for organisations such as BCPC to register views. BCPC has views on ALL ASPECTS OF PLANNING - Bypassing the well established Local Authority Local Plan has unknown consequences. Additionally ALL ASPECTS OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS (which are not restricted to or by any specifics detailed). Alternatives Stifled by proposal. Bedfordshire County Council The approval in principle was faulty. Community Stewartby will be stigmatised by the overwhelming presence of the plant. Early morning "stacking" of lorries on Green Lane will severely disrupt normal family and school life in Stewartby. Corporate Responsibilities American corporations have a poor track record at non-US plants. Hanson sought to escape commitments with Sale of All Property (S.O.A.P) to O&H. Climate Change The proposal will increase immediate C02 emissions. Efficiency Incinerators without fully subscribed local heat distribution schemes are inefficient. Employment Scheme provides minimal posts compared to real resource recovery. Environment The chemical outputs from the plant are not considered to be beneficial. Health This area has been subject to an Air Quality Management Order. Given the unknown long-term effects of pollution, current and potential legal liabilities must be co-joined and fully funded by this new polluter. . History This area is subject to covenant and was refused permission for landfill. IPC The IPC has little LOCAL KNOWLEDGE with questionable ongoing commitment to our community. Legal The site is subject to a ROMP. Approval of development will commute that financial burden. Our community should receive all that financial benefit immediately Location The RURAL site is Greenfield and subject to a requirement to restore agricultural use. If that government sanction is to be waived, what trust can the community have in any planning conditions? Presumption Approval will cascade development. Proposal The IPC permitted a misleading and dishonest title for the proposal. BCPC believes INCINERATOR has been omitted in order to disguise the true nature of the development. Radius Given the 5Km limit on consultation we are shocked there is no defined limit on IMPORTATION. Railway Lying between two railway lines, it is with amazement that, even the possibility of an environmentally sound alternative to lorries has been dismissed. Rights of Way Many footpaths and bridleways on former Hanson land were ILLEGALLY obstructed. This scheme seeks to legitimise those unlawful acts and provides inadequate compensation to the community. There must be a review of ALL footpaths and bridleways within former Hanson land in the vale prior to the progression of this scheme. Scale This development is not appropriate to the needs of Bedfordshire. Transport The A421 upgrade was not planned with many hundreds of large vehicle movements per day. Wildlife Rookery South has much wildlife and must be part of the natural regeneration of the vale. BCPC is also considering the following issues: Air Quality Monitoring; BEaR Project; Competition; Leisure; Tourism; History of Poor Community Involvement; Human Rights."

Tanya Devereux
"The road infrastructure of the area will not be able to cope with the additional traffic from the site. The area is an important wildlife habitat and the Marston Vale Forest centre will be deeply effected not just aesthetically but ecologically. The area is predominantly rural and the site would seriosly undermine the way of life of the surrounding villages. Local exisitng and proposed tourist attractions will be blighted by this development effecting jobs and quality of life for future generations. Any long term health implications do not seem have not been fully addressed or fears alleviated. The site or indeed the county of Bedfordshire cannot cope with the a large scale industrial development."

Keith Butten
"The EMISSIONS will be a health risk to my family and all other local people. The Vale is returning to being an outstanding country park with footpaths, cycle routes, lakes and forests. The incinerator will be a destination for waste from a huge area that will bring large vehicle movements, an eyesore and emissions to an area that is just returning to its natural best following closure of brickworks, completion of A421 bypass and impending closure of landfill. With Sustrans cycle route going through the area, many footpaths, lakes, forest and a potential canal the area is a recreational area not a waste destination."

Nicholas Marr
"I object to this application.....it is too close to Bedford"

Carlos Silva
"Covanta has been "repeatedly fined over toxic emissions" in the US at its Waste Plants.(Private Eye issue 1248). There is a lack of clarity over the implications of emissions from the incinerator's chimney on health - especially the long-term implications. We have a new Country Park nearby and the negative impact on this by an enormous chimney and incinerator working 24/7 would be immeasurable. This is a rural landscape and community. The visual aspect of the incinerator, the permanent loss of night sky and the noise pollution in what is a uniquely quiet area would change this completely. All transportation on and off site is to be by lorry which will result in over 900 lorry movements per day on roads and through rural communities which do not have the infrastructure to deal with it. The plans to incinerate go against all the efforts to encourage more recycling - something which Bedfordshire is doing increasingly. Waste will have to come from outside the county in order to feed the incinerator to make it viable and this is unacceptable because of the increase in traffic and the negative impact this has on the environment."

Kirk Laird
"What polutants will be blown accross the Bedfordshire countryside? I would like to know what gaurantees the company have in place to prevent my children and the general populace of the area from becoming unwell due to the emissions spewed from the site? Just how big and how much of an eyesore will this industrial unit be? How will the traffic to the site impact upon local traffic, local wildlife and the road system itself? Who will pay for the upkeep of the roads damaged by heavy and excessive use?"

Ruth Ivory
"As a member of the sailing club adjacent to the proposed site I do not believe enough work has been undertaken by Covanta to establish the impact and mitigate the effect on our Club. The Club has been in existence since 1971 and caters for water sports activities all age groups in the community we are the only sailing club to offer to local schools the opportunity for pupils to learn water sports as part of the national curriculum with qualified instructors. I addition the club is an important host of regional national and world championship events with people from across the world making use of the water and other facilities camping on site. Key specific concerns are 1. Long operational hours will impact on the club culture and activities 2. Traffic impact, a. no research has been done to understand the impact of traffic flows into and out of the SWSC entrance, safety and access issues that may arise as well as queuing which may happen as a result of vehicles waiting to turn right into our entrance and /or the level crossing being closed b. an additional 530 vehicle movements a day will go past our entrance gate the vast majority of them HGV and an increase of 53% on the current 1000 vehicle movements currently 3. Air Quality / Pollution, smell from vehicles (bin liqueur), increased insect activity, flying rubbish and general dust 4. Noise Pollution , a. Noise levels given are for average levels half the movements will be for empty and accelerating vehicles which will be considerably higher and travelling a few feet from our camping area from 5am b. vibration from vehicles 5. Impact on the lake water levels the lake is connected to the Rookery pit via a culvert that runs under the railway line, excess water is currently pumped into Stewartby lake this keeps the water levels high in the summer to enable our activities to continue and in the winter when the lake rises by several meters due to its use as a flood control for Bedford Rookery pit is allowed to flood this will not be possible moving forward and the pumping will continue into Stewartby Lake flooding the amenity 6. Water pollution how will they stop pollution through seepage and surface run off into our connecting water and ultimately the lake by the nature of our sports we are immersed in and ingest the water frequently there has been no study into the increased health risks of this and no monitoring of the outfall to the Lake is in place 7. Light pollution will occur from the junction lighting in particular which is situated within 50m of our camping area 8. Wind will be obstructed by the structure the impacting on the quality of the wind creating a wind shadow , wind bounce and thermals from the stack making it difficult for us to continue sailing The combination of all of the factors above will make it difficult for the club to maintain its membership and any resulting decrease in funds would force closure of the facility"

John Kay
"Dear Sirs I wish to protest at the proposed Rookery South Pit development by Covanta Energy on the following grounds: . This proposed development will be of little or no value to local residents in terms of amenities or financial advantage to them and the number of jobs which might be created will be minimal and have little impact on local unemployment. . There will be a substantial noise and pollution nuisance from increased HGV traffic along the route of the old (local) A 421 main road by lorries going to and from the Rookery Pit RRF. Traffic nuisance was supposed to be reduced for local residents by the construction of the new A 421 road from Junction 13 of the M1 motorway to the A6 on the outskirts of Bedford. The proposed Rookery Pit development will negate this advantage for local residents. . There will be a risk of air pollution from the Rookery South RRF by means of the chimney(s) at the plant and possibly a risk from carcinogenic pathogens released into the atmosphere in the region of Marston Moretaine, Shortstown, Stewartby, Wootton and Kempston. . There will be noise pollution for local residents from the operation of the plant and also the operation of heavy commercial vehicles at all hours of the day and night. . There will be a danger from congestion to the small country approach roads to the plant and also the danger of accidents involving large commercial vehicles going to and from the plant and local private transport. . Furthermore, this proposed development seems only valid in terms of making money for a foreign commercial company with little real interest in the health, wealth or social welfare of the local residents in the surrounding area."

P. COSHER
"I object to Covanta's proposals because- Health and Safety it is likely that some emissions will be harmful. Accidents WILL happen There will be noise light chemical traffic air pollution. Visual impact of such a huge plant in all directions Waste to come from outside Beds.Recyclable materials will be burnt and not monitored. Rockery is an important wild life area Plant will join Millenium Park air pollution making this unuseable. CO2 will be released quickly and continuously-not contained. Electricity ,a few (80) jobs and Covanta paying for an extension to the Millenium Park will not compensate for decrease in house prices,the pollution and health concerns."

Annemarie Kurz
"This "project" is not wanted on our doorstep, we understand something has to be done, but this is wrong. to destroy the beautiful countryside is one thing, but you will be increasing traffic in the area too, the pollution it will cause is astonishing to imagine, and especially those of us parents with small children are worried for there health as well as our own!!!! this need to re-located elsewhere where it wont be a threat to our community."

Graham Evans
"I object overall to the complete lack of community engagement by all parties concerned. There is a view that only certain villages will be affected and areas such as Wotton, Kempston & Wilstead for instance are unaware that these toxic emissions will also affect them and their health. The upgraded A421 is also totally unsuitable for the 900 lorry movements per day and will cause traffic chaos in an already overcrowded route to junction 13 of the M1. Traffic queues equate to even more exhaust pollution let alone lorries from 5am to 11pm every day,"

Stephen Cavender
"Scale: The development is too large; much larger than necessary for waste disposal in Bedfordshire. Its visual impact would change the character of the countryside. It would need to be fed with waste from distant areas. Site: The proposal if for an unsuitable site located in countryside that is recovering from previous industrialisation. The traffic needed to service it would have adverse effects on many communities. The road infrastructure is inadequate for the purpose – why not rail? Its impact on the local environment is unreasonable and contrary to other purposes identified for the area. The industrial processes would create pollution and damage due to noise, dust, odour, artificial light, emissions and traffic movements. The Nirah development already planned is incompatible with this proposal. Health: Gas emissions and waste handling (before and after incineration) are likely to have adverse health effects on local residents. The area has previously experienced significant problems due to chimney emissions lying over the area as a result of local atmospheric phenomena. Building new emitters in the same landscape will repeat history. The incinerator’s waste products will need further handling and storage, which give rise to risk of pollution and other health hazards. The health of local residents will be adversely affected by the 24-hour operation of the site, giving no respite from the noise and industrial activity, giving rise to stress, discomfort and loss of amenity. Covanta: The proposed operator has a poor track record of safety and breaches of legislation where it operates similar plants. Assurances about future performance are highly questionable. Local benefits: What is the local community to get out of this proposal? Nothing. Where is there any evidence of the developer giving something back for allowing this commercial operation? Why not a combined heat and light unit that would give direct benefit to local areas? Planning context: Local elected representatives have worked hard to stop this area of Bedfordshire continuing to be used for waste disposal operations. Just when this succeeds, another disposal operation is proposed; one that will take waste from 7 counties. The current political emphasis is for local decision-making – this application and decision-making process contravenes that. Consideration of the application should be suspended until the new framework is in place. Technology: There are questions about whether incineration is the most appropriate method of waste disposal, with new guidance expected next summer. The decision should be deferred until this new guidance framework is in place."

Bryan Bland
"I am against the Covanta incinerator on one fundamental principal. After years of having to put up with the smell and pollution from the chimneys at the brick yards, Wilstead which lies down wind of the development has had a break recently. We now face this new threat - pollution from the Covanta incinerator. I’ve read the documents about how low and safe Covanta believe the emissions will be. But it’s quite simple to me - without the incinerator we have no emission at all, regardless. This is how it should remain. Wilstead has suffered enough in the past - find another site for the facility."

liam abrahams
"i believe this incinerator should not be built as it will ruin the country side aswell as removing the benefit of the road expansion. The incinerator will be on a collosal size and will be bigger that SELCHP ( south east london combined heat and power ) Incinerator which handles 625,000 tonnes of londons waste yearly. Covanta dont have a good record as in the US as countless plants have been closed down and covanta fined because as toxic gasses being released from there chmney stacks."

Mrs Gloria Goss
"Marston Moretaine has contended with brick works and landfill sites, both of which have now closed which has meant an improvement in the area, including air qualitiy and decrease in roadside and hedge rubbish from the lorries carrying waste to the landfill sites. An incinerator would again blight the area causing pollution problems, decline in house prices, very probable health problems and an eyesore for all those living in The Marston Vale. It would spoil the benefits of the Millenium Park, loved and used by locals and many from further afield - it is a real asset to the area. It would also bring an increase in traffic movements causing noise and pollution and negating the benefits of the new A421. Rubbish would be brought from many adjoining counties and even further afield. Coventa has and is already having problems with pollution in the United States and has court actions against it. Just because Marston and Stewartby have worked out clay-pits that does not mean it is right to use them for rubbish - sport and leisure acitivites benefit the whole of Bedfordshire and this is the use to which they should be put. The proposed new Waterway from Milton Keynes to Bedford, another asset to the area, could be endangered by the proposed incinerator and of course the proposed Holiday Park, not to mention the Aqua Dome project. Any project which could cause possible permanent damage to health should not be allowed to proceed - cancer causing pollutants are already too numerous, an incinerator working 24/7, every day of the year would add to that and cause great worry and concern to the residents of the area."

fred mcfarling
"Traffic impact on the village, along with air, noise and light pollution as well as the impact on marston vale."

T. Wright
"This proposal will be a poluting eyesoe. My village of Houghton Conquest is directly downwind of the prevailing winds of this project. We suffered polution from the brickworks chimminies and I fear we will suffer far worse from this planned facility. It must not be allowed to proceed."

Donald MacRitchie
"The sheer scale of this proposed development is frightening and would have a serious impact on the local community , nearby conservation area and Stewartby lake facilities. Noise,air and light pollution would be inevitable , and such a project would have a disastrous and irreversable impact on the entire area. It's not just a case of 'not in my back yard' and I am certain that a suitable location could be found that did not hold the same severity of environmental impact"

Kathryn MacRitchie
"the traffic that would be coming in and out of Stewartby would make the sailing club no longer a place you go to relax with friends and family. It would be noisy and the increase in traffic would bring danger to the area. also with the proposed building this brings worrying times for sailors as it would most definitely impact on the wind patterns around Stewartby: not good! The pollution and air quality and traffic of trucks will all have a serious effect and will make sailing on the lake not as enjoyable and will definitely put people off coming. Surely this isnt the best place for a big factory!"

Jane Pilkington
"I believe the proposed project will adversely impact on my lifestyle and home. We live very close to the development and will be impacted by the increase in polution and traffic, not to mention to the noise level. Also we are members of SWSC and believe that the promixity to the club will impact us and the other members of the club."

Graham Inwood
"Impact on environment & surrounding land Wildlife Quality of water Traffic Pollution Noise Vibration from heavy vehicles Vermon Smell!!!"

Guimin Ma
"I am opposed to the proposed Covanta incinerator because of the scale of emissions and pollution of air it could cause, as well as the increased amount of traffic and disturbance to the neighbourhood nearby."

angela smith
"The building of an incinerator in this area will be detremental to the following... The local wild life in the Stewartby pit area The local tourism for the area The value of house prices in the area will be poorer The air quality will be poorer The view to the west side of our property will be greatly diminished Traffic pollution will be higher The smell from the incinerator will greatly affect our garden pub business as the wind predominatley blows from the west This will worsen my asthma condition The children will not be able to play outside when the air quality is poor."

Andrew kaye
"I am very unhappy about the planned incinerator. We are supposed to be reducing our co2 emissions by 2020 which is part of an agreement with Europe. The government will be fined billions which will passed onto local councils if they do not hit the targets set. Burning millions of tons rubbish will surely raise the co2 levels which goes against the 2020 agreement. I do not want to be next to huge incinerator, what will I get from having it on my doorstep?? Cheaper electricity?? Probably not. Better air quality?? NO. An increase in my property value?? NO. Better health?? NO. I have a young family and I do not want there standard of living ruined. Covanta have been fined many times In America so why are the local council even letting this get through the planning. I plead with the planning not to let this happen, you would not like a incinerator on your doorstep, so why should we. RECYCLE not burn."

Michael Smith
"The proposed incinerator is being built where the prevailing winds will generally take any emissions over the residential areas of Kempston and Bedford and villages in between. There is also imminent further residential development in this area which will place considerably more residences directly in the area that will be affected by any emissions. At the time of the brickworks it was common for this area to be covered in smoke and smells from those chimneys. While there are representations from the developer that their emissions will be harmless I am less than reassured. There are examples from other similar incinerators where the control over the quality of the emissions has been found to be less than desireable and I understand the company is being prosecuted over this in other locations. As a person with a young family living directly in the path of any emissions being carried on prevailing winds I naturally have strong concerns and I am dubious that any proposed monitoring, or commitments by the developer, can be enforced to a standard that makes me confident about the long term health of myself, my family or other residents."

Barry Tyrrell
"This facility is well used by a wide range of sports. therefore to lose it would be not only felt localy but also to traveling sports people."

Rebecca Hares
"My husband and I moved to a village to avoid polluting our bodies with fumes; we also like the picturesque scenery of this area. People pay a lot of money to live in villages, its much more expensive than living in a dodgy neighbourhood in Milton Keynes or Bedford; so why do we, who have such a higher cost of living, then have to suffer toxic fumes at the hands of a waste disposal facility? When the very reason for moving to a village was to avoid such pollution to ourselves and to our future children. Build the facility in the industrial estates of a large town or city, that is already full of pollution; like Luton that is covered in aeroplane fuel and fumes. I'm very upset that the people of this village and surrounding villages were not openly informed and are restricted by deadlines to present their protest. I have since discovered that the company wishing to build this facility has been in trouble for breaching safety and security protocols and are responsible for several toxic spills. Do you really want to have such a dangerous company in these parts and end up on the news because Bedfordshire has become the next Hungary?"

Sally Eaton
"The covanta must not be built as too close to many villages and major concerns of pollution and health for thousands of residents. It would be in an area of natural beauty and therefore a complete eye sore. Traffic to and from the covanta is also a major concern and the roads would be struggling to cope with this."

NEVILLE SODERBERG
"I am a member of Stewartby Water Sports Club,I am very concerned how this incinerator will affect the club & the health of myself. I have been a sailing section member for 25 years and feel the construction of the incinerator will ruin the club and members would leave.Also the amount of lorries coming and going would be very inconvenient and disrupt the smoooth running of our club and encroach greatly on our sailing, wild life and other activities at the club because of the sheer size of this contruction. Having read the facts of the affect on my health is also very much on my mind."

Graham Palfreyman
"Effects on the enviroment. Effect of putchase on watersports club Effects on the lives of local people"

James Walsh
"Given the 10 mph speed limit on Windermere Stewartby is the only body of water in the UK ideally situated for World and International Championship. The proposed facility would make it almost impossible to stage Word events in the future."

michelle stroud
"i am making representation on behalf of my sons sporting carrer ."

Kim Hill
"- the increased traffic generated in and around the village of Brogborough particularly on the A421 and A421/M1 intersection -The massive height of the incinerator chimney dominating the landscape of Marston Vale will be made worse by the plume of steam which will inevitably harbour nanoparticles of residue which could come towards Brogborough. -Increased light pollution and noise pollution combined with tocis atmospheric pollution -Huge amounts of toxic ash residue which will be of little economic value. -Few real jobs will be provided for local people -The extra industry it could attract will only generate more traffic -The likelihood of Covanta importing waste from other counties makes this an unsustainable solution to the waste problem."

Richard Ashdown
"I have concerns over increased traffic generated by this . The visual impact this will have to the area with the huge chimney (s) The smoke or steam generated by this how safe is it ? Who will oversee this ? What will happen to any residue this process will create ? How much employment will this create for local people ? Is this really the best way to deal with waste from this county and no doubt imported waste too ."

Mr & Mrs R Storey
"We would like to express our objection to Covanta building the incinerator at Rookery Pit. This is hardly a greener alternative when you consider the increase in air,noise and light pollution and the long term health implications from toxins in the form of chimney emissions. There would be further pollution from the increase in transportation of waste by road and presumably by rail, increasing the County's carbon footprint. We would urge you to consider safer and greener alternatives. We have had to live with the congestion and inconvenience of changes to the new A421, and this congestion would continue with waste being transported in from other counties."

Diane S Davis
"I strongly object to this plan on the following grounds:- 1) Continued and increased traffic generated around the village of Brogborough and particularly at the M1/A421 intersection, and through the village if the new A421 has a problem, as waste will have to be brought in by road from counties outside Bedfordshire. 2) Massive height of incinerator chimney dominating Marston Vale and visible for miles around, made worse by the plume of steam and hidden nano-particles of residue, which could come towards Brogborough. 3) Toxic atmosphere pollution, light pollution and noise pollution and traffic pollution. 4) Huge amounts of ash residue which will be toxic and of little economic use. 5) There will be very few real jobs for local people. 6) It will probably attract extra industry which will generate yet more traffic. 7) Covanta are likely to import more waste from other countries making this an unsustainable solution to the waste problem. 8) The most important point of all is that all of the above affects peoples quality of life in a negative way; the main reason that lead to the closure of the landfill site at Brogborough. Continuing with this plan will surely make that previous process a total waste of time and money."

Ghislain Pascal
"I am concerned about the proposed incinerator by Covanta Energy at Rookery South for the following reasons: - the proposed facility is too large for a rural site. The proposed facility will be the largest in the country and not in keeping with the other rurally located EfW facilities. - the negative impact on the landscape from Ampthill Park, Houghton House, the Greensand Ridge, the Marston Forest Centre, as well as for local residents. - concerns over local residents health from emissions from the incinerator including for example micro particular dust particles smaller than PM2.5 from entering the lungs and bodies of residents of the Marston Vale and Bedfordshire. - concerns that the incinerator will require over 730,000 tonnes of waste every year. This means that waste will be required to be imported. This is not a local solution to local waste problems. This means increased truck movements and increased C02 emissions. - the environmental impact on the Marston Vale. This area is suppose to be an area of rural and leisure regeneration not industrial regeneration - concerns over the disposal of the ash waste produced as a result of the incinerator - concern that the incinerator will effect the quality of life of residents in the surrounding areas. The site will operate every day of the year, all day and night, with vehicles in and out from 5.30am to 11pm six days a week"

Mrs Anne Rosalind Blevins
"I wish to object to the EfW proposal by Covanta for Rookery Pit. My objections: 1. Tourism/Environment There are existing locations (eg Woburn, Marston Vale Forest, Greensand Ridge Walk), projects in development (eg Centre Parcs) and projects in planning (eg Nirah, the canal) that are all aimed at building the profile of the area as a tourist attraction and improving the local environment. A large industrial building, with its chimney, 24hr operation and vehicle servicing, will impair local views and harm if not destroy these projects. 2. Emissions The effect of atmospheric pollution and consequent danger to health could be significant. The type and level of pollutants cannot be known as it cannot be known what material is going into the incinerator. Some airborne pollutants can be captured but the smaller nanoparticles escape and there is no control on their emissions. Covanta has been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. Apart from toxins, carbon dioxide emissions may contribute to climate change. 3. Landfill The benefits of the incinerator in reducing the need for landfill are totally negated by the size of the plant. Incinerators reduce the volume of raw waste to about ¼. This ash may be toxic and there are therefore safety concerns regarding its use in road-building or putting it in landfill. If this facility is importing waste from other areas, it will create the need for more landfill than we have here in Bedfordshire. Ironically Rookery Pit, where the incinerator is planned, is probably one of the pits that could still be used for landfill. 4. Light/Noise The site will be running 24/7, 365 days a year. This will mean perpetual light and noise pollution in what is a quiet country area. There may also be odours. 5. Traffic The number of vehicles needed to feed the incinerator is too high for the existing roads, even for the new A421. This level of vehicle movement was not anticipated during the planning and design of the new road. 6. Size/ Effect on Recycling This incinerator is planned for a minimum life of 25 years. Its (foreign) owners and operators will need to run it at a profit for all of that time. We are being encouraged by national and international incentives, backed up by the law and large penalties, to reduce the waste we produce. If the incinerator is planned at the outset to require the waste from Bedfordshire and the surrounding counties to feed it, where will it get its waste from when the local volume of waste reduces? From counties further afield – more lorries, larger distances? Or from industrial waste – more toxic, more pollution? Or will it end up burning recyclables? 7. Employment New employment created by Covanta will be insignificant and may not be local people. Local jobs will be lost in the tourist and countryside businesses. Covanta’s incinerator will not benefit the area either financially, environmentally or in terms of employment."

Miss Joanna Fern Blevins
"I wish to object to the EfW proposal by Covanta for Rookery Pit. My objections: 1. Tourism/Environment There are existing locations (eg Woburn, Marston Vale Forest, Greensand Ridge Walk), projects in development (eg Centre Parcs) and projects in planning (eg Nirah, the canal) that are all aimed at building the profile of the area as a tourist attraction and improving the local environment. A large industrial building, with its chimney, 24hr operation and vehicle servicing, will impair local views and harm if not destroy these projects. 2. Emissions The effect of atmospheric pollution and consequent danger to health could be significant. The type and level of pollutants cannot be known as it cannot be known what material is going into the incinerator. Some airborne pollutants can be captured but the smaller nanoparticles escape and there is no control on their emissions. Covanta has been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. Apart from toxins, carbon dioxide emissions may contribute to climate change. 3. Landfill The benefits of the incinerator in reducing the need for landfill are totally negated by the size of the plant. Incinerators reduce the volume of raw waste to about ¼. This ash may be toxic and there are therefore safety concerns regarding its use in road-building or putting it in landfill. If this facility is importing waste from other areas, it will create the need for more landfill than we have here in Bedfordshire. Ironically Rookery Pit, where the incinerator is planned, is probably one of the pits that could still be used for landfill. 4. Light/Noise The site will be running 24/7, 365 days a year. This will mean perpetual light and noise pollution in what is a quiet country area. There may also be odours. 5. Traffic The number of vehicles needed to feed the incinerator is too high for the existing roads, even for the new A421. This level of vehicle movement was not anticipated during the planning and design of the new road. 6. Size/ Effect on Recycling This incinerator is planned for a minimum life of 25 years. Its (foreign) owners and operators will need to run it at a profit for all of that time. We are being encouraged by national and international incentives, backed up by the law and large penalties, to reduce the waste we produce. If the incinerator is planned at the outset to require the waste from Bedfordshire and the surrounding counties to feed it, where will it get its waste from when the local volume of waste reduces? From counties further afield – more lorries, larger distances? Or from industrial waste – more toxic, more pollution? Or will it end up burning recyclables? 7. Employment New employment created by Covanta will be insignificant and may not be local people. Local jobs will be lost in the tourist and countryside businesses. Covanta’s incinerator will not benefit the area either financially, environmentally or in terms of employment."

Clare Grimes
"Size- I am concerned about a developement of this size and height in a rural environment. Traffic- Predicted massive increase in HGVs on local roads. Emissions- Quantity and safe monitoring"

Mrs. Easter
"I totally oppose the Covanta Incinerator that is planned for Rookery Pit, Stewartby, Bedfordshire on the following points: 1. The plan for a giant incinerator will require waste to be shipped into Bedfordshire from other counties as Bedfordshire will not generate enough waste to keep the incinerator running. 2. Shipping in waste from other counties will in turn generate more lorry traffic on the M1 and A421, possibly using Brogborough as an access route if there are problems on the new dual A421. 3. Pollution in the form of light, noise and toxins released into the atmosphere. 4. Ash residue which will also be toxic therefore of no economic use. 5. Little or no employment for local people. 6. A high probability of the development attracting other industrial development which in turn will generate even more traffic and pollution."

R Timothy
"(No Information Supplied)"

Mark Gilbert
"Stewartby Water Sports Club is a major location in the UK and International Powerboat racing calander. Race teams from accross the UK and World use the water for testing and racing throughout the year. UK powerboating has lost too many important race venues and to loose Stewartby Lake would prove a major loss to the UK and would weaken our ability to compete on an international stage. I am involved in the waste/recycling industry and realise that such projects as this are very important, however the facility must be able to be built without the loss of use of the sailing and powerboat racing that goes on on this fantastic venue. I urge planners and companies involved to find a solution that accomerdates these sporting activities, which also bring business to local hotels/restaurants and retailers alike."

Nigel Jacobs
"I object to the transportation of waste from Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Windsor. Each Authority should look after its own waste. Being able to sent it elsewhere means 'out of sight out of mind' and will reduce the pressure for these bodies to recycle. Economies of scale should not be the dominant reason behind the scale of the EFW facility. I object to all the transportation of waste and ash by road. The potential for rail transport exists now and not 'in the future' as stated in the proposal. I object to the separation of hazardous waste on site. This should be done at source. I object to the proposed delivery hours and movement on site hours. These should be conducted between the hours of 7am - 7pm, preferably 7am - 5pm, with no weekend working. Emissions, dust and noise should be independently monitored and reported. One of the monitoring positions should be placed just west of Wilstead. There should be very serious consequences if emission levels are exceeded, not just fines. Monies from any fines should be given to the effected communities. I object to the extinguishing of the existing rights of way across the railway. These could be used to link the Rookery North paths to those around the Forest Centre and with the footpath to the south of the site from the road outside the Test track. This latter link would remove the walk along the road to access the path. Wilstead although just outside the 'engagement area' should be included in this engagement as it is a large community downwind of the proposed site."

Roger Evan
"I live only a few miles from the proposed incinerator in the 'conservation area' of Millbrook village. My main concern are the health issues associated with both the emissions from such a large installation and from the removal of the toxic fly ash from the site. - It seems a huge risk to local people's health to build such a large incinerator so close to rural communities. While there may be regulation of emissions, it is clear that Conventa's existing plants in the US cannot always perform within the limits set. Where safety can't be guaranteed it makes no sense to build on this scale so near to communities. The plant's life cycle (30 years +) together with it's need to run at near full capacity over that period, means that this area of bedfordshire will be exposed to health risk for many years. For my family's health I am against the proposed development."

Stewart Long
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) for the following reasons: (A) Air Emissions (1) The Marston Vale experiences the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion. The cumulative long term impact from the EfW stack emissions on the health of residents is unclear and causes great anxious (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2) The proposed location adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park, a community resource – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a backward step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation (3) There will be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact (4) The emmense size of the EfW and stack (accentuated by the plume) will materially damage the visual amenity and views of a mainly rural landscape. (E) Noise (5) There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting which is unquely quiet at present. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management (6) The EfW will undermine the local waste strategy and discourage recycling despite the fact that Central Beds has oneof the highest recycling rates in thecountry. (G) Socio-Economic (7) The electricity generating capacity of the EfW in terms of average domestic consumption is exaggerated. Muchof the electricity generate will be used to run the facility itself. (8) Future housing projections arenow significantly reduced following the abolition of regional spatial strategies which undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the EfW for and the waste theoretically arising. (9) The facility would generate limited employment prospects, likely filled by people commuting into the area. (10) There will be a negative effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts (11) The traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network and the traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. The Highways Agency acknowledged that the new A421 and M1 Junction 13 opening December 2010 wouldat peak times be at capacity immediately. (12) Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. (13) There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. For the reasons above I believe that the IPC should conclude this proposal is the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area and in the wrong location"

Gary Dooley
"Visual impact - Too big and will impact negatively the surrounding area including the ongoing valuable work in improving the regeneration of the Vale and future regeneration of the landfill site which will progress without this incinerator. Increased traffic and hence pollution caused by the HGV delivery vehicles. This will increase over time as the general move towards less waste through the efforts of recycling by the Local Authority, business and public will require the waste to be transported from further afield. Indeed the incinerator is likely to have a negative effect on recycling as the need for more waste to burn is required to continue viability together with the knock on increase in pollution through transportation. Pollution through the increase in vehicular movements together with the emissions to the atmosphere which cannot be properly controlled or monitored with the additional potential health problems, The plume has been noted to extend upwards to 200m but this will also be subject to weather conditions which will no doubt bring incinerator smells, dust and pollution to local areas as did the brickworks in the past. Pollution through the transport and disposal of the remaining ash and again the potential hazards from this. Insufficient information on the hazards of the by products in terms of temperature, health and odours both in terms of the air bourne pollutants and the remaining ash. Renewable energy sources, better waste management and improved recycling are all extremely important for the future but surely burning waste belongs to the past and not the 21st Century."

Sarah Laird
"I am very concerned about the Chemical fumes, toxic gas emmissions. We are in a vale and they will not escape, hanging around causing health problems. The USA is investigating the same company for this issue. Concerned about the noise of the extra lorries and damage to the roads and enviroment. Huge blot on landscape far bigger than the Cardington Hangers and less pretty. Light polution, noise from machinery 24/7. Cost to our local economy as it will be an eyesore and ruin CentreParcs and Sealife centre projects coming. Concerned for the health of my family. Health and safety record in the USA. Damage to the Vale Forrest/Lakes/delicate ecosystems."

Sarah Laird on behalf of Harrison Laird
"I am a healthy child and am concerned about my longterm health problems which will be caused by the huge amount of materials being burnt and the toxic fumes they produce. The building is too large and ugly and will ruin our beautiful rural countryside. There will be too many noisey lorries and machinery noise 24/7."

Sarah Laird on behalf of Rosie Laird
"I am a healthy child and am concerned about my long term health problems which may be caused by large quantities of waste being burnt and the toxic fumes it will produce. The building is too large and ugly. It will ruin our rural countryside. The lorries will be noisey and damage the roads. The machinery will be noisey 24/7. It will affect the CentreParcs and Sealife Centre projects."

Sarah Laird on behalf of Daisy Laird
"I am a healthy child and am concerned about my longterm health problems which may be caused by waste being burnt and the toxic fumes produced. The building is too large and ugly. It will ruin our rural landscape. The lorries are too noisey and will damage our roads. The machinery noise will be 24/7. It will affect our local ecomony and the CentreParcs/Sealife centre projects."

Mrs Marion Bastable
"1. I oppose the building of the waste incineration facility 2. Traffic movements to and from the site daily will be unacceptably high there is great concern re emissions 3. The size of the incinerator is excessive 4. National newspapers have reported lawsuits at other plants in the UK and USA 5. We are told that a large proportion of the waste will be imported from other counties - Central Bedfordshire should be able to dispose of its own waste 6. Looking at the plans most of the site will dominate the Marston Vale and will be seen for miles around. 7. There will be an unacceptable volume of vehicles daily but the most important problem is the health aspect of emissions and the long term problems this will bring"

Mike Browning
"The building of an Incinerator will result in a change of Character that can never be reversed Severe Light pollution leading to a permanent loss of the night sky Immeasurable quatities of dioxins and furons and other nano-particles will be emitted from the chimneys, which could get into the food chain. Furthermore I have serious concerns about any emissions that will emanate from the chimney stack and subsequent long term health implications Bedfordshire want to recycle and compost 60% of all future waste where will the waste come from to feed the incinerator I have a concern about environmental impacts due to increased traffic levels The site is host to a large number of different wildlife and the proposal will lead to a large number of direct and indirect habitat loss. The sheer size of the building will dominate the valley the site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and will materially impair the views from the Vale to the surrounding Greensand Ridge I am concerned about reports that Covanta have been served legal improvement notices on their plant in the USA. Bedforshire promotes local responsibility in the collection and disposal of waste Bedfordshire has its own local waste management project - the BEaR project Of the 60 -70 permanent jobs there can be no guarantee that any jobs will be offered to local people. I believe that Covanta are exaggerating the electricity generating capacity in terms of meeting average domestic consumption There will be a detrimental effect on local property prices The Covanta proposal is at odds with the stated desire of local people to be a leisure destination rather than somewhere where people send their rubbish Significant vehicle movement to and from the site will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community The volume of lorries and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will go beyond the predicted capacity of the A421 The increase in traffic will lead to associated increases in noise and dust pollution Incineration discourages recycling and contributes significantly to atmospheric CO2 In the sky above Marston vale there is a meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions will linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Vale and eventually fall directly into the Vale Incinerators generate hazardous waste called fly ash how will this be moved off site to licensed landfill sites for such waste, or is there going to be a secondary development at Rookery for such a landfill for hazardous waste. Incinerators also generate toxic and hazardous waste called bottom ash how will this be moved off site to licensed landfill sites for such waste, or is there going to be a secondary development at Rookery for such a landfill for hazardous waste."

Kevin Bell
"Volume of traffic, not allowed for when the new road was proposed; Bedfordshire currently recycles a large volume of waste, so this will need transporting in from other counties. Environmental impact; Incineration discourages recycling, and contributes significantly to atmospheric Co2 Visual Impact Loss of wildlife habitat"

Sarah Bell
"My main worry and opposition is to do with the enviromental impact and the risk of any type of health implications. I have a 5yr old daughter, and I am concerned for her future as well as the rest of my family - what if the emissions are or become dangerous - risk of birth defects, respriatory issues of any sort. The amount of increased traffic will result in health issues alone and pollution, let alone the issue of more traffic on the roads for most of the day. Once built it will hardly provide jobs for the comunity. Bedfordshire has an excellent result in recycling - why burn our rubbish - we ALL need to get wiser and use less and recycle more - not just burn it. We will end up burning rubbish from all over the place just to get usage out of the plant . As for burning and then creating electricity - how rubbish - it won't keep many houses going. And then what about the ash - you then put that into landfill - will you know what you are burning? Probably not - that will then go into the air and the ash buried - what will that create? If your emissions are safe to start with and then tested and found to be unsafe - what then? - it's too flamming late for us - the pollution will already have got into the air and you'll just get a fine - just like in the USA. Covanta is not something for the 21st century - we need to get wiser - not go backwards - use less, waste less, recycle - not burn it!!!!!"

Mrs Jennifer Thomas
"I am totally opposed to this development. The proposed facility is too large and in the wrong location. Bedfordshire should only be considering the disposal of waste arisings from within the county and should not continue to be the dumping ground for other counties. This is a rural location, adjacent to a country park and visible from the Greensand Ridge to the South and the cranfield ridge to the North. The visual impact of such a huge construction would be immense and unacceptable. The views across the Vale, especially from the historic grounds of Ampthill Park and Houghton House would be spoilt forever. The location has an existing restoration plan to return it to low level agricultural land which would provide a natural extension to the adjacent country park, providing footpaths, bridleways and cyclepaths. This proposal will not bring significant employment to the area; once built it will employ less than 100 people, very few of which are likely to be local residents. On the other hand, it will greatly affect tourism in the area, as has been proved in other, similar, locations. Traffic generated by the facility will have a widespread detrimental affect on the local road network, local villages and the health and well-being of local people. We do not know what the long-term effects of emissions from this plant will be and we are concerned about the safety record of Covanta based on issues and legal cases in the U.S.A. Air pollution is a major concern for local people because of the unique local weather patterns and the fact that the proposed site is not only in a Vale, but in the bottom of a 30m pit in the Vale. Covanta have exaggerated the number of homes that could benefit from electricity generated by the plant. The amount of electricity the plant could generate would meet the needs of less than 20,000 households, not the 82,500 that Covanta claim. The proposed plant could produce up to 65mw of electricity but there is no guarantee that it will. This seems just a ploy to ensure that the application is decided by Central Government and not the local planning authority which should be making the decision. The proposed site is a wildlife haven because it has been left largely undisturbed for a number of years now. It is home to a large variety of flora and fauna and this should be protected for future generations. If this development were to go ahead, we are only too aware that other associated industrial development is very likely to take place at the same location, causing even more industrialisation of a rural landscape. This development cannot be allowed to go ahead at this location."

Nigel Murray
"Wilstead is one of the villages near and to the east of the proposed incinerator. We had perennial problems with smoke and mercaptones from the brickworks chimneys at Stewartby when they operated. Environmental Health were well aware. This problem was particularly acute when there was an inversion layer present - apparently this phenomena is fairly common in this area. Recently creosote or similar substance was used at or near the proposed site. It was evident in Houghton Conquest, Wilstead, & probably Haynes (Env Hlth aware). I contend the characteristics of this area make the proposed site unsuitable. The probability of atmospheric pollution affecting the local population is unacceptable. Even in the unlikely event toxin release is 100% controlled the air quality will be degraded by presence of exhaust gasses, with likely adverse health consequences for vulnerable, possibly all, local residents. A coastal location is preferable."

Lynne West
"1.The traffic generated around brogborough and particularly at M1/A421 intersection will be terrible, particularly if the new A421 has a problem, as waste will have to be brought in by road from counties outside Bedfordshire. 2.Massive height of incinerator chiminey dominating Marston Vale and visible for miles around, made worse by the plume of steam and hidden nano-particles of residue, which could come towards brogborough. 3.toxix atmospheric pollution, light pollution and noise pollution. 4. Huge amounts of ash residue which will be toxic and of little economic use. 5.There will be very few real jobs for local people. 6.It will probably attract extra industry which will generate yet more traffic. 7. Coventa are likely to impoprt waste from other counties making this an unsustainable solution to the waste problem 8. According to the Utitity Workers Union of America, article "Coventa Environmental and Labour Violations" Coventa are, as the title states, constantly violating the workforce and environment."

Stuart Cooper
"Big corporation, small club, no one cares, well I do. We don't want this toxic company in our area. They have already been cited in most areas it has built for various violations in statutory regulations and safety breeches."

Richard Last
"Scale - the plant is too large. The chimney is too tall. The external lighting would be harmful. This is an area of open countryside that can be viewed from many surrounding areas and the visual impact will be detrimental. Traffic - there are far too many proposed vehicle movements. Excessive vehicle movements would overload the new and old A421. Also, by taking up road capacity, future beneficial economic development could be stopped due to insufficient highways capacity. Noise - I believe that the plant and the traffic will create far too much noise, especially as it is in a natural bowl, allowing noise to travel. Emissions - I believe that the proposed plant would emit toxic fumes and particles, even though the applicants state that it would not. This is toxic nano size particles and fly ash from the stack plus residual pellets that will need specialist disposal, including land fill, due to their toxicity. Waste management - I believe that burning waste is fundamentally wrong, particularly when considering that this would be a project committed to say 30 years. Over that time a level of waste material would be needed for incineration, rather than say going to recycling. This would discourage further recycling. I also believe that local areas should be responsible for their own waste and not import / export waste. Economic - I believe that the construction phase is unlikely to employ many local jobs and the resulting plant will not employ many jobs for its size, particularly when compared to more recycling or other forms of employment development. Environmental - the Marston Vale is supposed to be about repairing a damaged landscape, with its community forest and sympathetic development. This is not at all in keeping with this policy"

Gemma Last
"Scale - the plant is too large. The chimney is too tall. The external lighting would be harmful. This is an area of open countryside that can be viewed from many surrounding areas and the visual impact will be detrimental. Traffic - there are far too many proposed vehicle movements. Excessive vehicle movements would overload the new and old A421. Also, by taking up road capacity, future beneficial economic development could be stopped due to insufficient highways capacity. Noise - I believe that the plant and the traffic will create far too much noise, especially as it is in a natural bowl, allowing noise to travel. Emissions - I believe that the proposed plant would emit toxic fumes and particles, even though the applicants state that it would not. This is toxic nano size particles and fly ash from the stack plus residual pellets that will need specialist disposal, including land fill, due to their toxicity. Waste management - I believe that burning waste is fundamentally wrong, particularly when considering that this would be a project committed to say 30 years. Over that time a level of waste material would be needed for incineration, rather than say going to recycling. This would discourage further recycling. I also believe that local areas should be responsible for their own waste and not import / export waste. Economic - I believe that the construction phase is unlikely to employ many local jobs and the resulting plant will not employ many jobs for its size, particularly when compared to more recycling or other forms of employment development. Environmental - the Marston Vale is supposed to be about repairing a damaged landscape, with its community forest and sympathetic development. This is not at all in keeping with this policy"

Colin Bates
"I support the pricipal of incineration of waste that is not suitable for recycling for the following reasons. -It is not new technology and is common place on the continent of europe. -It is a far better investment than wind power which has a poor load factor. -In the area concerned waste from London is already imported for landfill so collecting from arelatively close area should not create any greater problem. -The site has good road and rail communications. -The brick kilns that were originally in the location were very bad polluters particulary with respect to sulphur immissions. Controls need to be fully implemented with respect to furnace temperatures and flue gas toxins and it should be no worse than a coal fired power station."

GEORGE W. E. YOUNG
"I am a retired Waste Management Officer having worked in both the public and private sector for over 35 years. I hold professional qualifications in solid waste management, environmental health and atmospheric pollution control. I am fully aware of EU directives and had been involved in their implementation in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. I cannot argue that Central Bedfordshire Council needs to change its current waste disposal arrangements away from landfill and towards recycling,reuse and possibley energy from waste facilities. I am of the opinion that the proposed Rookery site development is far in excess of that required for Central Bedfordshire or even Bedfordshire as a whole, and will blight an attractive area recovering from a large brick making industrial facility. The organisation of the Marston Forest Centre is a facility used and enjoyed throughout the year by the population of a wide area, and is a growing conservation organisation. The proposed development is toolarge for the area and will be a possible source of pollution both atmospheric and noise, which together with the increased volume of large lorries will cause problems for a largely semi-rural area. Why should the residents of Marston Vale be subject to this and have to provid a waste disposal facility to take the waste from a larger area including probabley Buckinghamshire, southern Bedfordshire and Luton/Dunstable; Northamptonshire is also not that far to the north to exempt this facility from its possible inclusion. To make this proposed facility viable satelite waste tansfer stations would have to be built in other areas so that economies of scale could be applied allowing the use of maximum sized lorries. Has the company considered importing waste by rail given the proposed facility's close proximity to a railway track. As I have earlier stated I am totally aware of EU directives and agree that councils need to update their wast disposal arrangements; has Central Bedfordshire considered providing its own facility on a much smaller scale, if necessary in conjunction with Bedford City Council with whom it has past and present links on wastew disposal. This could possibley be acheived through a privately funded and maintained facility. In conclusion I would summarize my objections on the grounds of the size of the proposed facility, with the possible source of environmental, atmospheric and noise pollution."

Keith Buck
"This application cannot be allowed to proceed. This will simply increase traffic, spoil air quality and spoil the quality of life in the Martson Vale. PLEASE REJECT THIS APPLICATION. PLEASE DUMPY WATE ELSEWHERE NOT HERE!!"

Mr Trevor James Blevins
"I wish to object to the EfW proposal by Covanta for Rookery Pit. My objections: 1. There are existing locations (Woburn, Marston Vale Forest, Greensand Ridge Walk), projects in development (Centre Parcs) and projects in planning (Nirah, the canal) that are all aimed at building the profile of the area as a tourist attraction. A large industrial building, with its chimney, 24hr operation and vehicle servicing, will harm if not destroy these projects. 2. The site will be running 24/7. This will mean perpetual light and noise pollution in what is a quiet country area. If such a facility has to be built, it should be in an industrial area where other facilities with 24hr working already exist. 3. The effect of atmospheric pollution and consequent danger to health could be significant. The type and level of pollutants cannot be known as it cannot be known what material is going into the incinerator. Some airborne pollutants can be captured but the smaller nanoparticles cannot and there is no control on their emissions. 4. The claims made by Covanta about the benefits of new employment pale into insignificance against the potential jobs lost to the tourist and countryside business. 5. The number of vehicles needed to feed such a facility is too high for the existing roads, even for the new A421. This level of vehicle movement was not anticipated or planned for during the planning and design of the new road. 6. The benefits of the incinerator in reducing the need for landfill are totally negated by the size of the plant. Incinerators reduce the volume of raw waste to about ¼. If this facility is importing waste from other areas, it will create the need for more landfill than we have at present in the area, when we are currently running out of landfill space. Ironically Rookery Pit, where the incinerator is planned, is probably one of the pits that could still be used for landfill. 7. Although nationally there may be a need for some incineration, this will not benefit Central Bedfordshire at all – not financially, environmentally or in employment. 8. And finally, and most importantly, this incinerator is planned for a minimum life of 25 years. Its owners and operators will need to run it at a profit for all of that time. We are being encouraged by national and international incentives, backed up by the law and large penalties, to reduce the waste we produce. If the incinerator is planned at the start to need the waste from Bedfordshire and the surrounding counties to feed it, where will it get its waste from when the local volume of waste reduces? From counties further afield – more lorries, larger distances? Or from industrial waste – more toxic, more pollution? Or will it end up burning recyclables? If we must have an incinerator, then surely it should be scaled to suit the future needs of the locality, not the profit targets of a foreign company who cannot build in their own country anymore."

David Bishenden
"I have family living close by and therefore have serious concerns regarding the effect of airborne emissions from the proposed incinerator stack on their health. There is no control over these toxic airborne pollutants, they cannot be controlled effectively and simply travel on the wind or in the absence of wind simply settle in the immediate vicinity. I understand that European legislation does not regulate the release of particles as small as those produced by incinerators. This is extremely unfortunate as it is these which pose the greatest hazard to human health, and not just locally as these ‘nano-particles’ can travel great distances. I am also concerned about reports that Covanta have been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the U.S.A. This does nothing to reassure me that the company is being honest about its claims or has any regard for the public who live in the vicinity of the proposed incinerator."

Jan Bishenden
"I have family living close by and therefore have serious concerns regarding the effect of airborne emissions from the proposed incinerator stack on their health. There is no control over these toxic airborne pollutants, they cannot be controlled effectively and simply travel on the wind or in the absence of wind simply settle in the immediate vicinity. I understand that European legislation does not regulate the release of particles as small as those produced by incinerators. This is extremely unfortunate as it is these which pose the greatest hazard to human health, and not just locally as these ‘nano-particles’ can travel great distances. I am also concerned about reports that Covanta have been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the U.S.A. This does nothing to reassure me that the company is being honest about its claims or has any regard for the public who live in the vicinity of the proposed incinerator."

Ian Townsend
"I support the proposal given that the country and this area needs these operations. The area concerned and its environs have mainly been used for industrial purposes including waste processing, without significant issue. The new road nearby is well able to support any additional traffic. The area is only very lightly populated with residents used to industrial working traffic."

Jane Forder on behalf of Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council
"I hereby register Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council's possible interest in this consultation at this stage. As advised by MK Council we need to register our interest by 19th November 2010. From: Jane Forder [mailto:       ] Sent:       To: Rookery South Subject: Rookery South Energy - Waste Generating Station Ref no –       Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council may have concerns regarding this proposal and would therefore like to express an interest at this stage. Jane Forder Regeneration Officer Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council           Direct dial No     Town Council Switchboard      "

Mrs Fiona Chapman
"As Chairman of the Marston Vale Trust that runs the Marston Vale Forest I have spent more than 15 years of my life helping to restore the Marston Vale from the ravages of the brick making industry. At last the area is beginning to respond to our treatment and the semblance of countryside being restored, trees are flourishing and wildlife returning. Whereas fifteen years ago coming from the M1 over Brogborough Hill, one could see nothing but a hideous moon scape between there and Bedford, now at last there is a proper landscape with fields and trees. The Marston Vale and the villages in it have suffered enough over the years. This enormous building with its towering chimney will dominate the vale and ruin what will soon be an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The other disadvantage will be the tremendous number of lorries that are proposed and which will undoubtedly increase several fold as the net is spread ever wider to keep the monster going."

Wendy Luff
"The brief summary of the representations that I wish to make are: 1. Air quality altered by the proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station, from all areas of the generating station & surroundings, with its effect on the surrounding areas & the population in Bedfordshire. Plus a specific interest in it's effect upon people with asthma & lung conditions. 2. Increase of traffic to & from the Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station, & this effect on all local infrastructure. 3. Effect of the proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station on the surrounding areas of land, including all wildlife & all greenery."

MRS DAWN SLADE on behalf of MARSWORTH PARISH COUNCIL
"Marsworth Parish Council support the proposal as it is an appropriate site and a green solution to an environmental problem."

Steve Luff
"1. Air quality altered by the proposed Generating Station & this effect on the population in the surrounding area. 2. Increase in traffic & its effect around the surrounding area of the proposed Generating Station site & the movement of vehicles around the area during unsociable hours. 3. Effect of this proposed Generating Site on the wildlife & countryside in the surrounding areas."

Karyn Meaden
"My key objections to the development of the waste incinerator are as follows: - Increased pollution through increased traffic from lorries, as well as air emissions from the stack, and the resulting health and environmental implications - Potential damage to the wildlife of Marston Vale Country Park, located beside the proposed site of the new incinerator - The visual impact of the stack beside the Country Park"

Anita Beal
"Why <Marston Vale again?!! Haven't we had enough of other dumping their rubbish on us? We have endured twenty years of a huge tip and all that entails with noise throughout the night, all-pervading stench and moonscape. Now, that the tip has been laid to rest and we have brought some reasonable normality to our lives yet another blot on the landscape appears. Why not try placing your effor near the M1 where there are no settlements. It seems so obvious!!!! Anita Beal"

Sue Tassell
"I am severely concerned about the proposal for an incinerator to be built at Rookery Pit in Stewartby and it's impact on the surrounding area. I live three miles from the Pit and am also involved in Powerboat Racing at Stewartby Watersports Club - the closest amenity affected by the proposal. The impact of in excess of 500 additional vehicle movements each day down Green Lane, which I understand is not being improved, will have a detrimental effect on both the existing road and users of the Watersports Club trying to gain access in and out of the site. I also feel these vehicle movements will cause much sound pollution to the club site and surrounding area. I am mostly concerned however at the effect on local wildlife - the area is a natural habitat for all kinds of animals and I wonder about the future effect on these, particuarly deer, bats, newts and otters which have all been seen in the area on a regular basis along with the fish that live in the Lake, which will be contaminated with waste from the incinerator. I wonder at Covanta's ability to maintain and run the incinerator to a satisfactory standard - in the US alone there have been eight environmental violations, resulting in large fines, at Covanta incinerator sites in the past five years for excessive emissions of dioxins, carbon monoxide, sulphor and chloride - this is a huge worry in that should the same happen at this site what would be the impact on the surrounding area. The built up village of Stewartby is less than half a mile away with a large population, many of which are children - should excessive emissions take place they could be effected forever. There have also been four violations of safety/labour issues in the US - of which "fly ash" is a major concern - again, there would be a tremendous impact on the surrounding area should a fault occur. The Stewartby Lake will be used to take overflow water and no doubt this will be contaminated. Not only is this of great worry to the wildlife, but also the water users who are subjected to this contaminated water on a regular basis and the impact on their health and wellbeing. This incinerator is being proposed in an area of natural beauty, with huge numbers of varied wildlife found locally and next to the Marson Vale Forestry area and also the Stewartby Watersports Club - it is a travesity if this proposal goes ahead with so many "green enviornmental" projects in the area. The incinerator is being "proposed" as a green energy producer but I fail to see what such a small production of energy in comparison to the effect on the local area can be seen as "benefit"."

Annette Gesoff
"As a sailing member of Stewartby Water Sports Club I object to the building of a Waste Incinerator plant adjacent to Stewartby Lake. The plant will have disruptive effects on wind strength, stability and direction which will directly affect sailing activities on the lake. The effects from emissions from the plant will be wide ranging and will have a detrimental impact on all activities taking place in the vicinity - plenty of camping takes place for events at the club and the traffic movements will directly affect the enjoyment of these. Air quality and water quality are both important for all the water based activities taking place at the club. The club is used by adults and children alike and at the moment part of the attraction of the club is its location and the pleasant outlook - part of the Forest of Marston Vale which is a fantastic family venue for outdoor activities. Large chimneys and buildings, together with all the traffic movements will damage the current attractions. Ultimately the viability of the Water Sports Club could be challenged. I object to the importing of waste from outside Bedfordshire to this facility."

Frank Gesoff
"As a sailing member of Stewartby Water Sports Club I object to the building of a Waste Incinerator plant adjacent to Stewartby Lake. The plant will have disruptive effects on wind strength, stability and direction which will directly affect sailing activities on the lake. The effects from emissions from the plant will be wide ranging and will have a detrimental impact on all activities taking place in the vicinity - plenty of camping takes place for events at the club and the traffic movements will directly affect the enjoyment of these. Air quality and water quality are both important for all the water based activities taking place at the club. The club is used by adults and children alike and at the moment part of the attraction of the club is its location and the pleasant outlook - part of the Forest of Marston Vale which is a fantastic family venue for outdoor activities. I object to the importing of waste from outside Bedfordshire to this facility. Traffic movements, the large buildings and chimneys will all have a major detrimental effect on the viability of the Water Sports Club."

Andrew Dudley
"The Covanta proposal for the incinerator at Stewartby concerns me on several counts: 1. The proposed technolgy is not current. There are new technologies available which have less impact on the environment. 2. The emissions from the chimney have the potential to be toxic. It is my understanding that Covanta have been ordered to improve emissions quality in USA. 3. When the brickworks were operating it was noticeable that at certain times the fumes were held in the lower atmosphere. I remain concerned that this will be an issue in the future. My son suffered from nocturnal asthma and it was noticeable that this worsened when the climatic conditions held down the brickwork fumes. The health impact from fumes that could be toxic cannot be assessed adequately. 4. The scale of the development is very large. A building 43m high and a chimney approx 100m, with an 8m girth, is not easliy hidden. It will be substantial "blot" on the landscape, especially viewed from Ampthill Park, and will not be easliy disguised. Measures for a "green wall" or a sop rather than a sloution. 5. The planned traffic movements into the fully operational site are very significant. The newly dualled A421 may struggle to cope with the anticipated 350 lorry movements per day. If the plant operates from 5am to 10pm, which I believe is proposed, that is still 20 lorry movements per hour, or 1 every 3 minutes. At busy times there is every prospect of 1 vehicle per minute arriving at the site. I cannot envisage a situation where this will not cause congestion somewhere on the local road network. 6. I am confused by this application at a time when the Local Authorities in the immediate area are still evaluating their waste management policies. Any scheme must be for the benefit of the local area, if they do not want to sign up to the Covanta technology, the waste will be imported from other areas."

Ashma Pathan
"Dear Sir/Madam, We are writing to you to OPPOSE the Covanta Giant Incinerator planned for Rookery Pit, Stewartby. The above mentioned proposal affects us directly as we live in Brogborough, only a few miles from the proposed site. There are too many important issues directly affecting all the members of our community physically as well as mentally. The proposal would mean increased traffic on M1/A421 making it difficult for commuting, whilst there is no real benefit of increased jobs in the area. The more vital issues concerning us is the toxic atmospheric, light and noise pollution produced and distributed in our surroundings. There would be huge amounts of ash residue which would be toxic and dangerous to humans as well as animals breathing it in. We would be grateful of you would kindly consider our request. Regards, Ashma"

Mohammed Khan
"Dear Sir/Madam, We are writing to you to OPPOSE the Covanta Giant Incinerator planned for Rookery Pit, Stewartby. The above mentioned proposal affects us directly as we live in Brogborough, only a few miles from the proposed site. There are too many important issues directly affecting all the members of our community physically as well as mentally. The proposal would mean increased traffic on M1/A421 making it difficult for commuting, whilst there is no real benefit of increased jobs in the area. The more vital issues concerning us is the toxic atmospheric, light and noise pollution produced and distributed in our surroundings. There would be huge amounts of ash residue which would be toxic and dangerous to humans as well as animals breathing it in. We would be grateful of you would kindly consider our request. Regards, Aamir"

Helen Vaughan
"As a resident of Houghton Conquest village I am deeply concerned about the proposal for the incineration plant. I moved to this village specifically for it's peaceful surrounding. I have trouble sleeping when there is background noise and I have concerns over the background noise that will be generated both night and day from the proposed plant. I also have a young family and am concerned over potential additional traffic caused by the plant passing through the village as an overflow. Finally I have concerns over the potential for toxic emissions from the plant."

Toby Lousada
"I would like to object to the application as both a family member of the Stewartby Sailing Club, where I feel the development will stop me using the club for fear of the potential impact on myself and my family. (visual and from a pollution perspective). Also as a local resident in a nearby village where I also have concerns about the potential impact of pollution."

Sian Griffith
"(1) There is no need for such a development in Bedfordshire where recycling has proved to be very successful - other methods of reducing and handling waste are more effective, less costly and much safer. It would undermine existing strategies for waste management and necessitate bringing waste from several other regions to 'feed' it for decades (2) Air Emissions – harmful, sometimes toxic particles will be emitted from the chimney stack. Monitoring of emissions of the most harmful toxins will at best be intermittent and ineffective. (3) Serious Adverse Health and Wellbeing Impacts, particularly due to dioxins and furans, fly ash and increased traffic pollution not just from being inhaled but by being ingested by farm animals (this is an agricultural area) and entering the food chain potentially affecting people's health nationwide or abroad. Screening of waste entering the site will not occur which leaves the potential for hazardous waste to be incinerated. Use of bottom ash in the construction industry can also have serious health impacts. (4) Cost of health impacts on local health services, including treatment of anxiety and depression from local residents suffering the development and ongoing presence of such a development (5) Adverse effects on local landscape and the visual impact. The chimney stack will be visible for several miles away, spoiling people's enjoyment of the environment and adversly affecting Bedfordshire's growing tourism industry (6) Serious negative ecological, biodiversity and conservation impacts leading to permanent damage of a rural area teeming with fauna and flora that cannot be reversed (7) Light pollution from plant operating 24/7, dust from traffic, waste and emissions, noise from traffic and operation of plant, smell from waste and emissions, smoke, steam, insect and rodent infestation from waset storage awaiting incineration (8) Traffic volume delivering waste and leaving the site will be significantly large as to put too much pressure on the existing road infrastructure for many miles around the site. Traffic pollution, noise and congestion will cause significant disturbance and health impacts for local residents and visitors (9) Generation of energy from such a waste plant is likely to be significantly less than stated and much too small to be used as a justifiable reason for its existence (10) Generation of jobs for local people will be so minimal as to be negligible (11) Overall socio-economic depression of the area, lowered property prices, negative impact for local businesses and particularly the tourism industry that is currently flourishing (12) I do not believe that the consultation/information process conducted by Covanta has given the local population the best opportunity to become involved or state their views I firmly believe that the IPC should conclude that the proposal to site an energy from waste plant at Rookery Pit in the Marston Vale is seriously flawed and wrong and would damage the environment, the well being and indeed the very lives of the people living within several miles of the site and therefore should not be approved."

Mrs Julia Knights
"1 Pollution - no guarantees can be made that no toxic emissions would effect our village and the future health of its inhabitants. 2 Houghton Conquest is already surrounded by rubbish tips, and we have not long got rid of the smelly emissions from the brick works, which hung over the village frequently depending on wind direction. 3 Traffic- increased lorry traffic would result in increasing the amount of light vehicles using our village as a rat run. 4 House Prices - Research has shown the building of an incinerator close by would have a detremental effect on house values. 5 Light & Noise - The plant will be operating 24 hrs a day 365 days a year, the noise will most certainly be heard during the quiet of night, as we can currently hear trains travelling along the line situated close to proposed site. 6 Visibilty - The size of the proposed incinerator is beyond belief, and would most definately be visible from the village, another nail in the future value of properties in the village. I would most strongly appose the siting and building of this incinerator at this location."

Mark Lovell
"I completely oppose this outrageous scheme. The inpact on the infrastructure, in particular over 900 lorry movements a day, would be calamitous for the area. It would be a carbuncle on the landscape and is far greater than necessary for the needs of the local area."

Laura Layton
"The incredible physical size of the proposed incineration plant and the relating HGV traffic using the new M1 J13 to cross into the Marston Vale would have a massive knock-on effect on traffic through Aspley Guise as well as adding to noise pollution which is considerable already. As well as this the impact the plant will have on the landscape and inherent air, and light polultion will all add to the detriment of Aspley Guise - which is a historic and much loved and treasured haven on outskirts of MK. The area of Marston Vale is only just recovering from intensive brick making - have pity on the land and its residents and please take note of our concerns. We love living in Aspley Guise and surrounding villages and its only fair that you consider our plight. Yours sincerely, Laura Layton"

James Pestell
"I am very concerned about this proposal as it will cause a massive detriment to the area in which I live and particularly as I live only 1.5 miles from where the site is located. I cannot afford to or do not wish to move out of the area, but if this goes ahead not only is the health of my family at risk but the knock on financial impact in house values and making this area a "no go" zone. I appreciate that waste has to be dealt with and I feel a smaller version coping with Bedfordshire waste is fair enough. However why do we need to deal with the waste of other counties as to make this project viable this would be the case. There has been much investment in rejuvenating this area, if this project goes ahead it will undo all this effort. I appreciate I am a local home owner in a village close to the site, but I speak for the people in my village that we do not want Covanta."

Dr Terence Noon
"As a resident with many years of experience of the brickworks chimneys and the fallout from the particles in the smoke emanating therefrom, I am concerned that fallout from the effluent from these chimneys will be even worse including heavy metal (e.g lead). I have not been reassured on this point by any scientific evidence. I am also very concerned that the high level of lorry traffic required to support such waste recycling/treatment has not been allowed for in the local road development plans and that the new A421and local roads will be unable to manage the extra traffic. I have also seen no assurances that such traffic will not be directed through Ampthill under any circumstances."

David Bacon
"I live in Houghton Conquest and had to put up with the polution from the brickworks for many years before the works were finaly closed. We now have the Covanta Incinerator and we are told that there will be no polution - this can not be guaranteed. Also we are advised that the traffic (lorry movements) per day could reach 900 between 5am and 11pm, 6 days a week. House prices could be affected. Would you like this on your doorstep - I think not"

Karen Miller
"Pollution - incinerators produce a toxic waste and chimney emissions cannot be completely controlled. Covanta has a history of prosecutions for causing toxic emissions Traffic - Estimation of 900 lorry movements per day - the roads are not designed for this amount of increased traffic. Light and noise As the plant will operate 24 hrs per day, it will be permanently be lit and the noise will carry further in the night. Visibility - We will see the building from Houghton Conquest House prices - Will fall due to the presence of the incinerator Landfill - Incinerators only reduce landfill by 35%. If waste is brought in from other counties, it will increase the need for landfill here."

John Miller
"Pollution- incinerators produce toxic waste, Covanta have a history of prosecutions for causing toxic emissions Traffic - Up to 900 lorry movements are anticipated per day, our roads cannot cope with this amount of increased traffice Veiw - you will be able to see the incinerator from Houghton Conquest House prices will fall due the incinerators presence, it has been proven. Landfill - The incinerator will not remove the need for landfill and if it takes in waste from other counties, then more landfill will be needed in Beds Light and noise - the incinerator will run 24 hrs per day, this will mean noise 24 hrs a day and it will be lit permanently Civanta needs to make a profit, we are recycling more, encouraged nationally and locally. If less waste is made, then they will need to get more waste from further afield to maintain their profits."

Mrs Barbara Noon
"As a resident of Ampthill for more than 30 years I feel more than qualified to express my deep concern at the proposed site of the waste incinerator on the Rookery South Pit. Having lived with the Stewartby Brick Works and experienced the regular smell of the chimneys which were at their worst on summer days/evenings when the air was still and when there was fog over the valley, I cannot see that it can be said with confidence that the products of the incineration will be dispersed into the upper atmosphere. The people of the surrounding area need to see proof of the safety of the incinerated products which will be expelled via the tall incinerator. This is vital for the safety of our children and grandchildren to be certain that there is nothing that can produce birth defects or cause serious illness. The other issue is the volume of traffic to and from the site on a daily basis from early in the morning to late at night. I understand this is to be filtered through from the A421 but has the possibility of an accident on this road occurred to the planners? This could mean the re-routing of the lorries thereby putting an enormous strain on the smaller roads and a dangerous increase in traffic in local villages and towns. The safety of people should be the first and foremost concern in any construction of this kind and I would very much like to see how Covanta Energy intend to address this."

Roy van de Poll
"LOCATION The site is greenfield land, in a rural location, well away from current and proposed centres of population and therefore totally unsuitable for such development, there being no certain way in which the surplus heat generated will be efficiently utilised. SCALE This proposal's scale can only function by importing substantial quantities of rubbish from outside Bedfordshire. This is not acceptable when one considers Bedfordshire's history of taking massive quantities of other people's rubbish, the time has come call a halt to this injustice. INFRASTRUCTURE The A421 upgrade was not designed to take the additional traffic movements this proposal would generate and the roads to the site are inadequate. To not even consider a rail link has to be considered as environmentally unsound. HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Plant emissions, traffic emissions, waste product etc constitute threats to air quality, the health of the local residents and adverse effects on the environment. The adverse effect on the Country Park of such a development is inescapable. COMMUNITY ISSUES Stewartby in particular will suffer from the overwhelming presence of the plant and lorry stacking. The past history of Covanta's abject failure to engage with communities in the near vicinity of the site from an early stage, the distinct lack of openness, resisting requests to join discussions etc highlights the contempt this company has shown to the local communities and their residents that would be directly affected if this il conceived project were given approval. OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN 1) Where are the alternatives? 2) High-handed limitation of a mere 500 words for one's representation at this stage. 3) If this proposal is approved, it will surely set a precedent for a) other massive energy from waste power stations in rural locations and b) other significant developments in the Marston Vale OUTSIDE THE DEVELOPMENT AREA! 4) Adverse effect on leisure and tourist such a development would result in. 5) Reliance for this proposal on the 'approval' of the now defunct Bedfordshire County Council for this site to be used for a waste incineration plant to meet Bedfordshire's needs. 6) Avoidance in the proposal to call the plant a 'bloody' INCINERATOR. 7) IPC lacks LOCAL KNOWLEDGE and A LOCAL PRESENCE in this rural district of Bedfordshire."

john hawker
"The Main building would be roughly the height of the Cardington hangers! The chimney stack(s) would be approx twice the height of the brickworks chimneys The building would be right against the railway line at the edge of the Country Park – it will be visible from every part of this wonderful amenity used by so many families and their children Covanta’s own initial suggestion of vehicle movements was 300 lorries and 150 cars. This has since been amended to 900 vehicle movements a day (450 lorries) – arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week on Bank Holiday weekends Covanta’s own literature says that their catchment area would be Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and then potentially Milton Keynes, Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Windsor and Maidenhead."

Mark Atlay
"I would wish to register my concerns regarding the following issues: Toxic emissions. The nature and extent of pollution likely to be emitted and the monitoring procedures in place. The potential for damage to people and the wider environment. Related risk assessment. Impact on the health of the young, frail and at risk groups including pregnant mothers. What independent environmental impact assessment has been undertaken and what does this show? Light and noise. Including what actions will be taken to reduce light and noise pollution. The scale of the proposed development. Why does this need to be so large and serve such a wide area. Would a small scale incinerator be environmentally better? The benefits to the local area. What benefits would this bring to the local environment through community benefit should such a development be based in the region?"

Ian Meeks
"Our home is close to the proposed site; consequently we have concerns about the toxic pollution which is well documented regarding similar facilities in America. The people of this area, reportedly, have a high incidence of asthma, having had years in the proximity of the old brickworks and its questionable pollution control. The A421 is an extremely busy East West route which will see a further increase in traffic due to its upgrading and the huge housing developments at the Wixhams, Wootton and Bedford. Then add to this the transporting of huge amounts of waste from this and surrounding counties, only to have to remove large amounts of toxic waste again from the plant. The volume of traffic, its noise, and its further pollution will have an adverse effect on many thousand lives. The area is hoping to attract tourist and soon to be home to a Centre Parc, will they want to come to an area of traffic congestion and pollution? We have been promised the rejuvenation of near lunar landscape of the area between Wootton and Milton Keynes, by the planting of trees etc not the placing of a huge unsightly monstrosity. This is a mistaken idea that generating energy from waste will help save the environment; this will be more than negated by squirting of toxic fumes into the air and the astronomical use of fossil fuels to deliver and remove material."

Norma Atlay
"I have concerns about the scale and size of the proposed development and its impact on the local environment. The key issues are:- Visual impact of the development within the Forest of Marston Vale area. The size and scale of the proposed development will dominate the local landscape. Pollution from the incinerator and the impact of toxic emissions on the health and well-being of the local population. As the largest incinerator in the UK, I am concerned at the concentration of pollutants in one area of the country and the proximity to housing developments and schools. Covanta's history in terms of prosecutions for causing toxic emissions does little to reassure the public. Light and noise pollution will also be a problem for the local area, and with the plant operating for 24 hours per day, 365 days per annum, there will be no respite from noise and light .and the relative rural tranquility of this area will be lost for ever and rather than being an attractive part of the country in which to raise a family, the area will instead suffer from blight. The new Wixams development, bringing a new town and much needed housing for local families will be a less attractive proposition for those looking to relocate to the countryside. I am concerned that the proposal takes no account of the Central Beds BEaR project. Why is it necessary to develop a site that will require the transportation of waste over large distances to "feed the beast". In terms of carbon footprint, moving waste from neighbouring counties does little to add to the claims for a green method of disposal. Landfill may not be the answer but increased recycling rates and encouragement of supermarkets etc to reduce unnecessary packaging is improving the current position. If the current trends in recycling continue, will there be a future market for this plant? In summary, I would urge the panel to reject this proposal as the scale and massing represent over provision for the area. If incineration has to be the way forward, then smaller plants in less populated parts of the country which disperse the impact of pollution over a wider area rather than concentrating it in one, would be a preferred option."

Mrs Urszula Posnett
"1. Pollution - incinerators produce a tocix waste, chimney emissions not completely controlled; the history of prosecutions for causing toxic emissions by Covanta firm. 2. Traffic - The new A421 is not designed for the high volume of lorries (estimated 900 lorry movement a day); knock on effect of car traffic through the villages. 3. Light and noise - derived from nature of the plant operating 24hrs a day impacting on the environment, surrounding villages. 4. Visibillity - the size of the built project including the chimney significantly bigger than anything else in the area making it visible form the surrounding villages such as Houghton Conquest. 5. Landfill - incinarators do not remove teh need for landfill, they reduce the volume of teh waste to about a quarter. If this facility imports the waste from other counties it will increase the need for landfill in this region! The Central Beds BEaR project is looking at different ways of reducing the need for landfill at a local level. 6.The project is not being scaled to suit the waste disposal needs of the locality, but contribute to pollution and environmental issues; uncertainty to meeting the profit targets as planned for a minimum 25 years by a foreign company who cannot build in their own country anymore. 7. House prices - incinarators have been shown to have an effect on house prices in the local area."

Nigel Denchfield
"Although I live some 50 miles from the development in question, I make regular use of the area for recreation [at Stewartby Watersports Club] and have a high regard for the area and the Marston Vale. My first concern is the predicted level of traffic, funnelling down a very small road [Green Lane] that is clearly not able to carry this density. A large lorry approximately every 60 seconds will devastate the road, and make using it very difficult for the local population, as well as for those using the watersports club, or the country park walk around the lake. The fumes, noise and danger of accident will be intolerable. Access to Green Lane will presumably be via the A421, and the M1 before that. Convoys of lorries will therefore be added to what is already an horrendously overloaded road network, and the new extensions to these road will be completely negated. Stewartby village is downwind [based on the prevailing wind] of the proposed development, thus will receive polluted air from the processes undertaken. The likely outcomes will be a serious degradation of the health of the villagers, who as of now cannot move away to avoid it, as the homes will not be marketable assetts. This village will gradually decline; it has great historical relevance to the area and its decline will be a sad loss. The watersports club is also downwind, and faced with noise, health risks and damage to equipment caused by the pollution will produce a drop in membership. The Club could become non-viable and cease operating. It is the only club of its type in Bedfordshire, and has the largest and best water within a large area. The catchment area for membership is very large for this reason. The proposed position of the development is in an area of beauty, and will have a massive effect on this. This will cause a decline in visitors to the area."

stuart hasell
"Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced on Wednesday that he has filed a lawsuit against a power plant operated by Covanta for allegedly releasing dangerous air emissions repeatedly. "Our legal action follows a repeat environmental violation-excessive emissions of toxic dioxin," Blumenthal said. This happened in 2010. Dioxins are a group of highly toxic environmental toxins commonly referred to as simply "dioxins". Dioxins can be nano particle size. Nano particles can cross skin and membranes and enter the blood stream. Incineration is not cost effective. Over half the money spent on a modern incinerator goes into air pollution control equipment. Incineration (without massive subsidies) is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity. It takes about 25 years (or more) to pay off the massive capital investment costs involved with building an incinerator. Incinerators produce a toxic ash that nobody wants. In Germany & Switzerland fly ash put into nylon bags and placed in salt mines. In Japan some incinerators vitrify the ash In Denmark, they send all the ash to Norway! For every four tons of waste burned you get one ton of ash (or more). The transport consultant at the Covanta road show in Stewartby admitted he had given the lorries a "fudge factor" of up to 75% when calculating the load fill of lorries. This increases the CO2 emissions as lorries are not fully utilised hence more CO2 miles. In short the proposal will release carciogenic dioxins into the local air, it is not cost effective, will produce more CO2 emissions from tucks and will produce even more landfill waste that no body wants"

Mrs D Gibson
"I am opposing the Covanta Incincerator as I feel Houghton Conquest and the surrounding villages are lovely rural places to live. I am concered with the pollution produced, the eye sore of the actual incinerator and what it will do to house prices in our area. I am also very concerned with the traffic it will generate and how this will affect our usual journeys. We will be getting a higher volumn of traffic already from the Wixams villages and I don't think ours roads can cope with the extra traffic Covanta will generate."

Nicholas Turner
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects listed below outweigh any potential benefits;- (A) Air Emissions - The cumulative long term impact on the health of residents anxious about the EfW stack emissions over the life cycle of the plant accentuated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion within the Marston Vale. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation - There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact - The sheer size of the EfW and stack (accentuated by the plume) will materially impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise - There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGVs and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management - The EfW will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. (G) Socio-Economic - i) the electricity generating capacity of the EfW in terms of average domestic consumption is exaggerated; ii) the abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the EfW for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising; iii) EfW assembly will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area and the remaining permanent jobs will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns – of which there can be no guarantee, will be offered to local people; iv) There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts - i) the traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network and the traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities; ii) despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road; iii) there has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. For these reasons above, the IPC should conclude the proposal is the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area and in the wrong location."

Alan MacDonald
"An industrial development on this scale will be extremely detrimental to the Forest of Marston Vale. It will impact on the wildlife, particularly those species that depend on the wetlands close by. It will certainly be a blot on the landscape and spoil the amenity of the Vale. It will be the cause of pollution in the form of sound and light, as well as the inevitable atmospheric pollution. The area had for years suffered the consequences of the brick industry, and is just now recovering from them. To inflict this newer form of industrial pollution on the Vale will undo some of this progress."

Mrs Norma MacDonald
"I am opposed to the building of a giant incinerator at Rookery Pit, Stewartby on the grounds that it will create toxic atmospheric pollution, light pollution and noise pollution in the scenic area of Marston Vale and the surrounding villages including Brogborough and Lidlington. The huge chimney with its plume of steam will be an eyesore visible for miles around. The hidden nanoparticles of residue could come towards my house in Brogborough. The considerable amounts of ash residue generated will be toxic and of little economic use. The A421 is already a very busy road and may not cope with the extra traffic this project will generate. It will impact on the wildlife of the Marston Vale area which is just beginning to recover now that the brickworks have closed."

Andrew Ralphs
"I am greatly concerned about the health issues associated with industrial scale combustion of waste material. Given my proximity to the site, I would like re-assurance that the level of pollution emitted is not simply viewed as the "least that can be spent on emission control while just sneaking under permitted limits". Safety features to ensure that accidents (which will happen) do not cause toxins to be emitted, need to be enforced."

Tony Howes
"Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station IPC Reference: EN010011 Air Emissions Serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. Marston Vale experiences temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. When inversion is not occurring the prevailing wind is south westerly. Evidence is apparent from when the long disused brickworks where operating, Not only could the surrounding villages smell sulphur, Houghton House (c1615) an English Heritage property on the edge of Ampthill shows huge signs of erosion in its brick walls. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation The proposed site is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale. An oversize Energy from Waste plant will fundamentally undermine that purpose. Landscape and Visual Impact There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. The sheer size of the Covanta plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area (the Chimney is larger than Big Ben!). The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and will materially impair the views from the Vale to the surrounding Greensand Ridge and the panoramic views from the ridge across the entire Vale,especially those seen from Ampthill Park and Cranfield. Economic The Covanta proposal is at odds with the stated desire of local people to be a leisure destination (Centre Parks are currently undertaking a new development at Millbrook and the Nirah aquatic project, echoing the Eden Project in Cornwall but four times the size is due to commence in the future). An incinerator placed between these doesn't seem attractive or balanced. Traffic and Transport Impacts Significant vehicle movements to and from the site – arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week on Bank Holiday weekends will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community. The waste to be is to be transported using HGV’s and many of which will use the new M1 Junction 13. Evidence submitted by the Highways Agency during the Public Inquiry into the duelling of the A421 from Bedford to J13 indicated that the new junction layout would at peak times have just sufficient capacity to handle the anticipated peak traffic flows, excluding the projected traffic from the Covanta site. The impact of increased traffic from the proposed project through J13 could significantly increase congestion at the junction at peak times which would in turn give rise to increased traffic flows through neighbouring villages and congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes. Further the volume of HGV movements each day will significantly add to noise and exhaust pollution within our villages. An incinerator which plumes toxins into the atmosphere, leaves toxic ash which then needs disposing of, encourages huge increases in HGV traffic, seems very much at odds with the recycling, sustainable eco-system which we are progressing towards within our villages."

Daniele Howes
"Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station IPC Reference: EN010011 Air Emissions Serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. Marston Vale experiences temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. When inversion is not occurring the prevailing wind is south westerly. Evidence is apparent from when the long disused brickworks where operating, Not only could the surrounding villages smell sulphur, Houghton House (c1615) an English Heritage property on the edge of Ampthill shows huge signs of erosion in its brick walls. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation The proposed site is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale. An oversize Energy from Waste plant will fundamentally undermine that purpose. Landscape and Visual Impact There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. The sheer size of the Covanta plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area (the Chimney is larger than Big Ben!). The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and will materially impair the views from the Vale to the surrounding Greensand Ridge and the panoramic views from the ridge across the entire Vale,especially those seen from Ampthill Park and Cranfield. Economic The Covanta proposal is at odds with the stated desire of local people to be a leisure destination (Centre Parks are currently undertaking a new development at Millbrook and the Nirah aquatic project, echoing the Eden Project in Cornwall but four times the size is due to commence in the future). An incinerator placed between these doesn't seem attractive or balanced. Traffic and Transport Impacts Significant vehicle movements to and from the site – arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week on Bank Holiday weekends will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community. The waste to be is to be transported using HGV’s and many of which will use the new M1 Junction 13. Evidence submitted by the Highways Agency during the Public Inquiry into the duelling of the A421 from Bedford to J13 indicated that the new junction layout would at peak times have just sufficient capacity to handle the anticipated peak traffic flows, excluding the projected traffic from the Covanta site. The impact of increased traffic from the proposed project through J13 could significantly increase congestion at the junction at peak times which would in turn give rise to increased traffic flows through neighbouring villages and congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes. Further the volume of HGV movements each day will significantly add to noise and exhaust pollution within our villages. An incinerator which plumes toxins into the atmosphere, leaves toxic ash which then needs disposing of, encourages huge increases in HGV traffic, seems very much at odds with the recycling, sustainable eco-system which we are progressing towards within our villages."

Barbara Bourn
"There is already an adequate waste disposal project in the area which has plans to reduce waste via recycling over the coming years. This will mean that there is no need for a large waste disposal facility of the nature proposed by Covanta. The area of the proposed site is in a vale of natural beauty which is undergoing a planned recovery following years of industrialisation that previously devastated the site. The Covanta facility will jeapodise this recovery both in air pollution which will affect the plant and wild life and in the visual beauty of the area which can be seen from the top of the vale. A beauty which is enjoyed by many people who live and work in Bedfordshire There is clear evidence that there will be air pollution that will be detrimental to people's health and well being. This pollution will be worse because of the site being in a vale where there are inversions in climatic conditions. The huge amount of lorries going to and from the site 24/7 will further add to the pollution of the air in the vale. There is already concern about heavy traffic and the ability of existing roads being able to support this. Large scale improvements have been made to support the existing scale of traffic. These improvements were made without the calculation of the traffic visiting this facility Covanta have not made clear their long term plans for the facility should local need for a waste disposal facility become unnecessary. There are fears that it will then take waste from distant authorities. This poses the question of 'why should Bedfordshire be a dump for these distant councils'? Or, even worse that Covanta would start to dispose of waste wich could be recycled in order to make it a profitable concern. The people who have chosen to live in this area have done so because they want to live and bring up their families in a cleaner environment than that found in the inner city areas. This proposed facillity will bring an environment which is worse than that of most inner cities"

Peter Hinson
"I oppose this plan for the following reasons... 1. Covanta will want to import the maximum amount of waste from far afield and quite possibly attract much more associated industry into the Vale to remove possibly toxic ash etc creating more traffic. 2. Waste brought from counties outside of Bedfordshire will generate a huge amount of heavy traffic which will enter Bedfordshire via M1 Junction 13/ the new A421 and the existing road (old A421) through the village of Brogborough. 3. The incinerator chimney will dominate the Vale of Marston and could emit poisonous particles of residue towards Brogborough along with an unknown amount of toxic pollution."

Audrey Hinson
"I oppose this plan for the following reasons... 1. Covanta will want to import the maximum amount of waste from far afield and quite possibly attract much more associated industry into the Vale to remove possibly toxic ash etc creating more traffic. 2. Waste brought from counties outside of Bedfordshire will generate a huge amount of heavy traffic which will enter Bedfordshire via M1 Junction 13/ the new A421 and the existing road (old A421) through the village of Brogborough. 3. The incinerator chimney will dominate the Vale of Marston and could emit poisonous particles of residue towards Brogborough along with an unknown amount of toxic pollution."

Sue Percival
"I'm very concerned about the effect on traffic in my local area (A421) especialy if this would mean bringing waste from other counties which would mean this result in a significant impact. The Marston Vale area is gradually turning into a beautiful area as a result of the tree planting and decline of the landfill site. The height of the incinerator plus the visible output will destroy this. I'm concerned about pollution and disposal of ash residue. I cannot see that this scheme will be of any benefit at all to the people who live & work here."

Stuart King
"I believe this development will harm the local area and as a member of Stewartby Watersports & Sailing Club I am concerned as to its impact on the lake and our ability to use it."

Nicola King
"I live very close by to the proposed site and feel that it will detriment my life and my neighbours and it is not the environment I want to bring my daughter up in. The pollution from the site, plus traffic will have a huge impact on all that live nearby. It will not generate jobs for local people so more traffic for those travelling in. I do not see why we should be the solution to other peoples waste."

John Carrington
"I am concerned about the health implications of the air emissions and in particular the nanoparticles which are not efficiently captured by air pollution control devices, travel long distances and penetrate deep into the lungs. I am concerned about the adequacy of the proposed monitoring, the adequacy of the regulation (it is tougher in the US) and the adequacy of its enforcement. I am also concerned about the additional and un-planned traffic movements along the old and de-trunked A421. Noise, road safety and potential damage to old buildings would become major issues. In addition I do not believe this is the right solution - we should be spending more money and more effort in recycling, waste reduction initiatives and better industrial design."

R Britton
"My repreentation reflects concerns about pollution, traffic(both to/from the site and knock-on consequencies for local communities), visible impact on the Marston Valley and noise from 24/7 operations. Also, concerns about the applicants past record and therefore how accountable they might prove to be in respect of compliance issues."

Mrs J Davidson
"I moved to this area to enjoy the wonderful countryside and rural lifestyle. I am concerned that now there is a proposal to build a huge incineration plant near to my home. I am concerned about the emissions from incineration plants, and this has been reinforced by publications about incinerators in USA - the 'home' of Covanta. Why should we have such a facility built here when there is such opposition to these structures in USA, where Covnata is based? The geographical situation chosen for the location is inapporpriate in that it is adjacent to a wonderful wildlife oasis at marston Vale, being visible from the park, as well as bringing noise and pollution into the area. I do accept that there must be facilities to deal with household waste but I believe this should be dealt with on a local basis. I believe it is inappropriate to transport large volumes of waste by road over considerable distances. This increases road traffic and increases polution in the form of emmisions from vehicles. Local roads have no capacity to take the added volume of traffic and inevitably local residents will suffer from traffic congestion. I do a lot of travel in connection with my work and I am particularly concerned about the impact this facility will have on local motorways. As this facility is to run 365 days per year and 24 hours per day with lorries arriving over 18 hours there will be considerable noise, light pollution and emissions which local people will suffer. This will inevitably also depress property proices in the area. In summary, as a member of the local community, I see lots of problems and disadvantages but no advantages."

NICHOLAS STANTON
"I do not wish the Covanta development to go ahead, my concerns are : Pollution, and the possible effects this could have on my three young children. Marston Vale is a large depression, and any emmissions tend to fall in this area. This happened with the Brick chimmneys that were close to the proposed site, and I can see no reason why the same will not happen again. Traffic, Houghton Conquest is not designed to take large lorries and has already become a cut through for traffic along the A6 and A421 to Stewartby, this further increase in traffic will result in accidents and further pollution in the village, and further risks for my children. Light and Noise Pollution. Visibility of the proposed structure. House prices. Water contamination. The effect on tourism jobs and future planned developments."

Mrs D Robinson
"The proposed plan is to burn the waste of several counties bringing excessive noise and pollution to our countryside. This is not a very green outlook for the future. We should all be working towards reducing our waste and if this plan goes ahead I believe people will become more complacent and less likely to reduce their household waste! The pollution caused by this incinerator is detrimental to our health and the environment together with increased emmissions from the lorries transporting the waste from other counties. Counties should be incentivised to reduce their waste not pass it onto to their neighbours! Other plans to develop land in the marston vale area to bring tourism to the area would be better - to concentrate on maintaining the countryside and bringing positive employment to the area. We cannot do both, no-one will visit an area full of noise, pollution and a 145m eyesore!"

TREENA STANTON
"I wish to register my objection to the proposed Covanta Incinerator at the Rookery Pit in Stewartby. My concerns are about the possible pollution generated by this plant and the effects this could have on the health of my familly, and the enviroment. I believe that this site is unsuitable for this plant as it will be in the bottom of a natural bowl, and any pollution released will stay in the local area and build up over time. I am also against this developement due to the increase in traffic that it will bring to the local area, which does not have the correct local roads to be able to handle this traffic from all directions, as we have learnt by experiance that lorries use the small village roads as shortcuts instead of driving along the major routes. This will increase the risk of accidents in my local area. The planned development is to large for the area, and will not be substainable, it will need to bring waste from further and further afield, again increasing traffic and pollution. It will also dominate and spoil the look of the Marston Vale region damaging tourism and further development."

Barry Sullivan
"I strongly object to the Covanta Incinerator being built in rookery pit for the following reasons. 1. Uncontrolled Pollution as shown by other Covanta sites. 2. Increase in heavy lorries in a villiage environment. 3. Exsessive Light and Noise 24 hours a day. 4. Blot on the landscape with a large site and huge chimney being planned. 5. Why should Bedfordshire incinerate other Counties rubbish."

M E ANDERSON
"Waste must be severely reduced as a matter of great urgency. Re-processing of waste is a minor issue in comparison. The height of proposed efflux towers or chimneys indicates a lack of confidence in the technology suggested."

Laura Stanton
"I wish to register my objections to the proposed Covanta Waste Incinerator at the Rookery Pit in Stewartby. I object on the grounds of the pollution this could cause, I believe this could affect the health of people in this area. I also object on the grounds of traffic increase, as I do not believe that the roads around the area will be able to cope, and large lorries driving through our small village 24 hours a day will be unbearable. I also object to the scale of this deveolpment which is unneccersary in this area, as it will need much more waste to keep it fed then is generated here. This development will dominate the area in which it is constructed and spoil the look of the area, and put off any further developments which could bring large extra emplyoment to this area, that Covanta will not."

Pamela Gross
"I object to the building of an incinerator at Rookery Pit Bedfordshire. The village in which my house is situated is very close to the proposed site. I believe the incineratorwill have a potentially detrimental effect on both health and quaility of life in the area in terms of noise and pollution. In addtion its size will have a substantial negative effect on the environment. Covanta have yet to provide convincing arguements and assurances to the contrary. The incinerator has very little benefit to the immediate community or that of bedfordshire as a whole."

hugh jackson on behalf of Steppingley Parish Council
"Steppingley Parish Council's concerns would be as to: emission control; traffic burden; nightime light spillage in an otherwise dark area"

Gary Mudd
"The area that this facility is proposed for is supposed to be a community forest. There is a wildlife and Forestry Centre and many footpaths. The site will reverse the improvements of land management and Bio-diversity that have been achieved in Marston Vale. Having got rid of pollution from the old brickworks we should not allow further mass pollution from a huge building and chimney. Large lorries transporting waste from other areas will cause noise and dirt pollution and reduce the quality of living in this area.Generation of electricity and promise of jobs should not mask the point that this is bad waste management which reduces proper recycling. There are other more bio/ecofriendly ways of dealing with waste. Locally we have made great strides in recycling and I feel this will all be lost as we take the easy option of burning it! This same company has been proved wrong in America. These plants are uneconomic, polluting and have been closed down. Let's not make the same mistakes!"

Catherine Tobin
"I object to the proposal to build the Covanta Incinerator and support all efforts to get the project stopped."

Stephen Dobson
"I am strongly opposed to the building and running of the proposed Covanta incinerator at Rookery Pit for the following reasons: - I am seriously concerned about the likely emissions, especially given Covanta's track record of prosecutions over breaching emissions standards in the USA - The local road infrastructure is already stretched without the additional estimated 900 lorries a day that would service the plant (current improvements were not designed with this additional increase in mind) - The visual impact of such a large structure in a rural area should not be overlooked. The main building's size has been reported as 50m high, as high as the Cardington Hangars, and considerably larger in area, with an additional smokestack. There would also be a light pollution issue completely at odds with the rural character of this part of Bedfordshire - The overwhelmingly supported Forest of Marston Vale has been established over the last few years by a broad swathe of the local community; constructing the Covanta plant would jeapordise this, and not only in the immediately obvious linkage of the clay pits intended for use and those that have been turned into lakes at the Forest Centre itself - Given the ongoing work of the Central Beds BeAR project to reduce the need for landfill locally, the environmental benefits of transporting large quantities of waste by road for long distances for incineration seem dubious"

Susan Presley
"he IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects – drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; Air Emissions The cumulative long term impact on the health of residents anxious about the EfW stack emissions over the life cycle of the plant accentuated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion within the Marston Vale. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. Landscape and Visual Impact The sheer size of the EfW and stack (accentuated by the plume) will materially impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. Noise There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. Local and Regional Waste Management The EfW will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. Socio-Economic The electricity generating capacity of the EfW in terms of average domestic consumption is exaggerated. The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the EfW for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. EfW assembly will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area and the remaining permanent jobs will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns – of which there can be no guarantee, will be offered to local people. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. Traffic and Transport Impacts The traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network and the traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. For these reasons above we propose to provide further supporting detailed evidence that the IPC should conclude this proposal is the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area and in the wrong location."

REBECCA STANTON
"I would like to register my objection to the proposed Covanta Waste Incinerator at the Rookery Pit in Stewartby. I object to this planned building on possible pollution grounds and the effect this could have on the local people and enviroment. I object on the grounds on the increase of traffic this site will incurr, and on the effect that will have on the village where I live and on the people that live within it. I object on Enviromental grounds as this plant is larger than the local area needs, so material will have to be transported long distances to keep it running. I object on health and safety grounds as the area is not suitable for this plant and is bound to have an effect on air quality within the Marston Vale Area, and that pollution levels in this natural depression are likely to build up over time to harmfull levels."

Andrew Bishop
"Submissions will relate to the following issues: 1. What are the constraints on the size of the plant and any future expansion? 2. What is the constraints upon the nature and amount of the plant's input feedstock, ie the raw waste material required? Where will these be sourced in all scenarios of plant size? 3. What is the impact of the expected increase in transportation on the local infrastructure? 4. What plans are in place for the safe transportation of the waste material to the plant; the onwards / return journeys by the lorries, and the safety of the other road and transportation network users? 5. What are the constraints upon the construction phase of the plant, including labour, accommodation, safety, and transportation of materials? 6. What is the policy on the waste products generated by the plant - including heat, light, noise, and emissions? What legislation and policies do these have to comply with? 7. What is the accountability of the plant operators, owners, workers, managers and local authority? 8. How does this proposal comply with local, national, European, and Global policies guidelines standards and limits governing emissions and ecological compliance (ie 'Green' policies and sustainability?) 9. What is the expected life of the plant? 10. What are the policies for decommission and decontamination at end-of-life? 11. What are the economic benefits of this proposal a) to the owners; b) to the local authority; c) to the local community? 12. What are the results of any Environmental Assessment / Impact and Hazard Analysis that have been conducted, and have these been independently verified and made public? 13. What is the estimated water consumption and waste water disposal of the plant? What is the source of this water? How will this be managed? 14. What will be the impact upon the health and quality of life of the local residents? How will this be assessed and measured and monitored?"

David Reavell on behalf of O&H Q7 Ltd
"Reference: EN010011 O&H Q7 Ltd (O&H) have reviewed Covanta’s application from a range of perspectives and are pleased to support the application. Our specific interests are introduced below and 8 key points are summarised. O&H may wish to expand on these points during the Hearings or can be called to provide factual updates. O&H are the landowners of Rookery Pit: 1. We will be party to any Development Consent Obligation for the RRF and confirm our acceptance of the submitted Heads of Terms. O&H are seeking approval to a ROMP application for the restoration of Rookery Pit, which has formed the baseline for Covanta’s EIA: 2. There is a resolution to grant the application. The S106 Agreement is in agreed form. Completion of the agreement and issue of the decision notices are expected shortly. 3. The translocation of protected species is programmed to begin in Spring 2011. O&H own land immediately adjacent to the application site and have been served notice under Regulation 8 of the APFP Regulations: 4. O&H is presently in discussions with Covanta with the expectation that land acquisition will be dealt with by private treaty, but at this stage O&H wishes to reserve the right to make representations on the CPO if it becomes necessary for any reason. O&H own a considerable amount of land within the Marston Vale, for which we have medium to long-term development aspirations. We have reviewed the EIA for its assessment of the impact of the proposal on the local environment and future populations. 5. We are satisfied that there are no residual adverse effects arising as a result of Covanta’s proposal that would cause us concern in pursuing further mixed-use development opportunities. 6. The benefits that could be derived from the proposed development in terms of locally generated heat and energy enhance the sustainability credentials of the Marston Vale. It also provides an opportunity for local waste treatment. O&H are working in informal partnership with the Forest of Marston Vale to facilitate a green corridor traversing the Marston Vale – Rookery North Pit and the Stewartby Way receptor sites form part of this connection. 7. Covanta’s proposals for improvements to the footpath and cycleway networks will enhance the connectivity in this area. 8. The EIA demonstrates that there will be no adverse impact on the ecological status of Rookery North Pit. To provide a complete picture of our interests in Covanta’s application, we wish to state the following: • O&H have long been promoting Rookery Pit as a strategic waste treatment site. We have submitted a representation to the Local Authority supporting their identification of Rookery South as their preferred waste site but promoting a more flexible policy which would allow new technologies for dealing with waste, such as the RRF, to be brought forward. • O&H promoted an Energy from Waste facility as part of their proposal for the Marston Vale Eco-Town. • O&H have had preliminary discussions with Covanta concerning the provision of electricity and heat to nearby development land."

Sue Hingley
"I wish to oppose this plan for an incinerator at Rookery Pit - Stewartby for the following reasons: Extra traffic generated by site - especially from other counties Other counties using Bedfordshire as its dumping ground Toxic atmospheric pollution created, noise pollution No real jobs for local people Also we have just got rid of one eyesore - the "Brogborough landfill site" and we do not want another in its place So therefore we do not want this incinerator!!!!!"

T.M.Cooper
"SIZE - The massive industrial structure will dominate the rural landscape, right next door to the Forest Centre. The chimney will dwarf everything in the vale. TRAFFIC - Hugh quantities of waste will be imported into the Vale. Toxic fly ash will be removed from site. The lorries will have a detrimental effect travelling through the local area. NEED - The Vale has started to regenerate after brickmaking. We don't need a large incinerator importing waste from outside the area. EMISSIONS - I am worried about the emissions that will be generated, and how they will be safely monitored. Convita has not adequately considered temperature inversions in the Vale, and how they may affect the safe dispersal of emissions from the stack. BENIFITS - I don't believe the incinerator' or the proposed community benifits will enhance the local area' or outweigh the negative effects"

Mrs Joan Waller
"I object on the following grounds: 1 General and wide-ranging detrimental effect on local communities. 2 A new town - The Wixams - is now being built. There will be a negative effect on its development and many people will think twice about moving there. 3 The newly upgraded A421 was not designed for the amount of traffic which will be generated by this incinerator and the number of traffic movements projected would seem to suggest a convoy of lorries on this road. 4 I am greatly perturbed about the effects on the emmissions from the chimneys of the phenomenon in the Marston Vale which, in certain meteorological conditions, results in emissions not escaping up and out of the Vale but lingering and dropping into the Vale. 5 Other proposed developments in the area would generate many more jobs for the local population than this development would. 6 The landscape of the surrounding area is now very rural, enhanced by the new Marston Vale Forest and the Marston Millennium Park; these efforts over the past few years would be for nought. There will be light and noise pollution, possible air pollution and the rural vista would be ruined from all directions since the installation and chimneys are so high."

Mrs Glynis I. Spinks
"1) After the initial 25-year minimum use plan, with reduced levels of waste "locally" available, it will be necessary to import waste from a far greater area, and potentially from abroad, resulting in vast transportation problems, particularly with traffic volumes and costs. 2) Toxic emissions will be produced which will present wholly unacceptable health hazards to the population in their path. We are told that the emissions will be safe. If this is the case, then there can be no reason to build a chimney to a height of some 145 metres! 3) The need for landfill is not eliminated by incinerators. In due course, there will be further demands in this area for further landfill facilities. 4) This development will function 24/7. The light emissions and noise levels will of great detrimental significance to the local population. 5) The forecast of additional traffic 18 hours every day, 6 days every week, 52 weeks every year, currently being forecast at 900 lorry movements per day, will have a huge negative impact on traffic flows within this part of Bedfordshire. The roads are, and will be, unable to cope with this. This is only the extra lorry traffic. There will also be extra cars which have not been mentioned. The cost of extra road maintenance wil fall heavily upon the residents and businesses of Bedfordshire. 6) This development will be an enormous and ugly feature on the landscape locally. Having finally dispensed with the buildings and the working chimneys connected with the brick-making industry after some one hundred years in this part of the County, it is wholly inappropriate to inflict a further awful "blot" here. 7) The proposed development in such a highly populated area with the associated light and noise problems and toxic "plume" will cause a dramatic fall in property prices over a very large area causing considerable hardship to many current owners. 8) There are almost certainly "Human Rights" issues associated with this proposal in relation to a Right to privacy."

JONATHAN FINCH
"it will be too noisy. too much traffic a big eye soar to the surrounding lakes. possible water pollution."

William King
"We have been at te forefront now for a local tip/dump for good number of years. we have put up jibes about this with poluution smells and increased traffic and litter dropping off lorries from all parts of the country. a waste incinerator will only bring the same problems and situations. So really enough is enough, it is time to let the land recover or be used for something more environmentally safe and beneficial to the local area."

Dean Barrett
"We as an area have suffered from years of brick manufacturing and its emissions/smells generated, followed by large scale landfill and its associated 'smells'. Finally as the landfill finishes we do not need another source of transport increases and air borne pollutants. We anticipate a great increase in traffic volumes in this area with completion of the A421 and the expansion of the Marsh Leys distribution area's which will result in more pollution. The area does not deserve another pollution generator and it is time the local area and landscape was given a chance to recover"

Mr Robert Wyatt
"Please register my strenuous objection to the Covanta energy from waste development for the following reasons: The people, flora and fauna of this part of Bedfordshire have endured many years of environmental stress as a result of clay extraction, brick making, landfill, and road building. The problems have included excess traffic, noise, unsightly landscapes, rubbish, and especially airborne smells/fumes. We are at an important point of recovery now as Stewartby works are demolished, the A421 works are nearing completion, and landfill works are coming to an end. The Marston Vale Trust, on behalf of the local and wider community, have invested vast amounts of money and effort into returning our spoiled land to a state where people, flora and fauna are happy to live. There is still a great deal more to do and we cannot afford any backward steps such as the Covanta development. There are minimal mitigating benefits to the local community in terms of employment. On a more personal level, as a resident raising children in Cranfield, I am particularly concerned that as our village is approximately level with the proposed top of the chimney, we will be subjected to foul and dangerous smells and fumes when the wind is unfavourable as used to happen with Stewartby emissions. Bedfordshire has endured a long reign as one of Britain's premier rubbish dumps. Enough is enough and this development must not be allowed to go ahead."

Andrew Jellis
"The following points render the Covanta proposal to be the wrong solution in the wrong location for dealing waste disposal: Air Emissions I have serious concerns about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications including the impact of toxic waste from fly ash, dioxins and nanoparticals. The impact particular by dioxins to unborn fetal development . I am concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Marston Vale there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. When inversion is not occurring the prevailing wind is south westerly. There is serious concern that the proposal will cause a cumulative impact over the 30 year + life cycle of the plant either within the Marston Vale and/or Bedford and Kempston Biodiversity and Geological Conservation To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South.. An oversize Energy from Waste plant will fundamentally undermine that purpose. The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life. The Covanta proposal will threat this existence. The Covanta proposal will be a retrograde step ecologically and would ultimately lead to the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. The site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. Landscape and Visual Impact The sheer size of the Covanta plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and will materially impair the views from the Vale to the surrounding Greensand Ridge and the panoramic views from the ridge across the entire Vale, especially those seen from Ampthill Park and Cranfield The sheer size of the building will dominate the skyline – most of which will be visible above the existing edge of Rookery Pit. The buildings within the site will abut the footpaths of the Country Park. The Covanta Rookery Pit stack will be higher than the long disused brickworks chimneys. The plume will accentuate the stack visibility Noise There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. Noise has only been considered in terms of ‘average’ levels so no adequate account been taken of intermittent noise such as that from rattling of empty HGV’s which lead to huge disturbance Local and Regional Waste Management The EfW will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. Central Bedfordshire has a excellent record in recycling waste, enforcing a incinerator plant on the region to dispose of rubbish from outside the county (Buckinghamshire etc) would wrongly penalise the great efforts the local people of Bedfordshire have made and discourage recycling. The Covanta proposal will override attempts to deal with waste locally. A fundamental question is whether there should be permission for one Local Authority to discharge its responsibility for waste management by entering into an agreement with a private contractor to build a plant for the sole management of that Authority’s waste in another Local Authority’s area. Socio-Economic The project proposes to export electricity serving the energy needs of 82,500 homes, broadly equivalent to the housing energy needs of Bedford and the Marston Vale. It has never been explained how residents will directly benefit from this green electricity and how this figure of 82,500 is arrived at. . It appears the construction of the site utilizing 300+ jobs will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area which will leave when construction is finished. Of the remaining 60-70 jobs that have been stated this will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns. The recycling of waste as a alternative and all the ancillary industries would create greater jobs. There also can be no guarantee that the jobs, ongoing or in consideration, will be offered to local people. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste I cannot envisage an incinerator becoming a popular tourist destination, impacting any tourism in the local area. Traffic and Transport Impacts The traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network and the traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. Significant vehicle movements to and from the site – arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week on Bank Holiday weekends will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community The new A421 was designed to cope with existing traffic problems and some elements of growth in Bedford Borough. The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road. The transportation of upwards of 585,000 tonnes of rubbish per year will take place along the de-trunked old A421. The waste to be is to be transported using HGV’s and many of which will use the new M1 Junction 13. Evidence submitted by the Highways Agency during the Public Inquiry into the duelling of the A421 from Bedford to J13 indicated that the new junction layout would at peak times have just sufficient capacity to handle the anticipated peak traffic flows, excluding the projected traffic from the Covanta site. Further the adequate functioning of the new J13 is dependent on the further duelling of the A421 from J13 to Milton Keynes and funding for this future project must now be in doubt given needed cutbacks in public spending. The impact of increased traffic from the proposed project through J13 could significantly increase congestion at the junction at peak times which would in turn give rise to increased traffic flows through neighbouring villages and congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes."

David Green
"I believe that the IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station because of the cumulative detrimental effects to local amenities that outweigh the potential benefits. I live beside the A421 road between the Little Chef roundabout and Green Lane; the front of my bungalow is within 20 metres of this road. My major objection is therefore the impact of the proposed high volume of Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) traffic: (a) The Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) paragraph 5.13.10 requires that rail is used in preference to road transport where cost effective. Covanta has not provided a detailed cost effectiveness analysis as evidence to show why waste should be transported to the site by road rather than by the under-used railway beside the site. With high numbers of HGVs, highway maintenance costs will increase; this should be included in the cost effectiveness analyses. (b) HGVs passing my property often cause building vibration. The Covanta report fails to address the cumulative damaging effects of HGV-induced vibration on local structures and properties. (c) HGVs and other Covanta traffic will adversely affect the local Marston Moreteyne and Stewartby roads with high potential for congestion, queuing and accidents. Covanta should provide sufficient HGV parking on site to prevent queuing and ‘waiting-up’ on local roads. (d) The Covanta proposal - Appendix E - appears to be based on traffic flows in 2005 and traffic prediction models rather than current flows. Actual traffic flows and peak times should be reassessed after the new A421 dual carriageway is opened. (e) Noisy HGVs passing residential properties continually from 0500 hours to 2300 hours will be an amenity nuisance and cause sleep deprivation. (f) If the project goes ahead: a. A dedicated access link and bridge from the new dual carriageway directly into Green Lane should be provided to mitigate HGV effects on residents. b. Covanta should be responsible for ensuring that their HGVs do not deposit litter on our local roads; penalties for non-compliance owing to inadequate trailer covers should be large. My other objections are the: (1) Visual impact of the proposed facility from various paths and viewpoints within the Marston Vale Country Park will destroy a serene landscape. Apart from the main chimney, the diagrams in Covanta’s proposal lack detail on items that will be visible above roof level such as outlet pipes emitting steam. (2) Potential for adverse health, amenity and ecological effects from HGVs and the proposed facility, i.e. noise, vibration, dust clouds of Incinerator Bottom Ash on windy days, effects of downdraughts, and vermin and odours if loaded HGVs are waiting up owing to facility breakdowns. (3) Possible water pollution in Stewartby Lake and Country Park habitat and its surrounds from Incinerator Bottom Ash dust, other site emissions, and possible flooding of the facility site. (4) Cumulative amenity nuisances at the Stewartby Water Sports Club, one of the premier water sports clubs in the UK. (5) Negative economic impact on local tourism."

michael james royston ashcroft
"My husband and I have recently bought our house in Ampthill, a major factor in choosing this location was the magnificent uninterrupted view of the Bedfordshire countryside. I believe that should the Generating Station be constructed it would have a negative effect when selling our house and land. We live next to Houghton House which many people visit daily because of the wonderful view. I believe that the proposed developments will severely diminish the natural beauty of the surrounding area and will destroy a view that is enjoyed by many people, local and visitors to the area alike. Living here I have noticed how clouds and weather conditions linger over the vale area and I fear the emissions from the incinerator will obscure the view from our area in addition to being very concerned of the environmental and health implications. I cannot recognise any positve effect arising from Covanta being allowed to go ahead with the development and I feel strongly that the negatives far outnumber any that may be put forward."

Maureen Green
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station because of the cumulative detrimental effects to local amenities that outweigh the potential benefits. I live in a bungalow beside the A421 road between the Little Chef roundabout and Green Lane and within 20 metres of the road. I object to the impact of the proposed high volume of Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) traffic: (a) Noisy HGVs passing residential properties continually from 0500 hours to 2300 hours will be an amenity nuisance and cause sleep deprivation. (b) HGVs and other Covanta traffic have high potential for causing congestion, queuing and accidents on the local Marston Moreteyne and Stewartby roads. Covanta should provide sufficient HGV parking on the proposed site to prevent queuing and ‘waiting-up’ on local roads. (c) The Covanta report fails to address the cumulative damaging effects of HGV-induced vibration on local structures and properties. (d) The Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) paragraph 5.13.10 requires that rail is used in preference to road transport where cost effective. Covanta has not provided a detailed cost effectiveness analysis as evidence to show why waste should be transported to the site by road rather than by the under-used railway beside the site. (e) Actual traffic flows and peak times on the old and new A421 roads should be reassessed after the new A421 dual carriageway is opened. (f) If the project goes ahead: a. A dedicated access link and bridge from the new dual carriageway directly into Green Lane should be provided to mitigate HGV effects on residents. b. Covanta should be responsible for ensuring that their HGVs do not deposit litter on our local roads; penalties for non-compliance owing to inadequate trailer covers should be large. My other objections are the: (1) Potential for adverse health, amenity and ecological effects from HGVs and the proposed facility, i.e. noise, vibration, dust clouds of Incinerator Bottom Ash on windy days, effects of downdraughts, and vermin and odours if loaded HGVs are waiting up owing to facility breakdowns. (2) Visual impact of the proposed facility from various paths and viewpoints within the Marston Vale Country Park will destroy the peaceful nature of the existing landscape. (3) Possible water pollution in Stewartby Lake and Country Park habitat and its surrounds from Incinerator Bottom Ash dust, other site emissions, and possible flooding of the facility site. (4) Negative economic impact on local tourism."

Janice Green
"I have concerns over the long term health considerations of the emissions from the chimney. Also their will be fly ash remaining, what is to happen to this? Will this be moved - again by road - or will their be a second development in Rookery Pit to become a licensed site for hazardous waste landfill? Either way the amount of lorries increase. The new A421 (yet to open) was not designed for this major implication and the amount of noise and pollution, not to mention the non ecological amount of fuel used, by 900 lorries per day using the new Marston Moreteyne junction will severely impact on the residents of this village. This factor was used as the cheaper option and the rail link could have been used. The carrot of benefit of cheaper electricity does not add up. This is a very costly way of producting electricity and cannot possibly supply most of the demands of 82,000 homes. I seriously doubt their figures. The negative impact to the new country park; being able to see the building from all over the park as well as the negative impact to all forms of wildlife. We are only just benefiting from cleaner air as can be proved by the recent sighting of rare lichens. To pay their way incerators need to import a lot of rubish, far more than Bedfordshire can produce, particularly if they are to continue with recycling. Covanta's record in the United States leaves a lot to be desired. I have read details on the internet that they have been sued on a number of occasions because of breaking the limits of pollution into the atmosphere. In closing I would say that eventually whatever goes up must come down and the pollutants expelled from the chimney must fall to ground somewhere."

Martin Sanchez
"This ill conceived project should not be permitted to proceed because:- 1. the operators will not be able to satisfy local residents that pollution, greatly increased traffic movements (both large lorry and additional car), light and noise pollution and general blighting of properties can be avoided 2. Bedfordshire should not be used as a central depository of all the rubbish from other counties and perhaps in the future other countries 3. the scale of the development is inappropriate with regards to its siting. In its present form it will be huge and totally out of keeping with anything in the local area or indeed the south of England. In fact it will be over twice the size of the incinerator in Sheffield. 4. the disruption from the plant will be continuous. In order to provide profit for its masters it will need to be in operation every day - 24 hours a day.There will be no respite from the never ending lorries nor the noise or smell from the plant. 5. the infrastructure in the area will not be able to support this plant. 6. it is unreasonable to expect the residents of this area (in what is essentially open countryside) to endure an indeterminable future of more foul smelling chimneys when only is the recent past have we been able to enjoy clean air following the closure of Stewartby brickworks"

David Borrett
"I wish to make a representation regarding the proposed Covanta incinerator at Rookery South. I do not believe this development is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. Location-semi rural setting/adjacent to a popular country park 2. Current plan to transport waste via road-not "green" , as well as causing potential traffic flow issues on local roads. Rail is a far more appropriate method of transportation. 3. Scale-out of proportion to all surrounding development"

Nicola Browes
"The village of Houghton Conquest DO NOT want an incinerator in close proximity because of the following reasons : High levels of Air Emissions Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation Landscape and Visual Impac Noise levels Local and Regional Waste Management Traffic and Transport Impacts on local roads and villages It will be an absolute disaster in many ways, to have this built in Stewartby."

Mr Delany
"1/ I feel that our area has had enough of other peoples waste over the past years, just as the area is starting to recover somebody wants to alter the landscape yet again for the use of the disposal of waste. 2/ We have a new road system about to open to relive the area of heavy goods vehicles only to have waste lorries back on our village roads. 3/ I am also concerned by the emissions this incinerator may produce, having the closure of the brickworks who were unable to comply to emission and now better air quality which we do not want to loose."

Peter Bews
"I have been a member at the ski section at Stewartby watersports club for 20 years. These are my reasons for stongly objecting to the proposed incinerator in Rookery South. 1. Green Lane and the new access road to the plant which will be only 50 meters from our camp site, will have 530-768 HGV's driving down them from 5 am to 11 pm 6 days a week, that is one every 33 seconds. 2. Possible water contamination. We would not be able to waterski, sail or fish in our lake if the water is contaminated or poluted. 3. If the exhaust fumes from the chimney were contaminated, the south westerly winds would carry the fumes accross our lake. 4. The shape and size of the plant would ruin the surrounding country park."

ANDREW BUNYAN
"I am very concerned about the proposed development of the Waste Generating Station adjacent to Stewartby sailing club which my family and I are members of. The enviromental impact on the area from the potential noise,water and air pollution that this development will produce is unacceptable particularly as nobody can adequately answer what the long term health affects will be to the people who carry out activities or live in the area. It also appears to me to be very unreasonable for such a development to be built so close to a residential area ( Stewartby Village ) where I have friends living and I'm certain that it would affect there quality of life in a very detrimental way."

Ray French
"Pollution of the local atmosphere with toxic emissions. Increase in heavy traffic in the area. Light pollution and noise. Excessive size of the proposed building. Such a building should be in an establised business/factory development/area. The local Forestry centre, sailing and water sport facilities at Stewartby lake and the proposed Nihrah development will be adversely affected by the noxious gases and unsightly building adjacent to them. The Catchment area is considerable and resultant waste will need local landfill establishments that are already overcommitted with waste from London and elsewhere. As the country progresses to reduce the volume of waste the development will need to attract waste from a wider catchment area."

Jacqueline Sanchez
"This is supposed to be an eco solution to a waste problem but it seems to me that it will cause more than it solves with increased traffic, noise, smells, pollution, damage to the environment and wildlife, blighting of properties. The scale of the plant is vast - it will completely dominate the Marston Vale area and destroy all the views for miles around. The ramifications to Ampthill Georgian market town and the open space that is Ampthill Park will be considerable. The new housing at Wixams and the large influx of population due to this will already be adding to the infrastructure problems of the area and these new families with their young children will be exposed to endless pollution day in day out. There must be other less sensitive sites that could be considered for this monstrous development"

Matthew Butler
"I am concerned about the potential pollution from the proposed plant. While pollution limits may be stipulated before planning permission is granted, once the facility has been built, there is unlikely to be enough imperative on the operators to comply with the requirements, which will put the health of those using the adjacent sailing club, country park and living in the adjacent. What assurance will be given, that if emissions exceed safe levels that the plant WILL be immediately shut down and not be allowed to reopen, otherwise such emissions will cause the closure of important adjacent facilities. In addition I understand that their is a national imperative to reduce national energy usage and carbon emissions. The sitting of this plant in a rural location will result in the wastage of GigaJoules of heat energy per year, which are a natural bi-product of the power generation process, that if the plant were sited adjacent to a large connurbation such as Bedford or Milton Keynes, could be used to heat homes, so saving a large quantity of energy and carbon emissions. Obviously if the pollution from the plant is low enough for it to be sited in its proposed location there can be no conceivable reason why it could not be located in a much more advantageous location as described above. Location adjacent to a connurbation would also reduce the transportation distance for the waste, and so also help assist in saving energy."

Ann Vickers
"Living in Ampthill the incinerator will be an eyesore all around this area. The stack, being lowered, will be a health risk - the Vale is lower than Ampthill so we will be even closer to the fumes. There are enough lorries already clogging our roads. What happens if the A421 is closed due to an accident, where will the lorries go? Incineration is not the way to get rid of our rubbish. Each county should manage its own waste. Bedfordshire is not a dumping ground for other counties."

Karen Jellis
"The following points render the Covanta proposal to be the wrong solution in the wrong location for dealing with Bedfordshire’s waste: Air Emissions I have serious concerns about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. In the sky above the Marston Vale there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. When inversion is not occurring the prevailing wind is south westerly. There is serious concern that the proposal will cause a cumulative impact over the 30 year + life cycle of the plant either within the Marston Vale and/or Bedford and Kempston Biodiversity and Geological Conservation To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South.. An oversize Energy from Waste plant will fundamentally undermine that purpose. The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life. The Covanta proposal will threat this existence. The Covanta proposal will be a retrograde step ecologically and would ultimately lead to the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. The site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. Landscape and Visual Impact The sheer size of the Covanta plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and will materially impair the views from the Vale to the surrounding Greensand Ridge and the panoramic views from the ridge across the entire Vale, especially those seen from Ampthill Park and Cranfield The sheer size of the building will dominate the skyline – most of which will be visible above the existing edge of Rookery Pit. The buildings within the site will abut the footpaths of the Country Park. The Covanta Rookery Pit stack will be higher than the long disused brickworks chimneys. The plume will accentuate the stack visibility Noise There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. Noise has only been considered in terms of ‘average’ levels so no adequate account been taken of intermittent noise such as that from rattling of empty HGV’s which lead to huge disturbance Local and Regional Waste Management The EfW will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. Central Bedfordshire has a excellent record in recycling waste, enforcing a incinerator plant on the region to dispose of rubbish from outside the county (Buckinghamshire etc) would wrongly penalise the great efforts the local people of Bedfordshire have made and discourage recycling. The Covanta proposal will override attempts to deal with waste locally. A fundamental question is whether there should be permission for one Local Authority to discharge its responsibility for waste management by entering into an agreement with a private contractor to build a plant for the sole management of that Authority’s waste in another Local Authority’s area. Socio-Economic The project proposes to export electricity serving the energy needs of 82,500 homes, broadly equivalent to the housing energy needs of Bedford and the Marston Vale. It has never been explained how residents will directly benefit from this green electricity and how this figure of 82,500 is arrived at. . It appears the construction of the site utilizing 300+ jobs will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area which will leave when construction is finished. Of the remaining 60-70 jobs that have been stated this will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns. The recycling of waste as a alternative and all the ancillary industries would create greater jobs. There also can be no guarantee that the jobs, ongoing or in consideration, will be offered to local people. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste I cannot envisage an incinerator becoming a popular tourist destination, impacting any tourism in the local area. Traffic and Transport Impacts The traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network and the traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. Significant vehicle movements to and from the site – arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week on Bank Holiday weekends will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community The new A421 was designed to cope with existing traffic problems and some elements of growth in Bedford Borough. The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road. The transportation of upwards of 585,000 tonnes of rubbish per year will take place along the de-trunked old A421. The waste to be is to be transported using HGV’s and many of which will use the new M1 Junction 13. Evidence submitted by the Highways Agency during the Public Inquiry into the duelling of the A421 from Bedford to J13 indicated that the new junction layout would at peak times have just sufficient capacity to handle the anticipated peak traffic flows, excluding the projected traffic from the Covanta site. Further the adequate functioning of the new J13 is dependent on the further duelling of the A421 from J13 to Milton Keynes and funding for this future project must now be in doubt given needed cutbacks in public spending. The impact of increased traffic from the proposed project through J13 could significantly increase congestion at the junction at peak times which would in turn give rise to increased traffic flows through neighbouring villages and congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes."

G.J.Vickers
"development is not sustainable in economic terms. toxicity from flue including nano particles and toxic metals unacceptable. Nano particles have unlimited distance distribution. associated heavy traffic flow not acceptable due to resulting congestion, noise and exhaust fume pollution. Zero waste is a far superior solution. local roads are inadequate to carry the constant flow of heavy traffic to/from the site. the proposed development would be a gross eyesore."

R P Dunn
"There is no evidence that the local transport infrastructure can support the additional load required to operate the incinerator, or that finance would be available to upgrade sufficiently to compensate for that load. Emissions from incinerators are toxic, and the long term effects upon the local population in the fall out area are unknown, and mitigations to those potential health issues will not be provided by the company making profits operating the site. Periodic failure of industrial plant as is inevitable over a 25 year operational life cycle will additionally stress the health of the population and environment. The concentrated toxic ash will additionally require burial, in increasingly scarce landfill sites. It is reported that the company have a history of being unable to meet their emission targets, making the project increasingly detrimental to the environment. If the company would not be able to build such plant in its home country, why should the UK be more lax and allow it to proceed? The visual impact on local villages, the Wetland centre, proposed holiday parks and Freshwater research centre will have a detrimental impact on economic and social viability of the area. The financial impact on house prices will not be borne by the polluter, but by the local population. The major Wixams housing development may be made unviable by a nearby incinerator."

Joanne Randall
"This proposed enormous incinerator will be inappropriately sited if built in bedfordshire. It is to be built in an area surrounded by villages, in close proximity to residential developments and schools. Local residents are extremely concerned that toxic emissions will affect their health. My daughter has just started at Marston Vale Middle School and we are very happy but I would not have sent her there if the chimneys with their emissions right on top of the children had still been operational and if this plant is built we may even consider moving out of Bedfordshire to protect our childrens health due to the closeness of this plant.Visually it will dominate the landscape in a small county that is developing it's tourism through Centre Parks and the beautiful surrounding country. Who will want to stay at Centre Parks when there is a risk of potentially toxic emissions and the landscape and views are marred by monstrous chimneys ? Also this will be built very close to the Forest Centre so the impact on local wildlife from the pollution will be immense. Already in this area the traffic has increased due to the Wixams housing development. The villages and local roads are not designed to cope with the additional dirty great rubbish lorries so the traffic impact and safety issues for children are serious if this development is allowed to go ahead. This is a huge plant proposing to take waste from all around the South East basically turning Bedfordshire from a popular county into a 'giant dustbin' for the South East and potentially further afield in the future. This plant is also contrary to the proximity principle that Government in the past have been so keen to enforce. Long distance transporting of waste from other counties is not healthy or appropriate or good for the environment and should be dealt with at source. Plants should be built in remote areas and not close to housing as Covanta are proposing with this application where the visual impact, pollution, traffic and light and noise all impact on the local communities of mid beds/beds health and lives in a detrimental not positive way."

john wilson
"The area where the proposed incinerator is to be sited is not suitable, it is an area where there is temperature inversion and on still days the emissions will hang in the atmosphere and eventually drop into Marston Vale. Furthermore Covanta does not have a good track record with emissions. They have been involved in litigation on a number of occasions in the past over exceeding safe emissions standards. The area is a rural landscape. Stewartby lake, the site of recreational sailing, angling and camping is only a matter of metres away. Marston Vale Millenium Country Park is adjacent to the site and is a haven for wildlife. The proposed incinerator is very large and will require significant truck traffic (several hundreds per day) directly adjacent to the camping site. Light, noise, odour, pollution will be present 24 hours per day. The proposed plant is many times the size needed for Bedfordshire waste. It should not be built to import waste products from other regions."

Robert Turner on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"Network Rail formally objects to this application on the grounds that operational railway land, being part of the Marston Vale railway line, is adversely affected. The proposal will impact significantly on railway infrastructure in the vicinity of the works unless Network Rail’s protective provisions are applied. Land in which Network Rail has interests has been identified in the application and within the Book of Reference as numbers 27, 28, 59, 60, 61 and 62, the cable routes on/adjacent to the railway being referred to as Work No. 6A-H. These identify rights and works affecting Network Rail’s operational land at and adjacent to Green Lane level crossing including part of Stewartby Halt railway station. The applicant’s application identifies the proposed installation of a full-barrier crossing at Green Lane (Work No.9). This has arisen following initial discussions between the applicant and Network Rail. Network Rail initially indicated to the applicant that they had concerns with the new access off Green Lane into the site as road traffic serving the site via the level crossing and new access would introduce risk to the railway, which was not acceptable. The applicant has engaged with Network Rail to agree a means of mitigating the risks that will be imported by the additional works traffic using the crossing. No formal agreements have been reached yet, but Network Rail is currently in discussions with the applicant on two bases: • To agree “Protective Provisions” whereby the applicant will fund mitigation works necessary at the crossing; • A proposal that Network Rail will undertake an options study to determine – in agreement with the applicant – the extent of infrastructure works necessary at the crossing, for subsequent implementation. It should be noted that the results of the proposed options study will not be known for some time and may identify an alternative to installation of a full-barrier crossing as the recommended solution. Network Rail will be seeking protection from the exercise of compulsory purchase powers over operational land either for permanent or temporary purposes. In addition, Network Rail will wish to agree protection for the railway during the course of the construction works and otherwise to protect our undertaking and land interests. We envisage these protections will be contained in protective provisions to be included in any Development Consent Order when made and that in addition separate agreements with the applicant will deal with the specific issues. In relation to the level crossing options study, the application must take account of the recommendations of the report and such works deemed necessary at the level crossing. In addition, any rights for electricity lines under, over or alongside the railway line will require appropriate asset protection measures deemed necessary by Network Rail to protect the operational railway and station. Network Rail reserve the right to produce additional and further grounds of objection when further details of the application and its effect on Network Rail’s land are available. Network Rail proposes to continue discussions with the applicant in order to resolve the objection through formal agreements incorporating protective provisions."

Michael Mison
"I feel that this would be an eyesore on the landscape considering the scale of the project. It would also impinge on the country park adjacent to the site, together with the water sports club If this project does go ahead then why cannot rail transport be used."

Keith REVILL
"1.0 The location and scale of the proposed waste incineration plant,if approved, will impact adversely on the Marston Vale that is just starting to recover from years of brick making and use as a location for landfill; and, will be detrimental to the emerging Marston Vale forest and surrounding existing settlements and proposed future development in the area. 2.0 The scale of the plant, if approved, will be obtrusive, will be visible from long distances and will impact adversely on the surrounding landscape. 3.0 The plant, if approved, will seek to handle waste from a wide area, and it appears the waste would be transported by road. This will greatly increase the number of HGvs using the local road network and will increase congestion, will increase pollution, and will impact adversely on surrounding settlements. Any such plant should be accessed principally by a more sustainable means of transport utilising the rail network, in line with planning policy on sustainability. 4.0 The plant, if approved, will generate air pollution, and could generate noise and light pollution. 5.0 The plant, if approved, would also require related infrastructure which potentially could have a consequential adverse impact on the surrounding area, for example additional highways, and facilities/equipment for utilities. 6.0 An assessment should be carried out by a properly independent body to examine alternative waste disposal strategies and identify sustainable locations for any necessary facilities and measures which would avoid/minimise adverse impact; and, the findings should be subjected to detailed examination and public scrutiny before specific proposals are made."

Peter Marshall
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because of the cumulative detrimental effects it will bring to the area, environment and local communities. Scale, Landscape & Visual Impact - The size of building and stack will dominate the skyline and be visible to surrounding areas due to location near the country park and villages. The plant will have a visually detrimental impact on the local amenities and impair panoramic views from over the vale to Greensand ridge, especially from the local Ampthill Park. The plume will also act to accentuate the stack size and hence overall visible impact. Air Emissions - there are serious concerns regarding emissions and long term health implications, especially given reports that Covanta have been served legal notices on plants in the USA. As a parent of two young children and having only moved to the area three years ago we have a vested interest in protecting the future interests of our family as would probably have to relocate if this application was approved. Community - There are a number of small village communities within a rural landscape area, this is one of the attractions for moving to the area and starting a family, we wish to preserve this way of life for ourselves and future generations. The Covanta proposal will be a backward step for the community and the local environment. The local community have also had to withstand many years of impact from other waste management activities such as landfill and it is time the area is given a chance to live without such operations in close proximity. There will be a negative impact on house prices in the area which in turn will have a detrimental effect on local businesses and the ability to attract new job creating opportunities. The incinerator would prevent leisure industries being attracted to the area as would not want to be located in an area with an incinerator the size of Wembley stadium, an incinerator cannot be classed as a tourist attraction. If the facility was of a much smaller scale and only processed local waste then my view might be different, but it is time to end the area being considered an area where other counties can send their rubbish rather than managing it themselves - exporting the problem from other counties does not provide a platform to promote waste minimisation or recycling. Traffic and transport - Significant additional vehicle movements resulting in local disturbance and pressure on already very busy roads that only just cope. Carbon footprint is unacceptable for over 500,000 tonnes of waste being moved by HGV especially when rookery pit's close proximity to rail links."

susan clark
"I object to the proposed and wish to make further representations on the following: Traffic: Impact of increased HGV traffic on wider area than assessed. Detrimental impact of waste lorries travelling through our towns and villages. Nuisance caused by waste lorries, compounded by long operating hours. Waste travelling from further afield than identified. How will transport be policed? What about transgressions and how they will be dealt with? Landscape: Size of plant and stack has unreasonable visual impact in rural setting, exaggerated by the plume. Will affect enjoyment of amenities, and be always present visually, affecting local views. Site identified for waste management, but not at this scale. Potential for noise and light pollution. Noise pollution has only been assessed on average basis, not taking account of irregular noise. Health impacts. Great anxiety about potential for health impact, and safe dispersal of emission. Dispersal of nanoparticles in particular requires further consideration. Information on effect of temperature inversion on safe dispersal of emissions not adequate. Proposals for monitoring via passive monitors not adequate. Need/proposed catchment area. The Vale is regenerating after many years of brick works and importation of London's waste for landfill, and has become a much more pleasant place to live. This will be an unwelcome return to importation of waste from very wide area, which will be very unpleasant - much experience of this in the past. Scale of proposal and catchment will have unreasonable impact on the area, that cannot be adequately mitigated. Decision: will be based on draft, not adopted waste strategy. Socio-economic impact proposed facility will not enhance local ecomony. Facility will have a negative impact on socio economic activities, and creative negative perception of area. Community benefits are inadequate compensation. Facility will attract further industrial development, which will alter rural character of Vale. Consultation process has been flawed. Method of making submissions too complicated for lay person."

Mrs Jennifer Thomas on behalf of Millbrook Parish Meeting
"Millbrook Parish Meeting and the residents of Millbrook village are totally opposed to this development. Being situated on the Greensand Ridge, overlooking the Marston Vale, the village has good, unspoilt, views over the Vale. The construction of a huge incinerator in South Rookery Pit would spoil this view forever. This would inevitably affect property prices in the area and in the village in particular; residents are already struggling to sell houses overlooking the Vale. The views would also be affected from other viewpoints on the Greensand Ridge; Ampthill Park and Houghton House being the most important. The village would be on a level with the top of the chimney of the incinerator and villagers are very worried about the emissions from the chimney and how these might hang around in the Vale because of the local thermal inversions that are present in the area. We do not know what the long-term effects of emissions from this plant will be and villagers are naturally concerned about the safety record of Covanta based on issues and legal cases in the U.S.A. The residents of Millbrook agree that Bedfordshire waste should be dealt with in Bedfordshire but that the local waste authority should not be considering the disposal of waste arisings from other counties. The Parish Meeting does not believe that this development, once built, will bring significant employment to the area; once built it will employ less than 100 people, very few of which are likely to be local residents. But it will greatly affect tourism in the area, as has been proved in other, similar, locations. Traffic generated by the facility will have a widespread detrimental affect on the local road network, local villages and the health and well-being of local people. It seems inevitable that some traffic will seek access to the proposed facility by travelling through the village of Millbrook, possibly ignoring the weight and width restrictions that are currently in place."

Robert Edward Gale
"1. AIR EMISSIONS I am concerned that harmful air emissions from the plant will not be adequately controlled or monitored. In particular, I understand that harmful nano-particles. which enter the bloodstream after inhalation, will be emitted, and that these cannot be detected. These particles are then distributed around the body, including to the brain where they are known to cause permanent damage. As they cannot be detected, they therefore cannot be monitored and their levels controlled. Although I am primarily concerned as a local resident, the effects on existing and future generations is a national and international issue. 2. WASTE MANAGEMENT I understand that there will be contractual arrangements with Covanta to take over waste management responsibilities from local authorities. This could have a severe impact on service delivery, cost and public accountability. 3. EMPLOYMENT There are substantial employment benefits to be gained from recycling by conventional means. Expansion and enhancement of such activities would generate much-needed jobs in the area and the country as a whole. The proposed incinerator, and others like it, would result in an increase in the national level of unemployment, as opposed to a potentially substantial decrease. 4. OVERALL IMPACT ANALYSIS I have not had the opportunity to review a full analysis of the overall impact of the proposal and its justification in safety, environmental and cost terms. Reassurance and political commitment at the highest levels is essential before the project is given any further consideration."

Pippa Whittaker
"Light, noise, traffic pollution will be vastly increased in the area, potential risks to health along with decreasing house prices why is this proposal even being considered??? Please, please, please do not let this happen!!"

Chris Janes
"I am concerend about A the ammount of additional road traffic that will be generated B the polution that will be generated into both the air and the water sports lake C the impact on the local environment of the plant"

Harriet Lavender Olds
"I object to the incinerator. I live in Houghton Conquest and it will have numerous impact - travel congestion, the smell, the view of the chimney, pollution - what is the benefit to local residents? I can see none. I can only see this being detrimental to us living there and when we come to sell. The company setting this up have no concern to the well being of locals as they are millions of miles away."

Matthew Olds
"Pollution, noise, traffick increase, smell, ugly chimney obstructing view and no benefit to the small local villages."

John Pickersgill
"I am very unhappy with this porposal for the following reasons: Pollution, Traffic, Light and Noise, Visibility, House Prices and Landfill. To support thse points I would ask the owners of Covanta to consider the implications of the above points should a similar structure be built near the environment of their own dwelling place. Finally it is morally wrong for an organisation to have to meet the profit targets of a FOREIGN COMPANY who cannot build in their own country anymore. It is also encouraging to see support from our MP to get the project stopped."

Neil Henderson
"I believe that an incinerator should not be built in Bedfordshire or any other inland site. Since the closure of the brickworks at Stewartby there has been a noticeable improvement in subjective air quality across Bedfordshire, even many miles away from the site. I am very concerned that this will be reversed should the incinerator be built, particularly in those areas downwind of the prevailing wind direction from the plant. When the brickworks were in operation there would frequently be weather conditions that gave rise to fog and the gasses from the chimneys could be smelt very strongly at ground level. Although the incinerator emmissions may not smell strongly the toxic gases contained within them will be effected in the same way leading to unwanted exposure to people in the Marston vale area and beyond."

Adrian Cole
"•The environmental health issues relating to the operation of the site, primarily the emissions, are still of a serious concern and have been underplayed by Covanta during the period of public consultation. •Covanta has an appalling track record in the USA for environmental accountability. •A long-term plan and monitoring strategy has not been provided, and this is especially significant given cuts to the Environmental Agency whose responsibility this will be. •Covanta have failed to take into account the dramatic home building projects currently underway within the area, and the economic effect this will have on residents and their properties."

Mrs A Watkin
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects – drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; (A) Air Emissions (1) The long term detrimental impact on the health of residents of highly toxic emissions over the life cycle of the plant, accentuated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion within Marston Vale. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2) To situate the plant adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically, leading to significant habitat loss and the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation (3) There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact (4) The sheer size of the EfW and stack (accentuated by the plume) will materially impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise (5) Significant disturbance from the continuous noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management (6) The EfW will undermine undermine recycling. Landfill will still be needed to dispose of highly toxic ash. (G) Socio-Economic (7) The electricity generating capacity of the EfW in terms of average domestic consumption is exaggerated. (8) The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the EfW for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. (9) EfW assembly will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area and the remaining permanent jobs will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns – of which there can be no guarantee, will be offered to local people. (10) There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts (11) The traffic volumes will be beyond the predicted capacity of road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network. Traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. (12) Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. (13) There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. This proposal is the wrong solution for waste in the proposed catchment area. Incineration is harmful to both health and environment and not a responsible option for this or any other county."

Mr T Watkin
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects – drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; (A) Air Emissions (1) The long term detrimental impact on the health of residents of highly toxic emissions over the life cycle of the plant, accentuated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion within Marston Vale. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2) To situate the plant adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically, leading to significant habitat loss and the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation (3) There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact (4) The sheer size of the EfW and stack (accentuated by the plume) will materially impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise (5) Significant disturbance from the continuous noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management (6) The EfW will undermine undermine recycling. Landfill will still be needed to dispose of highly toxic ash. (G) Socio-Economic (7) The electricity generating capacity of the EfW in terms of average domestic consumption is exaggerated. (8) The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the EfW for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. (9) EfW assembly will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area and the remaining permanent jobs will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns – of which there can be no guarantee, will be offered to local people. (10) There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts (11) The traffic volumes will be beyond the predicted capacity of road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network. Traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. (12) Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. (13) There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. This proposal is the wrong solution for waste in the proposed catchment area. Incineration is harmful to both health and environment and not a responsible option for this or any other county."

Mrs M Andrew
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects – drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; (A) Air Emissions (1) The long term detrimental impact on the health of residents of highly toxic emissions over the life cycle of the plant, accentuated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion within Marston Vale. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2) To situate the plant adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically, leading to significant habitat loss and the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation (3) There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact (4) The sheer size of the EfW and stack (accentuated by the plume) will materially impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise (5) Significant disturbance from the continuous noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management (6) The EfW will undermine undermine recycling. Landfill will still be needed to dispose of highly toxic ash. (G) Socio-Economic (7) The electricity generating capacity of the EfW in terms of average domestic consumption is exaggerated. (8) The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the EfW for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. (9) EfW assembly will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area and the remaining permanent jobs will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns – of which there can be no guarantee, will be offered to local people. (10) There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts (11) The traffic volumes will be beyond the predicted capacity of road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network. Traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. (12) Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. (13) There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. This proposal is the wrong solution for waste in the proposed catchment area. Incineration is harmful to both health and environment and not a responsible option for this or any other county."

Mr M Andrew
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects – drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; (A) Air Emissions (1) The long term detrimental impact on the health of residents of highly toxic emissions over the life cycle of the plant, accentuated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion within Marston Vale. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2) To situate the plant adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically, leading to significant habitat loss and the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation (3) There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact (4) The sheer size of the EfW and stack (accentuated by the plume) will materially impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise (5) Significant disturbance from the continuous noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management (6) The EfW will undermine undermine recycling. Landfill will still be needed to dispose of highly toxic ash. (G) Socio-Economic (7) The electricity generating capacity of the EfW in terms of average domestic consumption is exaggerated. (8) The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the EfW for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. (9) EfW assembly will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area and the remaining permanent jobs will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns – of which there can be no guarantee, will be offered to local people. (10) There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts (11) The traffic volumes will be beyond the predicted capacity of road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network. Traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. (12) Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. (13) There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. This proposal is the wrong solution for waste in the proposed catchment area. Incineration is harmful to both health and environment and not a responsible option for this or any other county."

Jim Noone
"I feel that the proposed development would have an overall adverse effect on the local area, especially the increase in commercial vehicle traffic."

Graham Shrimpton
"As a regular user of Stewartby lake and a member of SWSC I often take part in the club activities, sailing, walking and camping and having read many documents on the IPC website, I am very concerned about this project and would like to object on the following grounds and concerns 1.The industrial structure looking completely out of place and obscuring views to and from the lake 2.The risk of contamination of Stewartby lake by materials and pollutants form the site entering water courses and then into the lake via existing culverts 3.The water level of the lake 4.The risk of absorption and inhalation to people from gases and pollutants via the air and water 5.The regular noise from the site and disruption to Green Lane during construction 6.The very regular noise from an increased number of delivery trucks, laden and un laden when the site is operating 7.The noise from trucks on the access road, which is within 50 meters of SWSC camping areas 8.The noise and vibrations produced from the site during normal operation 9.The increased traffic caused by the site during normal operations and extra problems in entry and exit from SWSC, especially when towing boat trailers and when level crossing is closed 10.The total lake of use of the railway which is right along side the proposed site 11.The loss of night sky due to light pollution 12.The change in wind patterns on the lake caused by the structure 13.The loss of habit to wildlife in the area 14.Dust and smells that will come from the lorries, chimney and plant 15.The steam, mist, fog and smoke emitted from the chimney that on winter light wind days will sink down to the lake level 16.The size and height of the chimney, it would be an eyesore on the landscape 17.The vapours emitted making the chimney look even larger 18.The potential release of pollutants in the case of a fire, or accident 19.The South west corner of the lake is a wildlife preservation area, and closest to the plant, the wildlife will be affected 20.The possibility of wildlife eating and dirking pollutants from the site and this then entering the food chain 25 The reasoning for making the plant of this size, I do not believe that it needs to be this big for the waste made in the surrounding counties. 26. Our club loosing members and closing due to this site ."

William Bloodworth
"The IPC should refuse consent for the proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station for the following reasons: I live within 1.5 miles of the proposed site and will be affected by: (1) Pollution (2) Traffic (3) Light and noise (4) Visibility (5) House prices (6) Landfill (7) Life span of the incinerator is a minimum of 25 years"

William Bews
"My family and I are waterskiiers at Stewartby Water Sports Club, and have been members here for over 35 years to enjoy our sport. The sport requires us to spend time in the water, and sometimes unintentionally ingest the water when falling off. We are therefore, very concerned about pollution to the water. We understand that there will be safeguards in place to help prevent toxins etc. polluting the water, but due to the type of waste plant and rubbish that will be brought in, it is inevitable and cannot be 100% guaranteed. The proximity of the waste plant site, the fact that the lakes are connected, and the type of ground and the elements of the surrounding environment mean that debris and contamination such as lime will pollute the water and affect the wildlife, and spoil the water for the sports members. The piles of rubbish waiting to be burnt, and after they have been processed cause alarm also as a light wind could easily sweep up the ash, and carry it over the lake meaning that even being out of or on top of the water would result in being affected by the waste. Water skiing requires great concentration, and it would be most off-putting to be skiing on top of the water when suddenly a gust of wind covers you in ash, or unprocessed rubbish. I think you’ll agree this not a nice thought. Not only would this risk of contamination affect bystanders and spectators on the shore and camping ground, but noise and dust from plant traffic would contribute as well. Because of these points, and other significant issues such as the height of the building obstructing wind strength and direction, light pollution and noise pollution nearly all hours of the night and day, HGV traffic disrupting members from accessing the club, this could diminish or have a negative impact on the future growth of the club. Building this Giant Incinerator Plant will ruin the natural environment, and is not worth it. Anything promoting destroying this much used picturesque peaceful green area cannot be classed as green energy."

Margaret French
"I have a serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. The proposed site is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale. An oversize Energy from Waste plant will fundamentally undermine that purpose. There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating round the clock. The sheer size of the Covanta plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site has always been considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and the building will materially impair the views from the vale to the surrounding Greensand Ridge and the panoramic views from the ridge across the entire Vale, especially those seen from Ampthill Park and surrounding area. The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the roads. Milton Keynes already has a viable waste recycling plant and plans to add an incinerator to further process the non-recyclable waste materials they currently receive from counties nearby. This would be jeopardised with proposed Covanta development which is unnecessary."

L Pollock
"The proposals are contrary to sustainable principles of local disposal of waste. They are contrary to long standing strategies of returning Marston Vale to a the rural setting it was before brick making started. There will be a huge growth in vehicle traffic from the surrounding region if the scheme is commercially successful. The application does not make any proposal for use of sustainable transport i.e. rail."

Kirstie Yuen
"My concerns include the following: -Long term impact on health. -Increased traffic on local roads additional pollution,dirt, smells and noise. - adverse effect on improving recycling projects, which could reduce waste needing incineration. - Air Quality"

John Simmons
"I live within 5 miles of the proposed site of the incinerator and being asthmatic and having two asthmatic children, I am concerned with the safety record of Covanta. The possibility of toxic particles ( dioxins and nickel ) being released into the atmosphere within such close proximity and the effect this could have on public health does not bear thinking about. This site was obviously chosen to make use of a previous clay extraction pit but that does not seem a good enough reason to site an incinerator in the area. The site is also adjacent to a sports club where children and adults enjoy watersports, posing a healthrisk to them, from air and possible water contamination."

Sarah Watson
"I urge the IPC to refuse consent for the proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW), because the detrimental impacts of the EfW will far outweigh any of its supposed benefits. 1. I am concerned that the emissions from the stack will have a harmful effect on the health of local residents (and on those living beyond the local area). The presence of the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion within the Marston Vale will lead to an accumulation of the emissions over the local area. 2. I am concerned that checks on the plant will not be sufficient (even if they meet national or European standards) to guarantee safe air quality for local residents. Little is known about the long term impact of nanoparticles on health. Lack of research and understanding into the effects of these on health does not mean that nanoparticles are safe. 3. Marston Vale Millennium Country Park is home to a diverse range of wildlife, including rare bird species. Local residents use the Park for sports and leisure. The Rookery Pit South is so close to the Park that the huge EfW plant would detrimentally impact on both the wildlife habitat and the rural aspect of the Park and the surrounding area. 4. The Marston Vale is being re-forested for future generations – a huge incinerator in the middle of the forest would be insensitive to the aspirations that many residents have to leave the landscape in better condition for future generations. 5. Open-air storage of the toxic ash seems to me to be an inappropriate storage method for preventing the ash from being blown on the breeze to the surrounding area. 6. The EfW lights will cause light pollution in the night sky, disturbing an otherwise unlit and tranquil non-industrial environment. 7. The massive EfW will be a blot on the rural landscape. It will dominate views from the historic Ampthill Park and elsewhere from the perimeter of the valley. 8. I understand that the proposed height of the stack was reduced. I would think that residents living downwind (to the North East) of the EfW would want the stack to be as tall as possible to carry emissions away from them! Presumably the original height of the stack was for a good reason?! Reducing the height of the stack for commercial reasons does not instil confidence for residents that would wish concerns about their health and well-being to be a priority. 9. Operating noise will carry beyond the EfW to the surrounding area disturbing the peace and tranquillity of the local area. 10. Lorries travelling to and from the EfW will cause noise, and ‘accidental’ littering along roads and hedgerows (blown from open top lorries – usually when the lorries are ‘empty’ after dropping off waste). 11. Incineration is not a sustainable solution, and should not be viewed as a better solution than landfill. Burning finite resources is not better than burying them. 12. Recycling, reusing and reducing waste are more sustainable solutions. EfW is out of step with the excellent recycling habits of local residents and the local waste strategy. Bedfordshire residents already separate their waste for recycling and composting. Incineration is the lazy option, not the best option. 13. Incineration will stifle innovation and hinder the development of truly sustainable solutions. The EfW would need constant ‘feeding’, and I strongly believe that this would deter recycling or reuse. The incinerator would generate a conflict of interests. 14. Cheaper electricity bills would never be an incentive for me to accept EfW. As efforts to recycle and reduce waste increase, then the EfW would be redundant – and the building of such a facility would be an expensive waste of money, and would remain a toxic scar on the landscape. 15. Sustainable long-term employment can be better achieved through the generation of innovative businesses which recycle or reuse materials. This employment would not be based on the destruction of precious resources, but the sustainable reuse of them. Local jobs would be created to deal with local waste. 16. House prices in the area would be detrimentally affected by the EfW, as the EfW would stigmatise the surrounding area. People would not want to live in, or visit, an area where other places send their waste. Future tourists, and possibly employers, would shy away from the area. 17. Covanta’s consultation efforts appear not to have included residents of Bedford, a large population likely to be affected by emissions from the stack. This lack of consultation is unfortunate! For the reasons above, I believe the IPC should refuse consent for the proposed EfW at Rookery South."

mel ward
"do not want covant incinerator because : the size of the incinerator is to be an eye sore , too high , too big traffic, we do not need any more traffic on the local roads they are congested between a1 and m1 already the roads cannot take the extra traffic or polution the area is countryside and we do no want to loose this beatiful countryside smells and emissions , will posion all the local area. the incinerator has no benefit to our local area or the community and should not be allowed"

Peter Bolton
"As an Angler and member of Stewartby Water Sports Club (SWSC), I object on the following grounds: During normal operations 530 daily vehicle movements (One vehicle every 52 seconds). During maximum throughput 768 vehicle movements (One vehicle every 33 seconds). The majority of these will be noisy HGV trips that will make peaceful use of our leisure areas impossible. This includes: * The SWSC Club House is within 100m of the proposed access route to the RRF affecting our peaceful enjoyment of the patio area, club and grounds. * The club event camping area is with 50m of the proposed access route * The clubs Water Ski Launch and Recreational Area is within 30m of Green Lane and will be severely affected by the increased noise from HGV Traffic Angling pitches and our sailing area (which is closest to the RRF - approx 850m) will have the peaceful enjoyment ruined by a view of the RRF Sailing one of the key sports at SWSC and is totally dependent on wind strength, direction and stability. The building will be over 40m high and the operational area some 500m or more wide, this will have disruptive effects of the winds strength, stability and direction. We do not believe that Covanta have demonstrated that the RRF (in non-technical terms) will not have an effect on the water quality of Stewartby Lake. Air Emissions - There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. I am concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Stewartby Lake there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Marston Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. Stewartby Water Sports Club, Marston Vale Millennium Country Park and surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. An oversize Energy from Waste plant is will fundamentally affect the rural landscape and its regeneration. The RRF site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation are all likely to impact SWSC. Of particular concern are the effects of dust and air pollution on boat finishes and covers. There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. This is of particular concern for the SWSC Event Camping Area The RRF can process many times the size needed for Bedfordshire waste, I object to the out of Bedfordshire importing of waste and the resulting environmental impacts Of particular concern is the affect on the amenity value of Stewartby Lake as a Water Sports Venue and is negative impact on membership numbers and volunteering. Taken to it ultimate conclusion this could affect the viability Stewartby Water Sports Club."

Marie Anne Marshall
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because of the cumulative detrimental effects it will bring to the area, environment and local communities. Scale, Landscape & Visual Impact - The size of building and stack will dominate the skyline and be visible to surrounding areas due to location near the country park and villages. The plant will have a visually detrimental impact on the local amenities and impair panoramic views from over the vale to Greensand ridge, especially from the local Ampthill Park. The plume will also act to accentuate the stack size and hence overall visible impact. Air Emissions - there are serious concerns regarding emissions and long term health implications, especially given reports that Covanta have been served legal notices on plants in the USA. As a parent of two young children and having only moved to the area three years ago we have a vested interest in protecting the future interests of our family as would probably have to relocate if this application was approved. Community - There are a number of small village communities within a rural landscape area, this is one of the attractions for moving to the area and starting a family, we wish to preserve this way of life for ourselves and future generations. The Covanta proposal will be a backward step for the community and the local environment. The local community have also had to withstand many years of impact from other waste management activities such as landfill and it is time the area is given a chance to live without such operations in close proximity. There will be a negative impact on house prices in the area which in turn will have a detrimental effect on local businesses and the ability to attract new job creating opportunities. The incinerator would prevent leisure industries being attracted to the area as would not want to be located in an area with an incinerator the size of Wembley stadium, an incinerator cannot be classed as a tourist attraction. If the facility was of a much smaller scale and only processed local waste then my view might be different, but it is time to end the area being considered an area where other counties can send their rubbish rather than managing it themselves - exporting the problem from other counties does not provide a platform to promote waste minimisation or recycling. Traffic and transport - Significant additional vehicle movements resulting in local disturbance and pressure on already very busy roads that only just cope. Carbon footprint is unacceptable for over 500,000 tonnes of waste being moved by HGV especially when rookery pit's close proximity to rail links. Environment - The site is host to a large number of habitats and resulting biodiversity, this would be damaged and lead to habitat loss if the plant were to be approved. Covanta is the wrong solution, the wrong scale and the wrong location for dealing with Bedfordshire's waste."

Helen Cavender
"Scale: The development is too large; much larger than necessary for waste disposal in Bedfordshire. Its visual impact would change the character of the countryside. It would need to be fed with waste from distant areas. Site: The proposal if for an unsuitable site located in countryside that is recovering from previous industrialisation. The traffic needed to service it would have adverse effects on many communities. The road infrastructure is inadequate for the purpose – why not rail? Its impact on the local environment is unreasonable and contrary to other purposes identified for the area. The industrial processes would create pollution and damage due to noise, dust, odour, artificial light, emissions and traffic movements. The Nirah development already planned is incompatible with this proposal. Health: Gas emissions and waste handling (before and after incineration) are likely to have adverse health effects on local residents. The area has previously experienced significant problems due to chimney emissions lying over the area as a result of local atmospheric phenomena. Building new emitters in the same landscape will repeat history. The incinerator’s waste products will need further handling and storage, which give rise to risk of pollution and other health hazards. The health of local residents will be adversely affected by the 24-hour operation of the site, giving no respite from the noise and industrial activity, giving rise to stress, discomfort and loss of amenity. Covanta: The proposed operator has a poor track record of safety and breaches of legislation where it operates similar plants. Assurances about future performance are highly questionable. Local benefits: What is the local community to get out of this proposal? Nothing. Where is there any evidence of the developer giving something back for allowing this commercial operation? Why not a combined heat and light unit that would give direct benefit to local areas? Planning context: Local elected representatives have worked hard to stop this area of Bedfordshire continuing to be used for waste disposal operations. Just when this succeeds, another disposal operation is proposed; one that will take waste from 7 counties. The current political emphasis is for local decision-making – this application and decision-making process contravenes that. Consideration of the application should be suspended until the new framework is in place. Technology: There are questions about whether incineration is the most appropriate method of waste disposal, with new guidance expected next summer. The decision should be deferred until this new guidance framework is in place."

Diana Hubble
"I believe that the risk to the general public surrounding the area is not acceptable. I also feel that the visual impact would be detrimental to the efforts that have and are being made to make the existing area more attractive."

Yvonne Hayden
"I object to the building of the Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station in Stewartby. I cannot understand why such a site should be built in an area so close to homes and adjacent to a nature reserve when there are so many truly remote areas in the UK with no villages close by that could be considered. I am primarily concerned about health, safety and welfare of people who live in Stewartby and surrounding villages. Also, there is rare wildlife in this area and the reserves that are very close by; we have seen lizards, mink and weasels. There is a risk to Stewartby Lake’s eco system if pollutants escaped into the storm water drains. Has anyone looked at the dangers of inhalation and/or absorption of the chemicals released into the atmosphere? Also, are there any birth defect risks associated with this type of plant?"

Karl Barton
"Up until a few years ago I lived in a modern western country with a record for being environmentally cleaner than UK and in the area the blot on the landscape was the incinerator plant which even way behind an industrial area the locals always commented on odour issues and that it didn't produce what it promised (energy) even though it was far enough away from housing it wasn't popular. The proposed site will produce emissions which irrespective of the owner's claims, heat exchangers and catalysts (what happens to filters, catalysts and heat exchangers after their service life? Honestly!) will fall on to local villages reducing air quality. health and children's health. Anything will be burnt (day and night) irrespective of owner's claim, we aren't that naive, why should our area deal with so much of other areas people's waste. It will ruin the countryside, what about the waste after the burning? The increase in trucks will impact greatly on local traffic (day and night) and it will irrespective of owner's claims devalue the area and it's housing, the surrounding area will become undesirable."

Hugh Clark
"I object to the proposal for the following reasons: - Traffic- The big increase in the frequency of the HGV's will be very disruptive and unpleasant to the local communities, particularly given the extended operating hours. - Emissions- I am concerned that the impact of temperature inversions on the safe dispersal of emissions has not been fully answered. - Visual Impact-I believe the site will have a very negative impact on the local rural setting, especially one which is just recovering after the closure of the landfill site. - Need-I don't agree we need a site that is as huge as this, pulling in rubbish from such a large area."

Jeremy Hill on behalf of Campaign to Protect Rural England - East of England Region
"The Campaign to Protect Rural England in the East of England opposes the application by Covanta to develop and operate and energy from waste facility at Rookery South, near Stewartby, Bedfordshire. Whilst our objection principally centres around the non-compliance of the development with the key policies contained in PPS1 and most pertinently PPS10, we also seek to support and reiterate the view of CPRE Bedfordshire within our written evidence. PPS1 clearly states that ‘sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning’ (paragraph 2). Fundamentally, we submit that this application does not represent sustainable development and that there are compelling grounds for it to be refused. The applicant states that the proposed facility is intended to process waste from a primary catchment of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire as well as a secondary catchment of Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire and Berkshire for the next 15 years. In seeking to develop a facility of this size and scale by receiving waste from such a large area, the application directly contradicts the proximity principle laid down in European legislation as well as the key objective set out in PPS 10 that ‘communities take more responsibility for their own waste’. The proposed development will prejudice future ability for a vast amount of waste to be dealt with by more sustainable technologies that may become available, otherwise known as ‘moving up’ PPS10’s waste hierarchy, in which energy recovery sits only above landfill as the least desirable option. The scale of the proposed energy from waste plant is such that it will require constant ‘feeding’ and may act as a major disincentive to recycling. Indeed, if rates of recycling increase year on year as sought by PPS10 and DEFRA, additional waste will need to be transported to the site from an ever wider area. Therefore we submit that by its very size and purpose the proposed plant will go against PPS10 paragraph 12 which states that waste management facilities should 'not constrain movement up the waste hierarchy’. In addition PPS10 paragraph 18 states that care should be taken ‘to avoid stifling innovation in line with the waste hierarchy’. We would strongly suggest that the proposal does exactly this. Additionally, the necessity for substantial deliveries of waste (on a very frequent basis) from a large geographical area will have a negative impact on the wider environment through an increase of exhaust gases and carbon emissions. As contested separately by CPRE Bedfordshire, the proposed facility will have a negative impact on the landscape, one that is in the process of valuable restoration, and will create an excessive amount of HGV traffic in the countryside. This will be to the detriment of the environment, residents and the tranquillity of the local and wider area. CPRE’s East of England Branch support these views. While it is recognised that issues of renewable energy generation and waste-treatment do need to be addressed, we consider the scale and the impact of this proposal at this location is entirely unacceptable and should be refused."

michael dyke
"i have used stewartby lake and the surounding walks for lesure activitys since 1975 and i bleve this development will devestate the area whith air ,noise ,water and visual pollution."

Christine Murray
"The lack of clarity about what will come out of the incinerator chimney and its long term health implications.The emissions of nano particles and how little we know about their toxic effects. Incinerators generate a hazardous waste called fly ash. Will this then be moved offsite to licensed landfill sites for such waste? Or is there then a second development of part of Rookery Pit South to become a licensed site for hazardous waste? Incinerators need feeding to be economically viable. As Bedfordshire increasingly recycles , where will the rubbish come from? Offering an incinerator has the potential to damage the push for recycling-so we loose both ways! The environmental impact of increased traffic to and from the site. The new A421 was designed to cope with existing traffic problems and some element of growth. The volume of lorry and associated traffic to a large incinerator will be beyond the capacity of the road. There will be 900 vehicle movements a day arriving and departing between 5am-11pm. A rail connection to the site has already been abandoned as too costly. The sheer size of the building 75% of which, according to Covanta, which will be above the edge of Rookery Pit i.e. visible.This will dominate the skyline and negatively affect the Country Park as the building will be up against the railway line right by the footpaths of the Park. The loss forever of a rural landscape currently a haven to wildlife. COVANTA PROPOSED EfW PLANT THESE ARE MY ARGUMENTS AGAINST"

mike abbott
"I fully support the representations made by MMAG together with the following issues; 1) I have concerns regarding the negative press Covanta has aquired in the USA regarding Union Relations, its possible negative attitude towards its direct employees and any possible issues arising from the management and production control processes arising from dioxins and any other non specific pollutants. 2) The Marston Vale Forest Centre is a local and particularly unique area for the protection and promotion of wildlife, flora and fauna which could suffer detriment due to the Covanta operation. 3) I am disabled and have real worries the Covanta operation could have a negative impact on my quality of life arising from a propensity to illness and any other medical conditions due to an inherent reduced auto immune system and feel the Covanta operation should be subject to a fully consulted Equality Impact Assessment."

Terry Hubble
"I believe that the risk to the general public surrounding the area is not acceptable. I also feel that the visual impact would be detrimental to the efforts that have and are being made to make the existing area more attractive."

Nicola Ryan-Raine
"I object to the Covanta EfW plant proposal for the following reasons:- 1. Air Emissions from the stack a) no evidence that EfW plant filter system is capable of capturing nanoparticles most harmful to human health b) contamination of local agricultural land through combination of particles with precipitation falling onto the land c) contamination of food chain through animals consuming emissions whilst grazing d) no evidence that Environmental Agency has the capability to enforce so called ‘acceptable’ levels of emissions from plant 2. Increased Traffic and Transport Problems a) negative potential impacts of increased and displaced traffic and of HGVs’- in particular those travelling through surrounding villages and towns 3. Impact of Noise and Light a) 24hr a day noise and light pollution in a uniquely quiet and undisturbed area 4. Geography of the Marston Vale a) the natural valley will mean more concentration of emissions b) the area is a flood risk area creating a higher risk of metals leaching into - and contaminating - surrounding soils and groundwater 5. Location of plant in the heart of a Community Forest and adjacent to The Marston Vale Country Park a) the Community Forest was set up to regenerate the local environment following years of clay extraction b) impact on the adjacent Marston Vale County Park – home to important wetland habitats and rare species - in terms of light, noise and air emissions 6. Visual impact on the landscape a) proposed size would dominate the rural landscape and will be exaggerated by the plume 8. Impact on local economics and tourism a) very few permanent jobs to be created b) negative effect on tourism for the whole area c) should the proposed EfW plant go ahead the future of Rookery Pit is very likely to be further industrialised with ‘related’ industries 7. Need for a large scale EfW in Bedfordshire a) Bedfordshire’s re-cycling record is good (and can only get better) – meaning less waste to manage b) the catchment area for the proposed plant is huge. Bedfordshire should have the right to deal with it’s own waste not everybody else’s c) large scale EfW plants need a continual large source of waste to be financial viable Authorities are becoming more effective at re-cycling waste – therefore more waste will be needed from a wider catchment area than currently proposed 8. Incineration as a sustainable waste management solution a) incineration of waste is old technology – the USA has not built a new one since 1995 b) most ecological organisations agree that incineration is the worst approach to waste management for the environment c) lack of incentive to re-use and re-cycle d) only reduces waste by ¾ - still ¼ waste left which is now toxic waste and must be landfilled e) extremely inefficient way to generate electricity given that the energy requirements to re- manufacture an object is much higher than to re-use or re-cycle that object - plus all the energy wasted getting trash to the site and empty trucks back 9. Covanta as an operator of proposed EfW plant a) Covanta (Ogden/Ogden Martin) has been operating EfW plants since 1986. During this time Covanta has been repeatedly fined over toxic emissions and other violations in the US. Fines appear to be no deterrent to ensuring they are operating within so called ‘acceptable’ levels – earlier this year one Covanta plant in the US was closed down after it was found that toxic emissions were at levels twice the permitted amount b) Covanta has been negligent in their consultation process - through talking to residents from nearby villages/towns a staggering amount of them had not heard of the proposal let alone how to comment on it c) Covanta has misrepresented the electricity output of the plant – claiming that it will “generate enough electricity to meet the needs of 82,500 homes”. Based on Covanta’s figures of 55MW net output a year – this would only run a 100W light bulb in each of the 82,500 homes for just over 6 ½ hours a year."

Colin Raine
"I object to the Covanta EfW plant proposal for the following reasons:- 1. Air Emissions from the stack a) no evidence that EfW plant filter system is capable of capturing nanoparticles most harmful to human health b) contamination of local agricultural land through combination of particles with precipitation falling onto the land c) contamination of food chain through animals consuming emissions whilst grazing d) no evidence that Environmental Agency has the capability to enforce so called ‘acceptable’ levels of emissions from plant 2. Increased Traffic and Transport Problems a) negative potential impacts of increased and displaced traffic and of HGVs’- in particular those travelling through surrounding villages and towns 3. Impact of Noise and Light a) 24hr a day noise and light pollution in a uniquely quiet and undisturbed area 4. Geography of the Marston Vale a) the natural valley will mean more concentration of emissions b) the area is a flood risk area creating a higher risk of metals leaching into - and contaminating - surrounding soils and groundwater 5. Location of plant in the heart of a Community Forest and adjacent to The Marston Vale Country Park a) the Community Forest was set up to regenerate the local environment following years of clay extraction b) impact on the adjacent Marston Vale County Park – home to important wetland habitats and rare species - in terms of light, noise and air emissions 6. Visual impact on the landscape a) proposed size would dominate the rural landscape and will be exaggerated by the plume 8. Impact on local economics and tourism a) very few permanent jobs to be created b) negative effect on tourism for the whole area c) should the proposed EfW plant go ahead the future of Rookery Pit is very likely to be further industrialised with ‘related’ industries 7. Need for a large scale EfW in Bedfordshire a) Bedfordshire’s re-cycling record is good (and can only get better) – meaning less waste to manage b) the catchment area for the proposed plant is huge. Bedfordshire should have the right to deal with it’s own waste not everybody else’s c) large scale EfW plants need a continual large source of waste to be financial viable Authorities are becoming more effective at re-cycling waste – therefore more waste will be needed from a wider catchment area than currently proposed 8. Incineration as a sustainable waste management solution a) incineration of waste is old technology – the USA has not built a new one since 1995 b) most ecological organisations agree that incineration is the worst approach to waste management for the environment c) lack of incentive to re-use and re-cycle d) only reduces waste by ¾ - still ¼ waste left which is now toxic waste and must be landfilled e) extremely inefficient way to generate electricity given that the energy requirements to re- manufacture an object is much higher than to re-use or re-cycle that object - plus all the energy wasted getting trash to the site and empty trucks back 9. Covanta as an operator of proposed EfW plant a) Covanta (Ogden/Ogden Martin) has been operating EfW plants since 1986. During this time Covanta has been repeatedly fined over toxic emissions and other violations in the US. Fines appear to be no deterrent to ensuring they are operating within so called ‘acceptable’ levels – earlier this year one Covanta plant in the US was closed down after it was found that toxic emissions were at levels twice the permitted amount b) Covanta has been negligent in their consultation process - through talking to residents from nearby villages/towns a staggering amount of them had not heard of the proposal let alone how to comment on it c) Covanta has misrepresented the electricity output of the plant – claiming that it will “generate enough electricity to meet the needs of 82,500 homes”. Based on Covanta’s figures of 55MW net output a year – this would only run a 100W light bulb in each of the 82,500 homes for just over 6 ½ hours a year."

A Knell
"Concerns on the enviromental impact"

P.M.I.Curwen
"Covanta is proposing an oversized facility for its own commercial benefit, which is clearly to the detriment of the local community and Central Bedford County. Covanta already profitably operates a much smaller plant on the Isle of Man, which processes 60,000 tonnes per annum - approximately 10% of the proposed capacity of Rookery South. Therefore the proposed plant does not have to process 585,000 tonnes per annum to be economically viable. The waste catchment area is excessively large resulting in the facility being substantially larger than required for Central Bedford’s needs. Transporting waste up to 75miles from neighbouring counties has a large negative environmental impact as well as being an inefficient use of transport resources. The environmental costs Vs benefits for such a large plant have not been proven by Covanta. Covanta has made only limited efforts to reduce the bulk of it’s proposed facility. It has ruled out lowering the floor level of the facility and therefore it’s bulk on cost grounds although no figures are given. Paragraph 5.3.7&8 of Covant’s Design & Access Statement indicates that lowering the floor of the facility would be technically feasible although would add cost. The local community should not be blighted so as to improve Covanta’s profitability. The bulk of the proposed building has a severely detrimental effect on views from the elevated ground around the site particularly from Ampthill Park, Ampthill Park House, and Houghton House. The proposed landscape screening is largely ineffectual and planted on low bunds. Lowering the proposed floor level of the facility and using the resultant spoil for larger bunds would significantly reduce the overall bulk."

P.M.I.Curwen on behalf of Sir Timothy & Lady Clifford
"Covanta is proposing an oversized facility for its own commercial benefit, which is clearly to the detriment of the local community and Central Bedford County. Covanta already profitably operates a much smaller plant on the Isle of Man, which processes 60,000 tonnes per annum - approximately 10% of the proposed capacity of Rookery South. Therefore the proposed plant does not have to process 585,000 tonnes per annum to be economically viable. The waste catchment area is excessively large resulting in the facility being substantially larger than required for Central Bedford’s needs. Transporting waste up to 75miles from neighbouring counties has a large negative environmental impact as well as being an inefficient use of transport resources. The environmental costs Vs benefits for such a large plant have not been proven by Covanta. Covanta has made only limited efforts to reduce the bulk of it’s proposed facility. It has ruled out lowering the floor level of the facility and therefore it’s bulk on cost grounds although no figures are given. Paragraph 5.3.7&8 of Covant’s Design & Access Statement indicates that lowering the floor of the facility would be technically feasible although would add cost. The local community should not be blighted so as to improve Covanta’s profitability. The bulk of the proposed building has a severely detrimental effect on views from the elevated ground around the site particularly from Ampthill Park, Ampthill Park House, and Houghton House. The proposed landscape screening is largely ineffectual and planted on low bunds. Lowering the proposed floor level of the facility and using the resultant spoil for larger bunds would significantly reduce the overall bulk."

Antony Mould on behalf of Natural England
"In summary Natural England has no objection to the proposals for the following reasons: • There are no European sites or nationally designated landscapes located within the vicinity of the proposals that could be significantly affected. • Based on the air quality assessment we are satisfied that the proposals are unlikely to have a significant impact on any Sites of Special Scientific Interest. • The majority of ecological impacts associated with Rookery South Pit are already being mitigated through the associated LLRS scheme at the site. However, based on the information submitted, we have the following comments to make: (1) Ecology Chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement (ES) identifies the site-based ecological impacts resulting from construction activities and identifies the measures required to mitigate these impacts (ecologically sensitive landscaping and lighting schemes, provision of brown roofs/green wall, compliance with Construction Code of Practice and development of a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan). While Natural England is broadly satisfied with the measures outlined, we would highlight the importance of ensuring that any management plan developed is complementary to the existing ecological mitigation/management requirements for Rookery Pit resulting from the LLRS. The ES also identifies the potential for significant operational effects on important aquatic interest features (great crested newts and stoneworts) at Rookery Pit County Wildlife Site (CWS) resulting from increased nitrogen deposition. To mitigate these effects, paragraphs 12.7.57 and 12.7.64 identify the need for ongoing management of waterbodies to ensure the setback of vegetation succession. While Natural England is generally satisfied with this proposal, such management should be ensured across all relevant waterbodies associated with Rookery Pit CWS (including the receptor site at Stewartby Way) for the entire operational life of the development. (2) Landscape We note the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been undertaken in accordance with existing best practice guidelines and with reference to the Mid Bedfordshire District Landscape Character Assessment. Chapter 10 of the ES identifies that mitigation of landscape and visual impacts has been addressed from an early stage through the design process, and includes the provision of brown roofs/green wall, appropriate screening through on-site planting, and the potential for off-site planting within the Forest of Marston Vale Country Park. However, we note that, even taking account of this mitigation the ES concludes the following: • Impacts on landscape character at the local scale will be moderate in the short term • Visual impacts will be severe/major and moderate/major for some short-distance and middle-distance views respectively, even at year 10. These residual impacts should be recognised and taken into account when determining the application. (3) Green Infrastructure and Rights of Way Natural England supports the proposals for improving green infrastructure and rights of way within the local area, which have been identified with reference to the Mid Bedfordshire Green Infrastructure Plan. Natural England would strongly encourage the provision of additional off-site planting in support of the aims of the Forest of Marston Vale as part of the development, especially given that residual landscape and visual impacts have been identified."

Sian Johnston
"I am concerned about: Pollution from the plant and its effects on health Increased traffic volume resulting from operation of the plant Taking waste from many sources, not just locally. As we recycle more, how will local authorities fulfil their contracts to supply a specified volume of waste. Also, how will Covanta dispose of waste (25% of input volume) from their plant. Covanta has been fined for excessive pollution already. Impact on the landscape Impact on local tourism - Community Forest, Center Parks development, Nirah development, Woburn, etc. Light and noise pollution due to continuous operation"

Stuart Scott on behalf of Mr Micheal Barnes
"The local road infrastructure is already very busy and will not cope with the number of deliceries expected - even with the new improvements. All local house prices will be effected and some properties could be rendered almost worthless Bedfordshire will become a dumping ground for other counties when we have enough issues with our own waste. The county is working hard to improve it's image as a potential tourist spot with the long term investment from Woburn Safari Park, the proposed Nira project and the huge investment from Center Parcs - This would be a blight on the landscape and would make a mockery of all these efforts."

rolf taggart
"I strongly object to the application from Covanta to build a massive waste incinerator at Rookery South Pit in Stewartbt, Bedfordshire. It will be totally detrimental to the area because of:- 1. The long term health implications from chimney emissions 2. Huge increase in traffic volumes along local roads 3. Severe lioght pollution and the enormous size of the building complex 4. Threat to existing wildlife habitats and country parks The Marston Vale is a rural community and has been chosen as an area for a community forest where many thousands trees have been planted to enhance the area. This proposed plant would totally destroy the feeling of the whole area."

Colin Tasker
"Having read all the relevant Covanta literature I remain totally opposed to their proposal which seems to boil down to, the larger the facility the the greater the economies of scale, resulting in larger Covanta's profits. One assumes that if this application is turned down they will have less interest in a facility just to deal with the rubbish of Bedfordshire. Their application appears to ride roughshod over and put a rosy glow on:- 1) The total disruption to the local community caused by the continual lorry traffic bringing in waste from all over the south east. 2) The environmental effects on the local area and the development of wild life in the developing Marston Vale area. 3) The effect on the health of the residents in the local area. 4) The appalling effect on the local landscape in a particularly beautiful area of the English countryside by the introduction of a huge industrial chimney that will be obvious for miles around. Bedfordshire has spent the last 30 years removing the industrial blight of the old brick chimneys only for this attempt to build another, more dangerous, blot on the landscape."

Julie Summerfield Parish Clerk on behalf of Bow Brickhill Parish Council
"Bow Brickhill Parish is within the Milton Keynes Authority Area, located approximatly 8 miles from the proposed site in Stewartby and therefore the Parish Concil feel that the proposals to construct and operate a resource recovery facility would be an issue that we would like to have the opportunity to comment on further as these plans develop. Due to our proximity to the site we hold concerns relating to the omissions, traffic and visual impact of the Stewartby site. Emmissions, the concern is that although emmissions are controlled in such facilities, the health effects of the micro-particles emmitted are as yet unknown. There is also always the possibility of systems failures which might lead to exceptional emmissions. Emmissions could potentially affect the densely populated areas of Milton Keynes and Bedford depending on the wind direction. Traffic, this is a big concern for Bow Brickhill. As this plant is destined to take waste from Bucks as well as Beds it is likely that lorries bearing waste will end up coming through our village on the way to the plant. The village is already concerned about heavy traffic and any addition to this would be unacceptable. Visual impact, the planned plant will be very large and in a prominent position in the landscape. This will have a deleterious affect on the whole locality. We awaite to hear from you in due course."

Michael Hennessy
"I have family living close by and therefore have serious concerns regarding the effect of airborne emissions from the proposed incinerator stack on their health. There is no control over these toxic airborne pollutants, they cannot be controlled effectively and simply travel on the wind or in the absence of wind simply settle in the immediate vicinity. I understand that European legislation does not regulate the release of particles as small as those produced by incinerators. This is extremely unfortunate as it is these which pose the greatest hazard to human health, and not just locally as these ‘nano-particles’ can travel great distances. I am also concerned about reports that Covanta have been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the U.S.A. This does nothing to reassure me that the company is being honest about its claims or has any regard for the public who live in the vicinity of the proposed incinerator."

Stephen Balint
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects – drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; (A) Air Emissions The cumulative, long term impact on the environment in general, and especially the impact on the health of the local (and not so local) population. There is also particular concern about the effects on nano particles given the lack of epidemiological study. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. The effective imposition of a change of character of environment and community for those who wish to preserve their exiting rural nature. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. The control of ash dust will be problematic given the prevailing wind strengths and directions. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact The sheer size of the facility, stack, and plume will significantly impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the facility itself in an otherwise tranquil setting with low background noise. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management The facility will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. More fundamentally, a facility of this capacity ignores the ‘proximity principle’, one of the core principles of which, is that no community should bear the environmental cost of another. It is clear that financial concerns related to economies of scale have overridden this principle in this case. Our local waste management project, BEaR, conforms to this principle. (G) Socio-Economic The electricity generating capacity of the facility in terms of average domestic consumption appears exaggerated. The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the facility for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. The facility will have a negligible positive effect on overall employment patterns, indeed it could be argued that there will be an overall negative effect as compared to current aspirations regarding the area. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts The traffic volume, arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. More generally, there are current health, efficiency, and practicality concerns, regarding the incineration approach to waste as a philosophy. It would be more appropriate, environmentally and financially efficient, to adopt an approach based on the ‘zero waste’ paradigm as an alternative to this facility. For these reasons I conclude this proposal is in the first place, the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area, and further, is in the proposed in the wrong location. I can if necessary provide further detailed argument."

Susan Clark on behalf of Joint Parish and Town Council response, with 25 signatories, a full list of which are provided with the representation below.
"Representation from the following Town and Parish Council signatories: Cranfield PC, Brogborough PC, Aspley Guise PC, Kempston TC, Wootton TC, Houghton Regis TC, Marston Moretaine PC, Flitwick TC, Southill PC, Hockliffe PC, Toddington PC, Ampthill TC, Lidlington PC, Aspley Heath PC, Hulcote & Salford PC, Shefford TC, Stewartby PC, Ridgmont PC, Husborne Crawley PC, Millbrook Parish Meeting, Woburn PC, Woburn Sands TC, Harlington PC, Leighton and Linslade Town Council. We, the 23 Parish and Town Councils listed above, object to the proposal, as set out below. We intend to explore these issues in more detail in a further written submission and at the examination stage. 1. Transport and Traffic The impact of the increased HGV traffic generated by the site will be felt over a much wider area than covered by Covanta’s traffic assessment, determined by the origin of the waste. There is no assessment, nor proposed mitigation provided beyond the A421. Increased congestion on other major routes and junctions needs to be addressed. The negative potential impacts of increased and displaced traffic and of HGVs in particular travelling through our villages and towns as a consequence of the facility has not been adequately considered. The long proposed operating and delivery hours are likely to compound the negative traffic impact on communities. 2. Landscape and Visual Impact There are no effective measures outlined that would mitigate against the negative impact the massive size and height of the proposed facility will have on the visual quality of the landscape, in what is a rural setting, in terms of both near and far reaching views and on enjoyment of local amenities. The visual impact will be exaggerated by the plume. 3. Socio-Economic Impact We do not believe the proposed facility will enhance the local economy. It is doubtful that the permanent jobs proposed, or the community benefits outlined, will offset the negative impact the facility will have on socio-economic activities in the area. We are also concerned the facility will attract additional industrial activity, further altering the rural character of the Vale. 4. Air Emissions There is widespread anxiety in the local community about the emissions that would be generated. These concerns are re-enforced by Covanta’s apparent poor safety record in the USA. The potential effect of temperature inversions on the safe dispersal of emissions has not been adequately considered. The health statement, and proposals for passive monitoring do not give adequate reassurance. 5. Light Pollution The potential for light pollution is not adequately addressed by the proposed mitigation. 6. Noise Noise disturbance in general, and disturbance caused by irregular noise from the facility and traffic associated with it has the potential for significant adverse impact on health and quality of life, and has not been adequately considered. Further measures should be identified to minimise noise impact. 7. Flood Risk The flood mitigation measures proposed would not effectively mitigate the flood risk. 8. Need We do not accept that “national need” justifies a facility of this size in this location. We oppose the importation of large quantities of waste into Bedfordshire, which will have negative impacts in an area of regeneration, following the end of brick making and large scale landfill. This site has been identified as suitable for a local, not national facility. 9.Future Changes to Draft National Policy Statements We reserve the right to raise any additional issues to those outlined above that may arise from any future amendments to the draft National Policy Statements. 10/01/2011 – Houghton Conquest has been added to the ‘Joint Parish and Town Council response, with 23 signatories’. Relevant correspondence can be found below: ‘At the Parish Council Meeting last night, the Council resolved to join your joint objection initiative to the Covanta proposal. Please could you let us know of any future meetings of this joint initiative, or if there is anything further you would like us to do at this stage. Kind Regards Clerk to Houghton Conquest Parish Council’ 03/03/2011 - Leighton and Linslade Town Council joins joint parish and town council responce."

Sally Balint
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects – drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; (A) Air Emissions The cumulative, long term impact on the environment in general, and especially the impact on the health of the local (and not so local) population. There is also particular concern about the effects on nano particles given the lack of epidemiological study. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. The effective imposition of a change of character of environment and community for those who wish to preserve their exiting rural nature. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. The control of ash dust will be problematic given the prevailing wind strengths and directions. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact The sheer size of the facility, stack, and plume will significantly impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the facility itself in an otherwise tranquil setting with low background noise. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management The facility will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. More fundamentally, a facility of this capacity ignores the ‘proximity principle’, one of the core principles of which, is that no community should bear the environmental cost of another. It is clear that financial concerns related to economies of scale have overridden this principle in this case. Our local waste management project, BEaR, conforms to this principle. (G) Socio-Economic The electricity generating capacity of the facility in terms of average domestic consumption appears exaggerated. The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the facility for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. The facility will have a negligible positive effect on overall employment patterns, indeed it could be argued that there will be an overall negative effect as compared to current aspirations regarding the area. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts The traffic volume, arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. More generally, there are current health, efficiency, and practicality concerns, regarding the incineration approach to waste as a philosophy. It would be more appropriate, environmentally and financially efficient, to adopt an approach based on the ‘zero waste’ paradigm as an alternative to this facility. For these reasons I conclude this proposal is in the first place, the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area, and further, is in the proposed in the wrong location. I can if necessary provide further detailed argument."

Norma Moore
"After reading on line the proposals by Covanta for planning permission to erect an incinerator at Stewartby for their Energy From Waste project I am very concerned that this company has many of these projects either in force or at proposal stage around the UK and I think this has got to be stopped. Already they have had massive fines in America for emitting cancer causing chemicals at similar plants. This is only one of the killers that could be produced and others would possibly be respiratory illnesses from poisons in the air. Another concern is toxic ash. Such a construction will be unsightly and dangerous in such a lovely place. I often visit the area to enjoy the wildlife, beauty and watersports. We all understand that waste disposal is a major problem but we should be looking at other was of dealing with it as putting lives and health at risk is not the way forward. I would obviously be very concerned about the quality of the air that I would be subjected to which would make me think again about visiting the area. I conclude by saying NO to this project. Find another way!!!"

Steve Sawford
"I object to the Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station on the following grounds. I often visit Stewartby WSC as a visiting sailor, and this plant will effect my sailing. 1. The clubs camping area is close to the plant and roadway, Noise from lorries and the plant will effect this. 2. I am concearned that chemicals will be washed into the water courses, and contaminate the lake which we sail in. 3. light polution 4. increased traffic made by the site, and the problems of getting in and out of the clubs entrance whilst towing trailers 5. increased noise form delivery lorries. 6. Size of the site on the landscape, obscuring views to and from the lake. 7. Smoke, steam and mist emmitted from the chiminey, will sink down onto the lake on winter days."

ian freeman
"Coventa's on traffic calculations cannot be accommodated by the transport infrastructure in the area. The air pollution that emissions from the plant will bring Conventa have a terrible track record of polluting the local environments they operate in. The impact on quality of life of residence in the area caused by the waste lorries it is not congruous with the environmental aspect of the local area. The impact on local the Forest of Marston Vale and local wildlife concerns me greatly. The eyesore that this proposed Coventa Chimney stack will bring."

John Ette on behalf of English Heritage
"In April 2010 English Heritage made a formal response to Covanta as part of the Section 42 Consultation. In that response we noted concerns over the potential impact of the plant on a number of heritage assets that needed to be examined in detail in the Environmental Impact Assessment that was to be prepared in support of the application. We have now had the opportunity to examine the EIA and wish to make representations concerning the following: Methodology and the use of matrices • Some regard matrices as providing a quasi-scientific process to assessing impact, the outcome of which is beyond dispute. In fact the assessment of impact on setting is a value/professional judgement and matrices are only a tool that provides a degree of consistency to this process. • Many commentators do not find the use of matrices helpful in assessing harm and English Heritage’s draft setting guidance does not endorse their use. In our experience such an approach can result in the true impact of a structure not being correctly evaluated. • We take issue with some of the values attributed within a number of the matrices and believe that this has significantly under-assessed the true impact of the RRF plant on a number of important heritage assets. Impact on Ampthill Park House • Setting contributes positively to the historical and aesthetic values of this house. • We consider the house to have a higher than moderate sensitivity to impacts in its setting, contrary to the assessment in the EIA. • We consider the proximity of the plant, its scale, and location within principle view from the house would have a significant impact on the setting of the house. Impact on Houghton House • We agree that the house’s setting is highly sensitive. • We consider the proximity of the plant, its scale, and location within views from the house would have a significant impact on the setting of the house. Impact on Ampthill Castle, Great Park and Conservation Area • The setting of all these assets is highly sensitive (although the EIA suggests that Amptill Castle is only of moderate sensitivity). • We consider the proximity of the plant, its scale and location within views from the vicinity of St Katherine’s Cross and the Castle will result in a significant impact on the setting of these assets. Impact on Millbrook Conservation Area • In our opinion the views out north from Millbrook are significant to the overall character and appearance of this part of the conservation area. • We consider the plant will have significant impact on the setting of the Conservation Area Conclusion • The development would cause substantial harm to the setting of Houghton House, Ampthill Park House, Ampthill Castle and Great Park and harm to the setting of the Ampthill and Millbrook Conservation Areas. • PPS 5 Policy HE9.1 states that substantial harm to scheduled monuments and grade I and II* buildings should be wholly exceptional."

Amanda Rowe
"Pollution Traffic Light and noise Visibility House prices Landfill still needed"

steven noble
"I am concerned about the possible health risks that may be associated with the development. My son has asthma and I have seen a significant decline in the frequency of his attacks since the closure of the Stewartby brickworks in 2008. It appears that the output from the plant may affect him once again. I cannot see how local roads can cope with the extra vehicle movements. Although the opening of the new section of A421 is now imminent, the last part of the journey to the plant will be on existing local roads and even now they are in a poor state of repair yet alone having to deal with many extra heavy vehicle movements per day. There doesnt seem to be any actual plus points for the development as far local people are concerned. It will have a visual impact, it will affect health and impact on travel within the area also."

R.G.Tarron on behalf of Ramblers Association Bedfordshire Area
"The Bedfordshire Area of the Rambler is concerned with Rights of Way matters in Bedfordshire. We feel that we can only comment on these matters and therefore neither support or oppose the application. In the event that permission is given for the facility then we would strongly suggest that the following conditions with respect to the Rights of Way on the site (and surrounding area) are made. 1) Although we are pleased with the inclusion of new footpaths and cycleways on the site, we regret that the footbridge over the Marston Vale Railway Line is only a possibility. We consider that this bridge is essential to give meaningful access to the site. With entrance from the Millennium Park the bridge will provide easy access to the new footpath network. Without it access is limited and hence usage of the new paths will be limited. We strongly suggest that on giving permission for the facility the condition of erecting this footbridge is made. In addition the applicant should ensure that the new footpaths connect to the existing Rights of Way network to the north and east of the site. It should be noted that this footpath connection would replace the paths on the existing Definitive Map which go through the applicant's site. 2) The condition that these paths paths created are 'Dedicated Rights of Way' (as opposed to permissive paths) should be made."

Alex Harrison on behalf of Milton Keynes Council
"Milton Keynes Council wishes to register as an interested party in this application process. The Project is intended to serve the residual waste management needs of the Bedfordshire and Luton sub region but it is also capable of servicing a wider area accepting residual waste from a total of nine administrative areas, one of which is Milton Keynes as well as the rest of Buckinghamshire and as far south as Windsor and Maidenhead. After making an initial consideration of the application documents the Council wishes to make initial representation on a number of relevant issues and these are bullet pointed below. At this point the issues raised have not been assessed given the timeframe and following this registration the Council will make an assessment of the issues and report the conclusions and recommendations to the Development Control Committee before providing the IPC with detailed further written representations at a later date. • Impact of traffic flows on the Milton Keynes Highway Network – The Transport Assessment states that the facility is predicted to have a maximum throughput of 768 movements a day. The A421 is proposed as a principal route for HGVs. The Council considers the increased usage of this road as an issue and will therefore assess the impact of the proposed vehicle movements. • Environmental Impact from operation – The proposal includes a stack that has a highest point of 136 metres. Given the proximity of the site to the Milton Keynes Authority Area the Council considers this impact valid and will therefore carry out a detailed assessment of the emissions impact from processes proposed as well as noise impact from vehicles and operation of the plant of the proposal on the Milton Keynes area. • Visual Impact – The proposal will be a prominent addition in the landscape and the Council will assess this impact from prominent areas within the Authority Area. • Impact on the Functioning of Bletchley Landfill – The proposal could have implications on the waste policy for Milton Keynes in terms of the longevity of Bletchley Landfill which has permission until 2022. This is a localised but relevant issue given the waste catchment area and the Council will assess the need for the facility in light of the needs assessment and provide its views regarding this impact. • Waterway Link - The Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway will provide a canal between the main UK network and the Fens Waterways. Outline planning permission for the link has recently been renewed and the proposal could affect this and no information regarding this has been submitted by the applicants. The safeguarding of the route forms part of the Local Plan saved policy and the Core Strategy and therefore this is a relevant but unaddressed issue and the Council requests an assessment taking account of this so that it is able to consider the impact. Milton Keynes Council therefore raises 5 issues over this application which will be the subject of further written representations at a later date."

KAREN BLOODWORTH
"I live within 1.5miles of this proposed developement and I object on the following basis: Pollution Traffic Light and Noise visibility Property values Landfill Minimum life of the incinerator would be 25 years"

Chris Thomas on behalf of Muriel Stanbridge
"Objections include toxic pollution, traffic pollution, light pollution, health issues, lack of clarity around what Covanta will be emitting from chimney. Also grave concerns about the flouting of emission laws in USA, particularly Dioxins, by Covanta and also its Health & Saftey Record."

Cyril Waller
"I object to the Covanta application on the following grounds: 1 Pollution = light, noise, vehicular and air. 2 Hugely detrimental effect on a major sports facility at Stewartby Watersports Club if the compulsory purchase order is allowed. Other sport, social and community facilities will be adversely affected. 3 The improvement in quality of life which has been seen in recent years in the Marston Vale and the surrounding area will be reversed. 4 Concerns regarding reports and instances of prosecution of Covanta in USA as a result of emmission of dioxin. 5 Waste products: storage and removal. 6 Importation of waste from other areas. 7 Importation of commercial and industrial waste."

JEFFREY C ROLFE
"The building of such a large construction will have an adverse effect on my health and recreational pleasures sailing at the adjacent sailing club. The air quality will be degraded by emission from the EfW stack and the heavy increase in transportation pollution from the lorries bringing waste to the site. Dust,Odour smoke and air pollution will have an effect on my sailing boat which is kept at the sailing club Wildlife will be will also be compromised The size of the unit will mean very large quantities of waste from outside bedfordshire will brought in on an increasing scale to make the plant more viable and profitable to the detriment of the area I live in Bedford"

Philip Bentley on behalf of Hertsmere Borough Council
"Hertsmere Borough Council wishes to make representations in respect of reference number EN10011. These will be forwarded to the Infrastructure Planning Commission by post and concern the following main issues: - Impact on amenity and the environment. - The principle of the proposal and whether it would be appropriate for waste from Hertsmere to be transported to the subject site to be processed."

Hayley Bloodworth
"I live 1.5 miles away from the proposed development and object for the following reasons: - Pollution. - Traffic. - Light and noise. - Visibility. - House prices. - Landfill. - The incinerator is planned for a minimum life of 25 years."

Adam Jellis
"The following points render the Covanta proposal to be the wrong solution in the wrong location for dealing waste disposal in Bedfordshire: Air Emissions I have serious concerns about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications including the impact of toxic waste from fly ash, dioxins and nanoparticals. The impact particular by dioxins to unborn fetal development . I am concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. In the sky above the Marston Vale there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion â?" on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. When inversion is not occurring the prevailing wind is south westerly. There is serious concern that the proposal will cause a cumulative impact over the 30 year + life cycle of the plant either within the Marston Vale and/or Bedford and Kempston Biodiversity and Geological Conservation To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park â?" a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale â?" would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South.. An oversize Energy from Waste plant will fundamentally undermine that purpose. The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life. The Covanta proposal will threat this existence. The Covanta proposal will be a retrograde step ecologically and would ultimately lead to the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. The site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. Landscape and Visual Impact The sheer size of the Covanta plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and will materially impair the views from the Vale to the surrounding Greensand Ridge and the panoramic views from the ridge across the entire Vale, especially those seen from Ampthill Park and Cranfield The sheer size of the building will dominate the skyline â?" most of which will be visible above the existing edge of Rookery Pit. The buildings within the site will abut the footpaths of the Country Park. The Covanta Rookery Pit stack will be higher than the long disused brickworks chimneys. The plume will accentuate the stack visibility Noise There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGVâ?Ts and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. Noise has only been considered in terms of â?~averageâ?T levels so no adequate account been taken of intermittent noise such as that from rattling of empty HGVâ?Ts which lead to huge disturbance Local and Regional Waste Management The EfW will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. Central Bedfordshire has a excellent record in recycling waste, enforcing a incinerator plant on the region to dispose of rubbish from outside the county (Buckinghamshire etc) would wrongly penalise the great efforts the local people of Bedfordshire have made and discourage recycling. The Covanta proposal will override attempts to deal with waste locally. A fundamental question is whether there should be permission for one Local Authority to discharge its responsibility for waste management by entering into an agreement with a private contractor to build a plant for the sole management of that Authorityâ?Ts waste in another Local Authorityâ?Ts area. Socio-Economic The project proposes to export electricity serving the energy needs of 82,500 homes, broadly equivalent to the housing energy needs of Bedford and the Marston Vale. It has never been explained how residents will directly benefit from this green electricity and how this figure of 82,500 is arrived at. . It appears the construction of the site utilizing 300+ jobs will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area which will leave when construction is finished. Of the remaining 60-70 jobs that have been stated this will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns. The recycling of waste as a alternative and all the ancillary industries would create greater jobs. There also can be no guarantee that the jobs, ongoing or in consideration, will be offered to local people. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste I cannot envisage an incinerator becoming a popular tourist destination, impacting any tourism in the local area. Traffic and Transport Impacts The traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network and the traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. Significant vehicle movements to and from the site â?" arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week on Bank Holiday weekends will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community The new A421 was designed to cope with existing traffic problems and some elements of growth in Bedford Borough. The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road. The transportation of upwards of 585,000 tonnes of rubbish per year will take place along the de-trunked old A421. The waste to be is to be transported using HGVâ?Ts and many of which will use the new M1 Junction 13. Evidence submitted by the Highways Agency during the Public Inquiry into the duelling of the A421 from Bedford to J13 indicated that the new junction layout would at peak times have just sufficient capacity to handle the anticipated peak traffic flows, excluding the projected traffic from the Covanta site. Further the adequate functioning of the new J13 is dependent on the further duelling of the A421 from J13 to Milton Keynes and funding for this future project must now be in doubt given needed cutbacks in public spending. The impact of increased traffic from the proposed project through J13 could significantly increase congestion at the junction at peak times which would in turn give rise to increased traffic flows through neighbouring villages and congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes."

geoffrey david sellwood
"I am opposed to the construction of an incinerator and chimney in the village of Stewartby. My reasons are that myself,my wife,both my children and their 4 children spend much of our time SAILING at SWSC,WALKING around the lake and Marston Vale wildlife park and picnicking. The tall chimney proposed would spoil the look of the area locally and from miles around. The local inhabitants have been waiting for years to see all the brickwork's chimneys disappear in order to enjoy the views without their ugly presence.One of my daughters ONLY moved nearby because she was advised that all the chimneys will eventually disappear.She and her husband are now very worried about this new building proposal.This chimney would detrimentally affect the windflow on our sailing lake .It would spoil the sailing with wind coming from the predominantly southerly direction.It would create a hole in the wind as one sailed down and across the lake,Making it dangerous in high winds. I am opposed to the continual delivery of waste by numerous heavy vehicles.The Marston parkland/bird sanctuary is a recreational area where people come for therapy after a manic working week they will not want to listen to the noise of truck engines all day long and see smoke continuosly billowing from a chimney.We will all be concerned as to what dust we will all be breathing and damaging our health. I beg the powers that be to reject this proposal."

stephen balint
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects – drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; (A) Air Emissions The cumulative, long term impact on the environment in general, and especially the impact on the health of the local (and not so local) population. There is also particular concern about the effects on nano particles given the lack of epidemiological study. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. The effective imposition of a change of character of environment and community for those who wish to preserve their exiting rural nature. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. The control of ash dust will be problematic given the prevailing wind strengths and directions. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact The sheer size of the facility, stack, and plume will significantly impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the facility itself in an otherwise tranquil setting with low background noise. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management The facility will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. More fundamentally, a facility of this capacity ignores the ‘proximity principle’, one of the core principles of which, is that no community should bear the environmental cost of another. It is clear that financial concerns related to economies of scale have overridden this principle in this case. Our local waste management project, BEaR, conforms to this principle. (G) Socio-Economic The electricity generating capacity of the facility in terms of average domestic consumption appears exaggerated. The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the facility for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. The facility will have a negligible positive effect on overall employment patterns, indeed it could be argued that there will be an overall negative effect as compared to current aspirations regarding the area. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts The traffic volume, arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. More generally, there are current health, efficiency, and practicality concerns, regarding the incineration approach to waste as a philosophy. It would be more appropriate, environmentally and financially efficient, to adopt an approach based on the ‘zero waste’ paradigm as an alternative to this facility. For these reasons I conclude this proposal is in the first place, the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area, and further, is in the proposed in the wrong location. I can if necessary provide further detailed argument."

Colin Clarke on behalf of Buckinghamshire County Council
"Buckinghamshire County Council would like to register as an interested party on the following grounds: - traffic impact on Buckinghamshire - economic impacts"

Jon Balaam on behalf of The Greensand Trust
"The Greensand Trust is an independent environmental charity that works with local communities and landowners to conserve and enhance the distinctive landscape, wildlife and history of Central Bedfordshire, improving access, understanding and enjoyment for the benefit of everyone. The proposed Rookery South Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) will create a significant visual intrusion and will have a negative impact on the landscape of the area, with impacts on the Greensand Ridge a particular concern. The scale of the proposed RRF, and its visible profile above ground level, will have a significant impact, both through form and height, the latter exacerbated by visible plumes. The Greensand Ridge is a popular recreational destination. With its elevation it creates impressive viewpoints for surveying the landscape. Ampthill Great Park (Grade II Listed) is a popular destination with its views across the Marston Vale (200,000 visitors/annum, 41% cited as going there specifically to enjoy the views). The Greensand Ridge Walk, the area’s premier promoted route, takes full advantage of the elevations and views to offer a tranquil and aesthetically varied experience. The light sandy soils of the Ridge mean that it is a popular destination all year round, and people travel from the Luton, Bedford, Milton Keynes and further afield because of these qualities. We feel that these would be compromised by the RRF. The Ampthill Green Infrastructure Plan illustrates the importance of these views and this landscape through the number of ‘important views’ identified from this part of the Greensand Ridge. These qualities have been recognized by the Greensand Ridge Local Action Group, who in 2008 succeeded in securing £3m from the Rural Development Programme for England to deliver a 5 year vision for the Greensand Ridge area to become a “green lung for a part of England that is becoming increasingly urbanized” (A Prospectus for Investment 2009-13: Bedfordshire Greensand Ridge – Greensand Ridge Local Action Group, December 2008). The Greensand Ridge will offer environmentally friendly tourism and leisure opportunities. The challenge will be to ensure that future growth does not have a negative impact on the environmental assets upon which the Greensand Ridge will depend upon for its success. The RRF will have a negative impact, reducing the visual attractiveness both of the Ridge from surrounding areas, and from the Ridge across the Marston Vale. This will undermine the ability of the Ridge to act as a green tourist destination, and therefore will undermine the success of this programme, even when taking into consideration the claimed tourism and job creation potential of the RRF. Whilst we recognize the importance of dealing with our waste in ways which reduce the impact upon the environment, especially compared to the landfill which has historically blighted the area, we feel that the scale and design of the proposed facility is significantly out of keeping with the environment within which it is suggested it is to be located, and that other similar facilities elsewhere have been much better landscaped to reduce such impacts."

Catherine Bye
"This is the wrong application in the wrong place at the wrong time because: Rookery Pit is situated right next to Marston Vale Forest Park, not only a beautiful wetlands and woodlands habitat but a popular family destination. The waste incinerator will be severely detrimental to the area because it is too large and visually intrusive it will increase traffic with resulting noise and emmisions polluting by importing waste from out of the area it will be a source of dangerous air borne pollutants which we know will affect urban areas as far away as Luton and Northampton (pollutants from London Brick reached this far) no research seems to have taken place into the effects of the temperature inversion which exists in the vale the waste trucks leave a trail of unsightly litter in their wake, we know this from the (now thankfully) closed landfill sites Please visit Marston Forest Centre and see for yoruselves the area which is in danger of being permanently spoiled"

Chris Thomas on behalf of Lillian Circuit
"I object to the overall concept of Covanta taking in waste materials from other counties in England, each should make provision for their own waste, Bedfordshire should not be used as the nations dump/recovery site. I object to the health issues which have been sidelined by Covanta. Due to their record of exceeding statutory limits in the USAwith regards to toxins like Dioxin, it is derisory to insist that we should not be worried."

Dr Rob Orford on behalf of Health Protection Agency
"Based on the information that is provided in the application the HPA does not believe that there will be any significant public health impacts associated with the Rookery RRF and its associated developments. There are however, several issues within the Environmental Statement where the HPA would expect the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) to seek further clarification from the developer. These points are outlined below and will be described in more detail when the HPA is asked to submit further comments on the application by the IPC. Note that the points outlined below are not ordered by importance, but reflect the order in which they appear in the detailed registration that will be submitted to the IPC. The HPA reserves the right to add additional points to the detailed registration. 1. Clarify wind direction in paragraphs 8.7.5 and 8.7.6. 2. The HPA recommends that where possible the applicant should use UK standards for Chromium VI emissions (ie, 12.8% hexavalent chromium emissions) and include predicted daily intake calculations and current UK health guidelines. 3. The IPC should ensure that the applicant has used suitable model inputs, such as the effective stack height, to ensure that the dispersion modelling is appropriate. 4. Incinerator bottom ash aggregate is a source of PM2.5 and PM10 and should therefore be subject to a human health risk assessment and treated accordingly. 5. The HPA recommends that odour monitoring and assessment should be undertaken to alleviate the local community’s perception of this risk. 6. The HPA recommends that the IPC seek further explanation from the applicant as to how the ‘nominal throughput’ figure was derived and whether it is a likely scenario when compared to the traffic associated with other similar plants in the UK. 7. The IPC should ensure that the conclusions of the applicant’s air quality assessments are validated, i.e. that emissions will not lead to exceedances of short-term or long-term health-based standards. 8. The HPA recommends that continued community engagement is essential to reduce the burden of the perceived risks to the local community. 9. The IPC should consider seeking guidance from the Environment Agency on the use of the US Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol and Industrial Risk Assessment Program in assessing the risk from furans/dioxins and metals. 11. The HPA recommends that, in the risk assessment of emissions of non-carcinogenic chemicals, data are provided for each pollutant as the average daily background intake, the modelled additional daily intake from construction/operation of the plant, total intake, and the health guideline value for that chemical. 12. For a quantitative assessment of the carcinogenic risk of a genotoxic carcinogen the HPA recommends that the ‘Margin of Exposure’ approach is used. 13 The applicant should state the estimated additional intake of dioxins for a farmer’s child, given that 37% of toddlers exceeded the tolerable daily intake in the 2001 UK Total Diet Study. The HPA’s comments are restricted to public health risks relating to chemicals and radiation, wider health impacts will be considered by other health bodies."

Julie balint
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects – drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; (A) Air Emissions The cumulative, long term impact on the environment in general, and especially the impact on the health of the local (and not so local) population. There is also particular concern about the effects on nano particles given the lack of epidemiological study. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. The effective imposition of a change of character of environment and community for those who wish to preserve their exiting rural nature. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. The control of ash dust will be problematic given the prevailing wind strengths and directions. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact The sheer size of the facility, stack, and plume will significantly impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the facility itself in an otherwise tranquil setting with low background noise. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management The facility will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. More fundamentally, a facility of this capacity ignores the ‘proximity principle’, one of the core principles of which, is that no community should bear the environmental cost of another. It is clear that financial concerns related to economies of scale have overridden this principle in this case. Our local waste management project, BEaR, conforms to this principle. (G) Socio-Economic The electricity generating capacity of the facility in terms of average domestic consumption appears exaggerated. The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the facility for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. The facility will have a negligible positive effect on overall employment patterns, indeed it could be argued that there will be an overall negative effect as compared to current aspirations regarding the area. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts The traffic volume, arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. More generally, there are current health, efficiency, and practicality concerns, regarding the incineration approach to waste as a philosophy. It would be more appropriate, environmentally and financially efficient, to adopt an approach based on the ‘zero waste’ paradigm as an alternative to this facility. For these reasons I conclude this proposal is in the first place, the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area, and further, is in the proposed in the wrong location. I can if necessary provide further detailed argument."

Chris Thomas on behalf of Stephen Circuit
"My main objection is around the complete lack of planning concerning the 900 extra lorry movements per day on the local roads up to Junction 13 of the M1 motorway. Even with the dualling completion on the A421, this will only just cope with the influx of new residents in the local villages, im sure it will fail totally for the Wixham community. No thought has been given to the extra polloution this lorries will create especially when sitting in a constant traffice queue. Oh yes, then theres the health issues........................"

Steve Bradshaw
"Key Points: - Location of proposed facility in relation to the normal prevailing wind; - Lack of answers given by Covanta representatives at exhibitions concerning emissions; - Vehicle movements over the night-time period (25% of all vehicle movements acording to Covanta literature); - Overall number of vehicle movements and the impact on the road network; - The effect on the view from Ampthill Park area, one of the reasons a previous development of this site has been refused; - The effect on the adjacent country park; - lack of use of rail for deliveries to and removal of products from the site."

Mrs M Wright
"Apart from the obvious huge size of the incinerator, which will block all views entering or passing Stewartby or the area from Ampthill, Kempston, Bedford, Wootton, Marston, Cranfield, Brogborough, Houghton Conquest, Lidlington, Millbrook,in fact quite a large area in this part of Bedfordshire. Building it in a valley, which is surrounded by all of the above villages. Why should we have to suffer this. Waste from outside of Bedfordshire has been coming to the area for many years, with all the unpleasantness this entails. None of it being our waste and now when it would seem to be coming to an end, we are expected to undertake the burden once again. Why?, why cannot it not go nearer to the areas it would serve and therefore surely be more economical and the environmental impact lessened. Local tourism which is on the increase will also be affected. The small roads that lead directly to Stewartby and through the village are not suitable for such a large increase in heavy traffic. There has not been sufficient tests or monitoring on such an incinerator to be even considered safe or reliable"

Katharine Banham on behalf of The Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire & Peterborough
"Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application for a Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) at Rookery South. Rookery South has been designed as a County Wildlife Site (CWS) in Bedfordshire to reflect the range of habitats and species which have developed there since the extraction of clay ceased. This includes a good population of Great-Crested Newts (a fully protected species under The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010), as well as notable assemblages of birds and invertebrates. The importance of protecting CWS is recognised in paragraph 9 of Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. The Lower Level Restoration Scheme (LLRS) which has already been agreed for Rookery South will have a significant negative impact on many of the wildlife features that have developed there. We recognise that most of the direct damage will have already been done before construction of an RRF begins, should it be granted planning permission. It is interesting to see the analysis of the likely impacts of aerial pollution from an RRF on the surrounding wildlife sites in the Environmental Statement. Worryingly most of these sites are already receiving amounts of Nitrogen deposition which are way above their critical loads, even if the contribution from a RRF would only be very small in comparison. Where the impact of aerial pollution is likely to have the greatest effect on habitats is on the remaining sections of Rookery Pit CWS. Section 12.7.42 of the Environmental Statement Supplement recognises that there will be an impact on habitats with the site, particularly the alkaline fens and reedbeds. It also states the habitat changes that this will cause would have a negative effect on some of the protected species found there, particularly Great-Crested Newts and Stoneworts (Sections 12.7.113 & 12.7.122). The Environmental Statement suggests that to mitigate these impacts a programme of management work, particularly of the ponds would be conducted. In order that further degradation of the CWS does not occur it is vital that is work is carried out for the lifetime of the RRF. This management should cover all the habitats within Rookery South that will remain after the implementation of the LLRS. The Rookery North and Stewartby Way 2 sites are both to be maintained and enhanced as part of the mitigation scheme from the LLRS. We believe that management of these only lasts for 20 years, however, as the LLRS and the RRF are so closely linked and the impacts of the RRF will be present throughout its lifetime, we recommend that this application should secure the management of both Rookery North and Stewartby Way 2 beyond the 20 year period agreed in the LLRS mitigation. Without ongoing management work these sites would decline, particularly with the added pressure of aerial pollution from the RRF. We hope that our comments are taken into consideration. If you have any queries concerning our response please do not hesitate to contact us."

Lyn Davis on behalf of Aspley Heath Parish Council
"The Parish Council consider that although the Parish of Aspley Heath is not adjacent to the proposed development of Rookery Pit South, Stewartby, the parish is likely to be adversely affected and object to the proposal. A number of concerns are detailed below. This list is by no means exhaustive: 1. As Covanta have indicated, the plant’s catchment area will be all the neighbouring counties. This will result in extensive HGV movements across county borders into Bedfordshire. Such movements will have an adverse effect on all the Bedfordshire village communities in the area, particularly as delivery times will be allowed outside normal working hours including Saturday. Although Covanta have indicated that in the future deliveries could be by rail their proposal does not include any commitment to use this greener and less intrusive method of waste transportation. Such reliance on road deliveries is unacceptable in today’s climate. 2. Although the incinerator stack height is designed to be higher than the nearby Stewartby chimneys any fallout of fumes will impact on the surrounding communities. Whilst the Health Impact Assessment indicates that there is no unacceptable or significant impact on health there are concerns that any failures in control could be health threatening. Any such failure could be exacerbated by poor control of the waste material. 3. The control of waste material to be incinerated relies heavily on a paper trail rather than extensive site inspection (only random inspections proposed), which could result in dangerous and hazardous material being incinerated. This is clearly an outcome that could impact on the health of local communities. 4. As stated by Covanta EfW is only just more desirable than landfill. Also the process produces potentially toxic waste in fly ash which has to leave the site to a hazardous waste storage facility. Movement of such hazardous materials will again be by road across county boundaries."

Lyn Davis on behalf of Ridgmont Parish Council
"Ridgmont Parish Council object to the Covanta proposal and would like to raise their concerns as outlined below. Ridgmont Parish Council intends to explore these issues in more detail in a further written submission at the examination stage. Location Scale and Impact on the Rural Landscape The proposed site is in a rural landscape wholly unsuitable for an industrial development on this scale. The proposed building is huge and will dominate the skyline and landscape, the visual impact being exaggerated by the plume. The scale of the operation running on a 24/7 basis will create a permanent loss of the night sky and negatively impact the Marston Forest country park which is an important local amenity, it will result in the irreversible loss of a uniquely quiet area, important wildlife habitat and the wider rural landscape. We are concerned that approval of this application will encourage further industrialisation of the Marston Vale to the detriment of the rural environment and the residents and is in direct conflict with other plans for the area including the expansion of the Marston Forest and tourism. Traffic and Infrastructure The volume of HGV traffic and long operating and delivery hours of the site will be detrimental to the quality of life for local residents. The upgraded A421 has been designed to cope with the current traffic volume with some element of growth, but does not allow for the hundreds of vehicle movements per day which this site will generate in addition to this element of growth. It is inevitable that there will be incidents that require closure of the A421 and the M1 and the impact on local villages such as Ridgmont of diverted traffic will be immense. To generate the amount of electricity promised the incinerator will require large amounts of waste to be brought in from an increasingly larger area of the country. It is unreasonable to expect the residents of Bedfordshire, who have lived with substantial quantities of other peoples waste for many years, to accept such large amounts of waste. The long operating hours, noise and traffic movements will have a negative impact on the environment and the quality of life of all who live in the area. Emissions The local community are greatly concerned about the emissions that would be generated from the site and the disposal of the hazardous Fly Ash produced by the incinerators. There is anxiety among the community about the hazardous waste being removed off site and being transported through the villages. Equally there is anxiety that Rookery Pit will be granted a license as a hazardous waste landfill site for the disposal of the Fly Ash in which case it will be able to take hazardous waste from other locations, again being transported through the villages. Concerns over emissions are increased by the apparent poor safety record of Covanta in the US."

Christine Dean
"I wish to object to the Rookery South development on the following grounds: citing the waste generator in a valley, where it is known that the vapour from the chimney is likely to 'puddle' in the surrounding area, as shown by the smell from the old brickworks making it so large that it will have to import waste from surrounding counties to be viable overloading the road system with lorries which, if they travel from surrounding counties, will add to the CO2 emissions negating the 'green' credentials of the plant."

Stephen on behalf of Jeannette brown
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects – drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; (A) Air Emissions The cumulative, long term impact on the environment in general, and especially the impact on the health of the local (and not so local) population. There is also particular concern about the effects on nano particles given the lack of epidemiological study. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. The effective imposition of a change of character of environment and community for those who wish to preserve their exiting rural nature. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. The control of ash dust will be problematic given the prevailing wind strengths and directions. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact The sheer size of the facility, stack, and plume will significantly impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the facility itself in an otherwise tranquil setting with low background noise. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management The facility will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. More fundamentally, a facility of this capacity ignores the ‘proximity principle’, one of the core principles of which, is that no community should bear the environmental cost of another. It is clear that financial concerns related to economies of scale have overridden this principle in this case. Our local waste management project, BEaR, conforms to this principle. (G) Socio-Economic The electricity generating capacity of the facility in terms of average domestic consumption appears exaggerated. The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the facility for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. The facility will have a negligible positive effect on overall employment patterns, indeed it could be argued that there will be an overall negative effect as compared to current aspirations regarding the area. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts The traffic volume, arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. More generally, there are current health, efficiency, and practicality concerns, regarding the incineration approach to waste as a philosophy. It would be more appropriate, environmentally and financially efficient, to adopt an approach based on the ‘zero waste’ paradigm as an alternative to this facility. For these reasons I conclude this proposal is in the first place, the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area, and further, is in the proposed in the wrong location. I can if necessary provide further detailed argument."

Michael A Bacon
"The construction of an eyesore waste facility next to a country park in the midst of a rural location in itself is less than intelligent. This however is a minor concern against the background of the extremely negative impact in the following areas: - The facility operators (Covanta) have an extremely bad reputation and have, according to several reports, faced lawsuits in the USA for emission breaches, impact on health of residents etc.. Their approach to meetings with residents in potentially affected areas has, to say the least, been disingenuous with concerns raised being brushed asides as, amongst other things, frivolous scaremongering. - The project will almost certainly be "green negative" Amongst other things there will be serious light pollution, habitat loss for wildlife, noise pollution. More importantly the 18 hour a day, minimum 6 days a week movement of HGVs will create major disruption for the local community (especially against the background of infrastructure which was just not designed for such vehicle movement. Pollution created by HGVs is expected to outweigh any (greatly exaggerated) green benefits driven by generation of green electricity - Other projects which would bring significant job opportunities to the area (e.g. Centre Parks) will be lost as no one in their right minds will want to visit the countryside to view a huge Covanta plant. The net impact on jobs will be negative - The proposal is against the desires of residents of Bedfordshire, Bedfordshire MPs and Bedfordshire planning authorities. NIMBYism can always be cited as a reason for no change but in this proposal there is little upside which is more than offset by significant detriment to the environment, the taxpayers and not just Bedfordshire but the Country (big or little c) as a whole. The only potential beneficiary is Covanta which, as referred to above, already has a very poor reputation which would appear to have led it to look for pastures new (outside the USA) to destroy."

Paul Fox on behalf of Stewartby Water Sports Club Limited
"Stewartby Waters Sports Club (SWSC) requests the IPC consider the adverse impacts of the South Rookery energy infrastructure project set out below drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statements for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) which in our view outweigh the potential benefits of the proposed development: There is no definitive lifespan to the EfW plant – Covanta have advised it will be there beyond the 25-30 year initial expected period of waste contracts to further similar terms for new contracts after that time. During normal operations an additional 356 HGV's (178 in 178 out) and 174 Cars/ LGV's (87 in 87 out) vehicle movements will be generated. The majority of these will be noisy HGV trips that will make peaceful use of SWSC leisure areas (all within a distance of 30m to 100m) impossible. This includes: * The SWSC Club House and Patio * The club event camping area * The club’s Water Ski Launch and Recreational Area It does not appear that the impact of noise of the RRF on SWSC has been assessed as part of the application and hence there is no apparent proposals for how such noise nuisance will be mitigated or abated. Green Lane is a C class road and there appears to be no current plan to upgrade it sufficiently for the increase in HGV traffic. This raises serious concerns for road safety, congestion and noise. Access arrangements from Green Lane into SWSC do not allow for safe movement of boat trailers which are commonly at least six feet wide and slow moving. The hours of operation of the EfW when vehicles will be moving in and out are too long and extend into the weekend. Angling pitches and our sailing area (which is closest to the EfW - approx 850m) will have the peaceful enjoyment ruined by the view, noise, dust, light and air pollution of the RRF. The EfW is large and this will have disruptive effects on the wind’s strength, stability and direction affecting our sailing waters. The south west corner of Stewartby Lake is connected to the Rookery South attenuation pond via a surface water pump into Mill Brook. It has not been demonstrated that this will not affect the water quality and wildlife. Our members are constantly in contact and ingesting the water, contamination would inevitably cause personal injury to users of the lake as well as damaging the wildlife and likely closing our club permanently through reduced membership and potential temporary closures of the lake (arising from polluting events). Covanta’s public liability and environmental insurances would be unlikely to extend to loss of amenity and unquantifiable losses associated with reduced membership arising from such events. Additionally, it does not appear that Covanta have any expressed plans for environmental management in the sense of testing of water quality and monitoring. The EfW is located in the base of Rookery Pit and is an area of flood risk. Mitigation strategies are proposed but these contain unacceptable levels of flood and pollution risks. Inevitably high levels of rainfall and hence flooding can only be attenuated within the balancing ponds or pumped through Mill Brook and hence into Stewartby Lake. There are no strategies expressed for such potential hazards in terms of monitoring and continuous assessment. There is therefore a significant risk of harm to human health. The cumulative long term impact on health caused by EfW stack emissions may be accentuated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion. EfW, Stewartby Lake and surrounding environment is host to large numbers of wildlife including priority species such as the great crested newt not only losing their habitat but being subjected to pollution risks and potential eutrophication. Dust, Odour, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation are all likely to impact SWSC. Of particular concern are the effects of dust and air pollution on boat finishes and covers. Permanent loss of night sky The RRF is proposed in a form that can process waste which is considerably greater than that produced locally and hence the RRF additional capacity will be available to take waste from wider afield causing more traffic and loss of amenity. An Energy from Waste plant which has greater capacity than need will fundamentally affect the rural landscape and its regeneration. If it must be fuelled by waste from further afield, this should be transported by rail to minimise the local impact or restrictions imposed to stop the receipt of waste from such locations. Inability to use our only access road to the site and our ski area facilities during construction and maintenance of the electric cables including our brick built changing areas, storage units and slipways which may need to be demolished and relocated depending on the route of the cabling. There are also alternative options available as the electric cables could be routed along the access roads (not within neighbouring land) and hence within land controlled or owned by Covanta. Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. This under utilised resource is available and would reduce the impact on the locality of HGV movements as well as potential improvements to this East/West rail link. Steps will need to be taken to ensure the removal of hazardous waste takes account of the leisure use of the SWSC site and need to be actively controlled and monitored. Likely closure of SWSC due to lack of membership as members will not want to be part of a recreational facility subject to all of the above circumstances."

mr g. shadbolt on behalf of mrs r. shadbolt
"i wish to register my objection to the construction of the covanta incinerator at Rookery Pit , Stewartby. i have major concerns over pollution to the local enviroment, noise coming from the building, and the overall size of the structure. Also i am worried about the obvious increase in traffic congestion in the local area, especially small villages, which will ruin the peaceful countryside location in which we live."

Tracey Milne
"I am objecting to to the Convanta incinerator because: The Main building would be roughly the height of the Cardington hangers. The chimney stack(s) would be approx twice the height of the brickworks chimneys The building would be right against the railway line at the edge of the Country Park – it will be visible from every part of this wonderful amenity used by so many families and their children. Covanta’s own initial suggestion of vehicle movements was 300 lorries and 150 cars. This has since been amended to 900 vehicle movements a day (450 lorries) – arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week on Bank Holiday weekends. Covanta’s own literature says that their catchment area would be Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and then potentially Milton Keynes, Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Windsor and Maidenhead."

Mr S Poultney
"1. Air Emissions - there is a serious concern about emissions from the EFW stack and long term health implications. As we have experienced these from the brickworks site which was previously on this site and were less intrusive then this project will be from an emissions and a visual point of view. 2. I moved to Houghton Conquest for the views and the access to sailing which my local sailing club now confirm will be disrupted by the building area effecting the wind directions."

Tim Basterfield
"WIth regards to the proposal by Covanta I am opposed due to the following: Air Emmissions Dust Odour & Light Landscape and Visual Impact Noise Traffic and Transport Impacts I live in the small hamlet of How End that will be severely affected as we are due East of the development and very worried by the negative impact this development will have on my young children in terms of pollution"

G Wilkinson
"I have a concern relating to the air contamination that i believe will be experienced from this large site, when certain wind directions are experienced. In addition I walk regularly around the ridgeway sand walks to enjoy the countryside with my dog and children and feel that the site proposed will be intrusive into my personal life."

Dr Fiona Head on behalf of NHS Bedfordshire
"The PCT proposes to comment on the following areas at the examination stage: • The content and conclusions of the Health Impact Assessment, including its methodology and literature reviews. For example, the Health Impact Assessment notes that “the most likely adverse effects on health and wellbeing identified are those associated with people’s feelings about the area.” The PCT agrees that quantification of mental health effects is difficult. However given the evidence presented in the Health Impact Assessment itself of residents’ concerns about stress it does not agree that the possibility of such outcomes can “only be regarded as speculative”. • The links between the evidence presented in the Health Impact Assessment and the recommendations of the Health Impact Assessment. For example, the PCT notes that this Health Impact Assessment was commissioned from a company that was already working closely with Covanta on this project. This may have caused a conflict of interest that may have affected the objectivity of some of the findings and formulation of some of the recommendations. • The modelling of emissions to air, in particular the application of the precautionary principle to the assumptions that underlie the modelling. The PCT cannot give a technical opinion on the air quality modelling but wishes to ask the Examining Authority to ensure that the modelling is based on current best practice and that the assumptions underlying it, particularly the assumptions made about the composition of waste that is incinerated, are reasonable and valid. • The health effects of transport changes as a result of building, operating and decommissioning the site. The PCT welcomes the improvement to footpaths and cycle routes proposed. It notes that there will be increased HGV traffic on Green Lane and that an upgrade to the Green Lane level crossing to improve safety is being investigated by Covanta. • Visual impacts of the proposed development Given the findings of the Health Impact Assessment that a change in visual landscape is likely to impact on wellbeing of local residents the PCT welcomes the Health Impact Assessment recommendation to achieve early screening by tress planting. It also welcomes Covanta’s positive response to this recommendation."

Graham Viney
"I would like to object to this development going ahead as the park is not only of natural beauty through which we often take walks that are made more enjoyable by the clean air and surroundings when you are within the wooded areas. By having loads of lorries moving past the park throughout the day then not onl will the noise level increase but the vibration and general ambience of the area will be reduced. I also take part in power boating on this adjacent lake and whilst camping there to participate the enjoyable surrounding can be partaken with diesel fume and constant noise from the adjacent road way, which will be the case from my understanding of the fuel feed requirements for the incinerator. This noise along with the associated combustion aroma that will be in the area will totally detract from the ambience that is found at this site and therefore I object to this proposal on both natural and a recreational grounds"

Martin Green
"I object to the proposed incinerator on the grounds that it lead to the loss of important breeding habitat for waterbirds including some that are regionally and/or nationally scarce."

Adele Moore
"I also concerns in all aspects of the following areas (which are not restricted to or by any specifics detailed). Air Quality and Health The area has been subject to an Air Quality Management order and the proposal will mean unknown long-term effects from air pollution and subsequent long term health implications from toxins and possible carcinogens from chimney omissions. The proposal will increase immediate CO2 emissions. Covanta has a documented track record of breaching safe emissions levels. Environmental Impact Detrimental effects on the environment exacerbated by the overpowering size and ugliness of the plant and chimney and light pollution from the site lit 24/7. The rural site is green field and subject to a requirement to restore it to agricultural use. It is subject to a covenant and was refused permission for landfill. Rookery South has much wildlife and must be part of the natural regeneration of the Marston Vale after decades of clay extraction and landfill. Approval will cascade further industrial development in this area – the Rookery Energy Park is already being muted. Impact on local communities The Marston Vale will be stigmatised by this plant and the scale of this proposal is not appropriate to the needs of Bedfordshire. Bedfordshire waste is insufficient to supply this enormous plant thus requiring large scale importation of waste. The resultant vehicle congestion on local roads will cause additional air pollution and exaggerated wear and tear on our roads. Hazardous waste known as ‘bottom ash’ will need to be transported from the plant through our communities along our country roads and lanes. The new A421 upgrade was not planned with the prospect of up to 900 HGV movements per day. No provision has been made to transport waste by rail despite the close proximity of a main line. The scale and enormity of this proposal has overshadowed other alternatives for waste management not least of all the Bedfordshire Energy and Recycling (BEaR) project. Tourism This development is incompatible with the proposed development in tourism through Center Parcs and Nirah and will inevitably dissuade people from visiting the area with a resultant drop in tourist revenue for local businesses and loss of potential employment opportunities. This proposal will itself result in just a scant number of jobs for local people. The decision of the former Bedfordshire County Council to delegate the provision of this site only for ‘incineration’ was flawed and has barred the way for alternative, more eco-friendly and more efficient forms of waste management. This proposal has no provision to include a fully subscribed local heat distribution scheme which make a more efficient use of real resource recovery. Covanta have been misleading in the title of this proposal by omitting the word ‘incinerator’ in order to disguise the true nature of this development and have a very questionable commitment to our local communities by limiting the radius of their consultation to 5km omitting communities who will be directly affected by this proposal."

Andre Jones
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects – drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; • Air Emissions The cumulative, long term impact on the environment in general, and especially the impact on the health of the local (and not so local) population. There is also particular concern about the effects on nano particles given the lack of epidemiological study. • Biodiversity and Geological Conservation To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. The effective imposition of a change of character of environment and community for those who wish to preserve their exiting rural nature. • Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. The control of ash dust will be problematic given the prevailing wind strengths and directions. • Landscape and Visual Impact The sheer size of the facility, stack, and plume will significantly impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. • Noise There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the facility itself in an otherwise tranquil setting with low background noise. • Local and Regional Waste Management The facility will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. More fundamentally, a facility of this capacity ignores the ‘proximity principle’, one of the core principles of which, is that no community should bear the environmental cost of another. It is clear that financial concerns related to economies of scale have overridden this principle in this case. Our local waste management project, BEaR, conforms to this principle. • Socio-Economic The electricity generating capacity of the facility in terms of average domestic consumption appears exaggerated. The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the facility for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. The facility will have a negligible positive effect on overall employment patterns, indeed it could be argued that there will be an overall negative effect as compared to current aspirations regarding the area. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. • Traffic and Transport Impacts The traffic volume, arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. More generally, there are current health, efficiency, and practicality concerns, regarding the incineration approach to waste as a philosophy. It would be more appropriate, environmentally and financially efficient, to adopt an approach based on the ‘zero waste’ paradigm as an alternative to this facility. For these reasons I conclude this proposal is in the first place, the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area, and further, is in the proposed in the wrong location. I can if necessary provide further detailed argument."

Mr D Felce
"Air Emissions There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. In the sky above the Marston Vale there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion – on still days emissions linger in the atmosphere immediately above the Vale and eventually drop into the Vale. When inversion is not occurring the prevailing wind is south westerly. There is serious concern that the proposal will cause a cumulative impact over the 30 year + life cycle of the plant either within the Marston Vale and/or Bedford and Kempston Biodiversity and Geological Conservation The proposed site is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale. An oversize Energy from Waste plant will fundamentally undermine that purpose. Since clay extractions ceased in Rookery Pit – the adjacent Millennium Country Park and the Pit are now an ecologically integrated and co-joined wild life site. The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life. The Covanta proposal will be a retrograde step ecologically and would ultimately lead to the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. The site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. Landscape and Visual Impact The size of the building will dominate an area dedicated to wildlife regeneration. The buildings within the site will abut the footpaths of the Country Park; and have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and will materially impair the views from the Vale to the surrounding Greensand Ridge and the panoramic views from the ridge across the entire Vale, especially those seen from Ampthill Park and Cranfield. Local and Regional Waste Management I promote local responsibility in the collection and disposal of waste – the proximity principle – except in cases where we voluntarily – and freely combine with other Local Authorities to form Joint Waste Authorities. The Covanta proposal will override attempts to deal with waste locally, as it depends upon a continuous high input of waste to feed an incinerator of the capacity proposed. This is counter productive to maintaining and encouraging the high level of recycling that residents advocate. We have our own local waste management project – The BEaR Project – which is currently evaluating the first stage of the tender process so they can short-list the bidders to come forward with solutions that will best meet local needs. Socio-Economic The project proposes to export electricity serving the energy needs of 82,500 homes, broadly equivalent to the housing energy needs of Bedford and the Marston Vale. This has been described as an exaggerated claim, based on un-verified assumptions. Having just begun to emerge from years living under the influence of the brickworks, there will again be a detrimental effect on existing property prices. The Covanta proposal is at odds with the stated desire of local people to be a leisure destination and not somewhere others send their rubbish. Traffic and Transport Impacts Significant vehicle movements to and from the site – arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week on Bank Holiday weekends will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community The new A421 was designed to cope with existing traffic problems and some elements of growth in Bedford Borough. The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road. The Covanta proposal is that all rubbish will be delivered by road – despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail systems. The transportation of upwards of 585,000 tonnes of rubbish per year will take place along the de-trunked old A421. Additionally the transport of residual matter, processed or un-processed, away from the site could add another 10 to 20% to this volume. Thus far there has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed project on communities beyond the Marston Vale but within Bedfordshire. In conclusion, it is my considered view the following points render the Covanta proposal to be the wrong solution in the wrong location for dealing with Bedfordshire’s waste:"

Gary Cotton on behalf of Kingmind Limited
"On behalf of the 4 households making up Ampthill Park House, we object to the proposed development on the grounds that the scale is completely inappropriate for a rural site. Our key issue is that the visual impact of such a development would be an unreasonable degradation of the environment, and to the commercial benefit of the applicant. The visual impact of this development is significant, compounded by other factors such as 1) the external ash heaps are a unique feature of this proposal as all other UK plants have internal ash heaps. Given the scale of the site, these ash heaps will be significant, worsening the visual impact. 2) the scale of the chimney along with the associated plume, which will be clearly visible in low temperatures will create a 'smoke stack' worsening the visual impact. 3) the location is in a 'plain' making it visible from a larger area The visual impact will have a significant knock on impact on existing areas such as Marston Vale Country Park and Ampthill Park (a heritage site) both widely enjoyed by local people. Additionally, it will also have an impact of future non industrial developments in the area, for example, NIRAH. We therefore strongly believe that the 'public's interest' rather than the applicants interest would be better served by a plant significantly smaller."

Robyn Jones
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects – drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; • Air Emissions The cumulative, long term impact on the environment in general, and especially the impact on the health of the local (and not so local) population. There is also particular concern about the effects on nano particles given the lack of epidemiological study. • Biodiversity and Geological Conservation To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. The effective imposition of a change of character of environment and community for those who wish to preserve their exiting rural nature. • Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. The control of ash dust will be problematic given the prevailing wind strengths and directions. • Landscape and Visual Impact The sheer size of the facility, stack, and plume will significantly impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. • Noise There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the facility itself in an otherwise tranquil setting with low background noise. • Local and Regional Waste Management The facility will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. More fundamentally, a facility of this capacity ignores the ‘proximity principle’, one of the core principles of which, is that no community should bear the environmental cost of another. It is clear that financial concerns related to economies of scale have overridden this principle in this case. Our local waste management project, BEaR, conforms to this principle. • Socio-Economic The electricity generating capacity of the facility in terms of average domestic consumption appears exaggerated. The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the facility for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. The facility will have a negligible positive effect on overall employment patterns, indeed it could be argued that there will be an overall negative effect as compared to current aspirations regarding the area. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. • Traffic and Transport Impacts The traffic volume, arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. More generally, there are current health, efficiency, and practicality concerns, regarding the incineration approach to waste as a philosophy. It would be more appropriate, environmentally and financially efficient, to adopt an approach based on the ‘zero waste’ paradigm as an alternative to this facility. For these reasons I conclude this proposal is in the first place, the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area, and further, is in the proposed in the wrong location. I can if necessary provide further detailed argument."

Mrs Brenda Felce
"The proposed site is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale. An oversize Energy from Waste plant will fundamentally undermine that purpose. Since clay extractions ceased in Rookery Pit – the adjacent Millennium Country Park and the Pit are now an ecologically integrated and co-joined wild life site. The Covanta proposal will be a retrograde step ecologically and would ultimately lead to the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. The site is host to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss. The size of the building will dominate an area dedicated to wildlife regeneration. The buildings within the site will abut the footpaths of the Country Park; and have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and will materially impair the views from the Vale to the surrounding Greensand Ridge and the panoramic views from the ridge across the entire Vale, especially those seen from Ampthill Park and Cranfield. I promote local responsibility in the collection and disposal of waste – the proximity principle – except in cases where we voluntarily – and freely combine with other Local Authorities to form Joint Waste Authorities. The Covanta proposal will override attempts to deal with waste locally, as it depends upon a continuous high input of waste to feed an incinerator of the capacity proposed. This is counter productive to maintaining and encouraging the high level of recycling that residents advocate. We have our own local waste management project – The BEaR Project – which is currently evaluating the first stage of the tender process so they can short-list the bidders to come forward with solutions that will best meet local needs. The project proposes to export electricity serving the energy needs of 82,500 homes, broadly equivalent to the housing energy needs of Bedford and the Marston Vale. This has been described as an exaggerated claim, based on un-verified assumptions. Having just begun to emerge from years living under the influence of the brickworks, there will again be a detrimental effect on existing property prices. The Covanta proposal is at odds with the stated desire of local people to be a leisure destination and not somewhere others send their rubbish. Significant vehicle movements to and from the site – arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week on Bank Holiday weekends will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road. The transportation of upwards of 585,000 tonnes of rubbish per year will take place along the de-trunked old A421. Additionally the transport of residual matter, processed or un-processed, away from the site could add another 10 to 20% to this volume."

David Johnston
"I have the following concerns about this application 1. It appears to be out of keeping with the main uses of land in the area, which are agriculture, recreation (Stewartby and Brogborough watersports, naure reserves and the greensand ridge natural area) residential areas and in future tourism (Centreparcs and potentially the water dome development in Stewartby) and seems to be contrary to these other uses of land in the area. 2. I am concerned about the health implications - how safe are the emissions for people in neighbouring residential areas?"

Hanna Louise Biggs
"My family and I regularly come to the area to walk our two dogs round the lake and tranquil nature route. We enjoy the scenic landscape and peaceful surroundings. A giant Incinerator Waste Plant would cause a number of factors resulting in devastation to the natural environment. Noise pollution from plant vehicle movements and the plant itself. Air pollution again caused by plant vehicle movements and the plant itself, such as dust, waste ash, smoke, and smell. The size of the structure itself would be an eyesore in such natural countryside. Possible water contamination and the site proposed the plant to be built on being a host to large numbers of wildlife will lead to direct and indirect loss of habitat. Because of these reasons and others such as 24/7 operating hours from the plant causing light pollution, the natural environment would be ruined for my family like many other families and their children who come here. We are also aware that all of the data proposed is estimated. There are no actual figures or specific calculations for this plant. This is uncomforting as the company does not actually know how the waste plant will affect the site and surrounding environment. It is based on presumptions. It is also cause for concern that the same company has been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA, which fills me with even less confidence. Therefore I object very strongly to the plans to build the Waste Incinerator Plant on Rookery South Pit."

Robert Peat
"I am concerned about the following: 1) The amount of HGV traffic travelling on the A421 and then leaving at the Marston Moretaine junction to travel on the local road to Stewartby. This will create considerable additional pollution, noise and congestion in the Marston Moretaine area. 2) I am concerned about the potential gases which will be released from the plant (and have been a problem at other plants) in an are which is quite densely populated. 3) I am concerned about the height of the chimneys and there effect on the skyline of the area."

G Robinson
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects – drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; (A) Air Emissions (1) The cumulative long term impact on the health of residents anxious about the EfW stack emissions over the life cycle of the plant accentuated by the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion within the Marston Vale. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2) To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation (3) There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact (4) The sheer size of the EfW and stack (accentuated by the plume) will materially impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise (5) There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the EfW itself in a tranquil setting. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management (6) The EfW will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. (G) Socio-Economic (7) The electricity generating capacity of the EfW in terms of average domestic consumption is exaggerated. (8) The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the EfW for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. (9) EfW assembly will be undertaken by labour imported temporarily into the area and the remaining permanent jobs will have a negligible effect on overall employment patterns – of which there can be no guarantee, will be offered to local people. (10) There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts (11) The traffic volumes will be beyond the existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield at key junctions in Milton Keynes and the motorway network and the traffic arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. (12) Despite the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two rail lines all waste to the EfW will be delivered by road. (13) There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale."

Barry Dyke
"My objection to the proposed building of the Covanta Incinerator at Rookery Pit South would be. 1, air pollution to the area, although there will be filters this will not stop nano particles spreading for miles around, poisoning anyone who breaths it in. 2, Damage to an area that is just recovering from many years of clay extraction & brick making. 3, Noise from traffic 4, dirt rubbish & pollution from constant lorrys delivering waste to the incinerator. 5, traffic congestion on green lane, preventing access to Stewartby Village & the watersports club. 6, Pollution of the water table & near by lake from ash left to weather before going to land fill or use as aggrigate. 7, The building & chimney will be an eyesore in what is now becoming an area of beauty next to the country park."

Mrs.D.Padian
"I wish to oppose the Energy from Waste generating station proposed by Covanta for the following reasons: Pollution. Emmissions will not be cleared from the area in certain weather conditions peculiar to this area. The plant will be producing toxic waste. There will be light & noise pollution as the site operates almost continually, as well as odour and dust. Traffic. As the waste will be coming from a very large area, the increase in traffic will be an extra pollutant, and cause severe congestion as the improved A421 is being built to just cope with projected traffic increase BEFORE this proposal was made. No use is being made of the 2 railway lines which run either side of the site. Visual Impact will be immense, as this is an enormous building,( larger than the airship hangers which can be seen from miles away), as well as ancillary buildings and the chimney. This will be seen from all round the area, especially on the hills around the vale. Local Environment. The Marston Forest Centre is adjacent to the site, and the wildlife, flora and fauna are spreading across this whole area from the forest to the derelict clay pits, the whole environment could be blighted by this development. This development is too large, and would blight the lives of not only the residents in the local areas, but much farther afield."

Mr and Mrs M Ellis
"My wife and I object to this proposed development, on the following principal grounds: 1. We have major concerns about the potential dangers to the local environment and especially to air quality within the whole Marston Vale area, particularly as regards the impact of the proposed incineration process and the very real threat of toxic emissions arising from this process adversely affecting local communities. We are not convinced that these toxic emissions will necessarily be safely dealt with by the 'normal' operational process to be put in place, quite apart from the potential damage that would be caused by any major or catastrophic accidental failure of this process or system. 2. We have considerable concerns about the adverse visual impact of the proposed development within the whole local area, and especially as regards the height of the proposed chimney stack which this will incorporate. 3. We are very concerned indeed about the enormously adverse environmental, traffic and amenity impacts which will inevitably arise from the huge increase in lorry traffic involved in transporting waste materials to the proposed incinerator from other areas outside Bedfordshire. We believe this makes no sense at all, either in environmental or cost terms, quite apart from the awful adverse impact on local residents and businesses from this increased HGV traffic flow, which local roads are not equipped to deal with without major problems arising. We also believe that the proposed hours in which this additional traffic will be moving would impose quite unacceptable adverse impacts for local communities along the routes involved, and especially for residents whose properties it would pass close to. Martyn and Deidre Ellis"

Sue Young
"I am a member of Stewartby Sailing and Watersports Club, and I would like to register objection for the following reasons: - Health concerns The long term health implications are as yet unknown. Covanta have been served improvement notices in the US for breaching waste emissions. There is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion, causing emissions to linger in the air on still days, eventually dropping into the Vale. - Damage/deteriation of property I keep my sailing dinghy at the lake. The emissions/dust from the plant and the lorries transporting waste are likely to cause the fabric of my boat, its cover and trailer to deteriorate - Loss of amenity Sailing is dependent on wind strength, speed and direction. The size of the building will have disruptive effects on the wind at Stewartby Lake. - Noise, traffic and light pollution The continual traffic and constant traffic will adversely affect use of the site and travelling around it. It would be impossible to camp at the site, due to the noise and light pollution, as well as affecting general enjoyment of the lake.This may result in loss of membership and affect the club's viability - Impact on wildlife The building of the site will cause direct and indirect habitat loss and adversely impact on wildlife in the area, as well as impacting on enjoyment of the nature reserve."

Ed Mayo
"The IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) because the cumulative detrimental effects – drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) – listed below outweigh any potential benefits; (A) Air Emissions The cumulative, long term impact on the environment in general, and especially the impact on the health of the local (and not so local) population. There is also particular concern about the effects on nano particles given the lack of epidemiological study. (B) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation To situate the EfW within Rookery Pit South adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – a primary purpose of which is to re-forest the Marston Vale – would be a retrograde step ecologically and lead to significant habitat loss and ultimately the industrialisation of Rookery Pit South. The effective imposition of a change of character of environment and community for those who wish to preserve their exiting rural nature. (C) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation There will be loss of night sky with severe light pollution. The control of ash dust will be problematic given the prevailing wind strengths and directions. (D) Landscape and Visual Impact The sheer size of the facility, stack, and plume will significantly impair the visual amenity and panoramic views of this essentially rural landscape. (E) Noise There will be significant disturbance from the intermittent noise of HGV’s and the continuous noise from the facility itself in an otherwise tranquil setting with low background noise. (F) Local and Regional Waste Management The facility will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling. More fundamentally, a facility of this capacity ignores the ‘proximity principle’, one of the core principles of which, is that no community should bear the environmental cost of another. It is clear that financial concerns related to economies of scale have overridden this principle in this case. Our local waste management project, BEaR, conforms to this principle. (G) Socio-Economic The electricity generating capacity of the facility in terms of average domestic consumption appears exaggerated. The abolition of regional spatial strategies undermines much of the socio-economic justification for the facility for future housing projections and the waste theoretically arising. The facility will have a negligible positive effect on overall employment patterns, indeed it could be argued that there will be an overall negative effect as compared to current aspirations regarding the area. There will be a detrimental effect on existing property prices which in turn will depress economic activity and undermine the ambition of local communities to develop as tourist destinations and not somewhere other communities send their waste. (H) Traffic and Transport Impacts The traffic volume, arrival and departure times will lead to significant disturbance, traffic congestion and noise to surrounding communities. There has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed impact on communities beyond the Marston Vale. More generally, there are current health, efficiency, and practicality concerns, regarding the incineration approach to waste as a philosophy. It would be more appropriate, environmentally and financially efficient, to adopt an approach based on the ‘zero waste’ paradigm as an alternative to this facility. For these reasons I conclude this proposal is in the first place, the wrong solution to dealing with waste in the proposed catchment area, and further, is in the proposed in the wrong location. I can if necessary provide further detailed argument."

Mr Scott Lunnon
"Having lived in Bedfordshire all my life and in Marston Moretaine for 7 years with wife and family my opinion is that the proposed incinerator should not be allowed to be sighted at Rookery Pit.The forest center and woodland are of very good educational and wildlife value.The aim of that project was to give back to the local people an area for enjoyment and recreation on the site of the old clay pits. The air has long been polluted by the Stewartby Brickwork Chimneys and regeneration of the surrounding area had already began.Putting this giant sized plant/chimney here will ruin the work already put in to make the land attractive and also future tourism projects such as the Bedford to Milton Keynes waterway/canal, which planned to stop off at the forest center.Local residents would rather tourism made the county money than have this plant there running 24 7. We live in Snagge Court.The existing A421 road runs at the back of our house and the play park and traffic will be reduced as the New A421 road opens in December 2010.The proposals state that Covantas lorry route will use this part of the road to carry toxic fly ash.This is unacceptable and so will the lorry movements and noise at our house be!Our house value will drop due to extra traffic/noise and sight of the incinerator from our bedroom window!This will not be compensated for.Quality of life in our opinion will be greatly reduced should this project go ahead. We have heard that incinerators have been found to be poorly regulated and are not been granted permission in the USA any more due to emmisions and the effects on local people.This is most worrying, especially as we have a new allotment very close to Rookery Pit at Marston Moretaine.We would not feel safe any more eating our produce, especially since a Covanta consultant confirmed to us at one of it's exhibitions that chemicals will enter the soil and our food chain and there will be an increased cancer risk.We also buy meat at the Farm shop in Upper Shelton.This would also be contaminated!This should not be allowed to happen! Central Bedfordshire recycles a high percentage of it's waste now that many more items can be put in the green bin (since the recycling contract changed for our area).Other surrounding counties are not making as much effort to recycle and they may send there waste to Rookery Pit to be burnt.What justice is there in that?As a family that recycles most of their waste in the green/brown bin we feel there are better ways to deal with waste and that each county ought to deal with its own!Covanta does not have any counties stating that that they would like to use the incinerator. The site would be below historic Ampthill Hill/park and the sheer scale of the building and chimney is a massive blot on a beautiful landscape.Loss of the views will impact places far around."

Mr Matthew McHugh
"I am not at all convinced that the installation of this incinerator plant will not effect the condition of the atmosphere above our village of Cranfield. The reason for my doubt is that for years,in the past, we suffered with pollution from the brick kiln chimneys at stewartby and therefore I do not believe that this incinerator chimney would be any cleaner. I believe in my own way and understanding that the air above our village would once more be contaminated."

Mrs D.M. Poultney
"I feel potential benefits of Coventa EFW Development are far outweighed by the detrimental adverse impact upon my daily life and that of my local community and general local/national sustainability policies - in brief; (1) Air Emissions Adverse Health effects from emissions from the EfW stack. (2) Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation Concerns because once the brickyard had shut down; 1 - I no longer had to worry about what day I had to put my washing out and 2 - I My right to fresh air will be compromised. Dusts from the incinerator will now threaten my daily life, healthwise as well as other. (3) Loss of night sky with severe light pollution will affect my enjoyment of night sky with or without my astronomy equipment. (4) Landscape and Visual Impact This huge incinerator installation will be a blot on the landscape. The stack is higher than anything we have ever had or should be expected to be imposed upon our view and landscape and the addition of the constant plume will ruin the panorama of blue skies I take great pleasure in. Currently where I live I have beautiful uninterupted views of rolling landscape. This installation will have a huge ugly foreign building clearly within my sight that will not be aesthetically pleasing. I feel it unreasonable to impose such a largescale unaesthetic building in the middle of this beautiful landscape which we daily enjoy. (5) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation This Installation within the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park would adversely affect the local ecology and lead to significant habitat loss. (6) Noise Pollution The noise from the vehicle movements and rubbish processing will affect being able to hear birdsong while out walking our dog spoiling our pleasure of and a nice quiet pasttime. (7) Local and Regional Waste Management This development will undermine local waste strategy removing the incentive for recycling to anyone when all you’re going to do is burn it. It is unsustainable and I will lose enthusiasm and heart to recycle. (8) Socio-Economic I have been made aware the electricity generating capacity of the EfW it will not benefit me and any said benefits are far outweighed by indiscrimminately burning the waste and not recycling vital resources. (9) It seems the job opportunities are not going to be that good for anyone. (10) This development will increase; Traffic around my area, wear and tear on the roads and lead to raised costs to local taxpayers. (11) I have had nothing from Coventa or the council to my area nor through my letterbox about the proposed massive development. Therefore, I feel that this is an attempt to hide this from me/us. I reserve the right to provide further detailed evidence in support of my above concerns."

Mr. Michael J. Padian
"I am opposed to the proposed siting of an incinerator complex by Covanta in Rookery Pit on the grounds that it would have a severe environmental impact. There would equally be an immense effect upon the population and its movements over a vast area, significantly greater than the localised area in which it would be sited. It would involve a motorway, a city and towns and major link roads over an extensive area, which would affect the lives of countless numbers of people, to the extent that the host county and neighbouring counties would become places to be avoided at all costs. As such the cumulative effects of this would be incalculable and could never be seen as being in the best interests of communities at large. In my submission the Covanta proposal should never be seen as extending any real benefits and should be opposed at all costs, to do otherwise would be to regret the decision for a very, very long time."

John Dean
"1. Visual impact of the plant, particularly the chimney, the proposed height of which is far from clear. 2. Emissions from plant & the effect on air quality. 3. Increased traffic throughout the surrounding area. 4. Use of road transport, as proposed, instead of rail negates the 'green' ethos propounded. 5. Import of waste from other areas - local treatment is more environmentally friendly 6. Fumes/smell from untreated waste prior to incineration. 7. What is the true carbon footprint of the plant on a whole life basis, including importation of waste & disposal of residues?"

Tina Dennis
"I would like to object to the building of a giant incinerator in Rookery Pit as I am concerned about the polution levels both in the air surrounding the lake and in the lake itself. I am also concerned about the noise levels that heavy lorries will make going past. I am also worried about the entrance/exit of our club when towing either a boat or caravan due to the large number of lorries making the road much busier."

Evelyn Fox
"As a user of the Marston Vale Country Park and a member of Stewartby Water Sports Club who has seen the benefits of active sports such as sailing can bring to all young people I object to the Rookery South Energy from Waste facility for the following reasons: * It is too big for Bedfordshire’s needs alone * It is connected to Stewartby Lake via Mill Brook and the possibility of pollution and use of Stewartby Lake by Water Sports users who are immersed in the water has not been assessed * Increased traffic volumes will affect the peaceful amenity value of SWSC * Species such as Otters and Great Crested Newts will be impacted in Rookery South, Mill Brook and Stewartby Lake * Use of rail has been rejected when it could be used for waste from further afield * Dust and Noise will affect SWSC which is in the shadow of the Rookery South facility * Green lane is not been upgraded to reduce traffic noise and allow wide loads to enter SWSC safely * Previous Temperature inversions have been shown to increase the lingering affect of pollution in Marston Vale * Rookery South is in an area of flooding. The IPC should satisfy itself that the very high risk of pollution in the event of flooding have been mitigated including impacts on Mill Brook and SWSC * Covanta may wish to off load management of parts of the site to third parties. The IPC should ensure that Covanta is ultimately responsible for all future environment impacts of pollution events even if Covanta elect to sub contract or lease part of the site For the above reasons I feel this will reduce membership of SWSC and threaten its future viability"

Tony Bews
"I object to this development because I am concerned about the environmental implications of the large amounts of waste being transported in from other counties. I am also concerned about polution being emitted from the stack and the possibility of the water being polluted in the event of an incident at the waste processing plant. I also object because of noise pollution from the large number of lorries, particularly empty lorries travelling along Green Lane throughout the day."

Andrew Dean
"I oppose the scheme as follows; 1. Over all impact on the landscape - the schemes sheer size, not only the main building structure but also the huge chimney stack will dominate the landscape from all sides of the Vale. The area is adjacent to the millennium country park and will impact on the centre and its surrounding walkways. 2. Quality of air due to emissions - I have serious concerns about the emissions from the stack and the effects on long term health implications. I am concerned that Covanta has not fulfilled the quality of its emissions in the USA and as such has been served legal improvement notices. The location is in a vale and the simple geography of the site will not allow the emissions to disperse but hang above the vale which again has serious health implications. 3. Impact on local roads and transport links - The new A421 is designed to cope with existing traffic problems and the proposed increase in the number of lorries servicing the plant is unsustainable and will have an impact with regards noise pollution and disturbance to the local community. 4. Noise pollution - Not only is there concern with noise pollution from the increased lorries but also from the plant itself. 5. Local and regional waste management - The driving force behind the plant is waste from Local Authorities from other areas which suggests a not in our own back yard approach. Bedfordshire has its own local waste management projects which can cope with local needs and therefore a scheme on this proportion is not viable for local needs. 6. Socio-Economic - The area will not be an attractive place to live and will impact on the families that have been drawn to the area for quality of life it offers. The settlements in the vale and surrounding areas are populated with a high number of families who seek a better quality of life. This will be affected by the scheme and the associated effects it will have. House prices will be affected and the area will not be a desirable location. The Vale is regenerating itself as a tourist attraction which will be severely compromised. There are concerns that whether the benefits of the energy produced are delivered to the local population or will there be a need to sell this energy to finance the scheme. 7. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - The area has had decades of clay extraction which has since ceased and nature has re-established itself naturally and with the help of humans. The area is now ecologically integrated and co-joined wildlife. The scheme will fundamentally undermine the purpose of the park and its aim to re-forest the Marston Vale. Residents have been attracted to the area because of its rural landscape and way of life which needs to be preserved. If the scheme goes ahead this will set a bench mark and ultimately lead to industrialisation of the remaining pit."

William Parish
"I object to the proposed development, based on a number of concerns relate to the proposed waste incinerator and its effects on: a) the Stewartby Water Sailing Club which is very close to the proposed development and would share the same road access; b) the wider impact on the local environment; and c) adverse effects on local residents, economy and infrastructure. My family are active members of the club. It is a thriving water sports centre that plays an important role in local sailing, race training and hosting important national and regional dinghy racing events. It plays an important role in developing local youth sailing talent. The proposed development threatens the long-term existence of the club as a thriving regional racing and training centre, for the following reasons: i) The impact of a large high structure on wind flow across the lake means that when wind blows from specific directions, the resulting wind shadow will severely impact the quality of racing. As a result, sailing dinghy classes will stop using the club to host important regional and national events, resulting in a loss of income; ii) The presence of the plant will stop sailors wanting to sail on the lake or maintain their memberships. This is not only because of the considerable adverse effect it will have on the landscape, but also because of noise, traffic from waste transport and a fear of pollution (whether or not the risks from pollutants are being effectively managed, regulated and enforced). People who enjoy outdoor sports do not want to do so in the shadow of a huge industrial facility; iii) The regular traffic of large waste vehicles is of particular concern. Traffic at the junction joining Green Lane to the main road is already considerable and cars towing trailers already find it difficult to enter or exit safely. The additional waste traffic cannot be sustained by this narrow road and increases the risks of accidents to club users considerably. iv) The club also hosts camping by members, particularly summer sailing camps for children. The noise and disturbance caused by the plant will make it difficult to continue with these events, which will further affect the membership of the club. v) The local environment has been painstakingly restored after many years of brickworks being the key industrial feature, and from nearby landfill. As a previous local resident of the area, I have observed a positive transformation in the quality of the landscape, biodiversity and increased use by the local populace as an outdoor recreation resource. The construction of the proposed plant will reverse this transformation. vi) Development of the local economy through warehousing, office buildings etc can also be sustained whilst preserving the quality of the environment and the well being of the local residents. The construction of the proposed facility will stifle any further economic and business development - companies will not want to locate in the area. In conclusion, the local impacts of this proposal will far exceed the benefits."

Ian Pickering
"I am concerned about the likely increase in traffic through my village and the surrounding area as a result of congestion at major junctions such as J13 of the M1 and along the A421 towards Milton Keynes resulting from the many HGV movements needed to transport waste to and from the plant. I am also concerned about air, noise and light pollution in the local area as well as the impact the plant will have on the landscape of the Marston Vale."

Ian Pickering on behalf of Aspley Guise Parish Council
"We are concerned about the following potential impacts of the EFW Plant: The impact of the increased HGV traffic generated by the site will be felt over a much wider area than covered by Covanta’s traffic assessment, determined by the origin of the waste. There is no assessment, nor proposed mitigation provided beyond the A421. Increased congestion on other major routes and junctions needs to be addressed. The negative potential impacts of increased and displaced traffic and of HGVs’ in particular travelling through our villages and towns as a consequence of the facility has not been adequately considered. The long proposed operating and delivery hours are likely to compound the negative traffic impact on communities. There are no effective measures outlined that would mitigate against the negative impact the massive size and height of the proposed facility will have on the visual quality of the landscape, in what is a rural setting, in terms of both near and far reaching views and on enjoyment of local amenities. The visual impact will be exaggerated by the plume. We do not believe the proposed facility will enhance the local economy. It is doubtful that the permanent jobs proposed, or the community benefits outlined, will offset the negative impact the facility will have on socio-economic activities in the area. We are also concerned the facility will attract additional industrial activity, further altering the rural character of the Vale. There is widespread anxiety in the local community about the emissions that would be generated. These concerns are re-enforced by Covanta’s apparent poor safety record in the USA. The potential effect of temperature inversions on the safe dispersal of emissions has not been adequately considered. The health statement, and proposals for passive monitoring do not give adequate reassurance. The potential for light pollution is not adequately addressed by the proposed mitigation. Noise disturbance in general, and disturbance caused by irregular noise from the facility and traffic associated with it has the potential for significant adverse impact on health and quality of life, and has not been adequately considered. Further measures should be identified to minimise noise impact. The flood mitigation measures proposed would not effectively mitigate the flood risk. We do not accept that “national need” justifies a facility of this size in this location. We oppose the importation of large quantities of waste into Bedfordshire, which will have negative impacts in an area of regeneration, following the end of brick making and large scale landfill. This site has been identified as suitable for a local, not national facility. We reserve the right to raise any additional issues to those outlined above that may arise from any future amendments to the draft National Policy Statements."

Edward Watts
"My main concerns centre around the local environmental impact of the proposed plant and lorry and other vehicle traffic to and from the site during it's construction and working life and the local noise, light and emission pollution from the plant. I understand that very large numbers of lorries will visit the plant on most days with a significant impact in terms of noise, traffic congestion and exhaust emissions on local rural communities. I understand that the plant will operate more or less continuously with resulting disturbance to local homes and the adjacent forest centre and lake with it's varied flora and fauna. I also understand there are concerns about the safety of emissions from similar plants."

Sarah Alison Chiari
"Myself and my family are residents of Clapham, Bedfordshire. We are a few miles from the proposed incinerator at Marston Vale. I am very concerned about the following points. 1.The air emissions produced by the incinerator I am very concerned about the emissions from such a plant. I realise that burning plastics (which would obviously be part of the waste processed) will produce such toxins as “dioxins” which are known to be extremely toxic to humans and presumably to all other life forms. Any toxins from the waste plant could build-up in our local environment causing widespread toxic pollution, pollution that is impossible to remove. These toxins would also enter into the food chain through plants and animals. It is extremely worrying that Covanta has already been served with “legal improvement notices” in America. I feel worried that once such a plant is in place, even if it does pollute more than is legal, it will still continue to remain open, polluting the air around us. I am particularly concerned that unborn babies and children are vulnerable to these sorts of toxins in the environment and believe that they should not be exposed to any greater level of toxins than they already are. I myself have a baby daughter and would hate to think of her being exposed to a lifetime of this type of pollution. We grow organic vegetables and fruit for ourselves and family and our produce could be tainted with invisible toxins and worse we will not able to tell how much toxin is in our produce. Many thousands of Bedfordshire residents are likely to be affected in this way, by pollutants produced on such a scale. 2. The undermining of our progress in recycling in Bedford The opening of such a plant would be a backward step in Bedford where our household recycling has improved massively. Building such an incinerator would undermine future incentives to reduce waste further. Steps to reduce non-recyclable waste at source (i.e. Supermarket packaging/packaging of all new products) should be the focus now of local authorities and government, in my opinion.. 3. Alternative methods of producing electricity Although this plant will produce electricity – at what cost? There are many other green forms of power production, e.g. Wind farms and solar power, which are far preferable because they are sustainable, carbon friendly forms of energy. 4. There is already an incinerator being given the go-ahead at Thurleigh Business Park I read in the paper yesterday that another small incinerator has been given the go ahead at the above business premises. This incinerator will be burning plastic coated wood products amongst other wood waste seven days a week and I presume is likely to produce toxic waste into our environment. It seems extremely unfair that our local environment should have the threat of pollution from not only one local incinerator, but two. Sarah Chiari 12.11.10"

Miss C. Eves-Down
"I don’t want Coventa EFW Development because; A) I haven’t been properly consulted received nothing posted to me so only just been made aware of this huge development which will have a massive adverse impact on me for many reasons outlined below, and haven’t had sufficient reasonable time peruse exhaustive Coventa/IPC documentation, nor word limit in order to address my concerns fully; B) Air Quality & Control; Smaller particulate pollution is most damaging to my health and seems cannot be filtered out by technology/filters Coventa utilize. Therefore, my health is at risk as these smaller particulates travel deep into aveoli and lodge and can cause disease from the Incinerator and increased traffic exhaust fumes. C) Air Emissions will pollute environment locally, nationally and internationally. It can be ‘rained out’ onto our local vegetation/allotments/crops/river ecosystems causing various levels of pollution/damage dependant on season/rainfall/weather/wind patterns and output which will be made up of waste which it seems will not be discrimminately burnt. I have not had time to investigate whether this includes farm/animal waste as well as household waste. D) I believe this development’s unsustainable and not in harmony with local/national sustainability goals and CO2 targets aimed at reducing Climate Change. E) I‘m concerned about storage, treatment and transport/disposal of toxic flyash and leakage into local ecosystems, rivers/waters. F) Control concerns re incinerator and flyash Dusts and vehicles residues on tyres exposing local environments/populations to toxic dusts. G) Light pollution/wasted energy preventing my enjoyment and astronomy of night Sky. H) Local Biodiversity, geology and landscape/corridors which flora/fauna depend upon will be broken up adversely impacted habitat loss, including pollution from stack emissions, process dusts and exhaust pollutants from transporting lorries. I) WFE Installation in Marston Vale Millennium Country Park which I have spent my childhood-to-teen years helping to grow by planting trees. Don’t wish this destroyed by such an unaesthetic huge incinerator building in middle of my favourite countryside spot for walking and enjoying peace and the constant plume will ruin panorama of blue skies I take great pleasure in, with imposition of unnatural adverse visual impact of constant clouds across what we love as our blue vista’s. I will never walk again nor plant another tree in an area blighted by huge incinerator. J) Noise Pollution; vehicle movements and rubbish processing will prevent hearing birdsong, tranquillity and peace. K) This development undermines local waste strategies removing incentives for recycling when instead burning it including waste from out of county. It’s unsustainable and I’ll lose want to recycle. L) It seems electricity output will not benefit me and lighting & indiscriminate burning of waste looses energy by not recycling/recovering vital resources. M) Job opportunities limited. N) It’s wrong that I cannot register without giving you my private tel no & email it has put my friends off from registering. We have also had problems registering online & imposed limited word limit is obstructive to my rights/concerns. I reserve the right to provide further detailed evidence in support of my above concerns."

Caroline Parish
"I object to the proposed development, based on a number of concerns relate to the proposed waste incinerator and its effects on: a) the Stewartby Water Sailing Club which is very close to the proposed development and would share the same road access; b) the wider impact on the local environment; and c) adverse effects on local residents, economy and infrastructure. My family are active members of the club. It is a thriving water sports centre that plays an important role in local sailing, race training and hosting important national and regional dinghy racing events. It plays an important role in developing local youth sailing talent. The proposed development threatens the long-term existence of the club as a thriving regional racing and training centre, for the following reasons: i) The impact of a large high structure on wind flow across the lake means that when wind blows from specific directions, the resulting wind shadow will severely impact the quality of racing. As a result, sailing dinghy classes will stop using the club to host important regional and national events, resulting in a loss of income; ii) The presence of the plant will stop sailors wanting to sail on the lake or maintain their memberships. This is not only because of the considerable adverse effect it will have on the landscape, but also because of noise, traffic from waste transport and a fear of pollution (whether or not the risks from pollutants are being effectively managed, regulated and enforced). People who enjoy outdoor sports do not want to do so in the shadow of a huge industrial facility; iii) The regular traffic of large waste vehicles is of particular concern. Traffic at the junction joining Green Lane to the main road is already considerable and cars towing trailers already find it difficult to enter or exit safely. The additional waste traffic cannot be sustained by this narrow road and increases the risks of accidents to club users considerably. iv) The club also hosts camping by members, particularly summer sailing camps for children. The noise and disturbance caused by the plant will make it difficult to continue with these events, which will further affect the membership of the club. v) The local environment has been painstakingly restored after many years of brickworks being the key industrial feature, and from nearby landfill. As a previous local resident of the area, I have observed a positive transformation in the quality of the landscape, biodiversity and increased use by the local populace as an outdoor recreation resource. The construction of the proposed plant will reverse this transformation. vi) Development of the local economy through warehousing, office buildings etc can also be sustained whilst preserving the quality of the environment and the well being of the local residents. The construction of the proposed facility will stifle any further economic and business development - companies will not want to locate in the area. In conclusion, the local impacts of this proposal will far exceed the benefits."

Elaine Cook
"This proposal is out of keeping with the landscape and could pose potential health risks for residents. The company concerned have a poor track record with this type of facility and emmissions quality. The number of vehicle movements proposed is excessive for the size of roads involved.The vehicle movements will take place very close to a well used local amenity lake and will seriously affect the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the amenity."

Chris Thomas on behalf of Brian Robertson
"Im totally against any facility that takes in other counties waste, this is a money making excercise not a legitimate effort to help the UK deal with its waste/recycling efforts. I also object to the fact that objections are based on draft policy when it is obvious it would be better to wait for the guideline proposal adoption which would make my submission far more relevant."

Lizzie Barnicoat on behalf of Borough of Bedford Local Access Forum
"RESPONSE TO ROOKERY SOUTH APPLICATION from BOROUGH of BEDFORD LOCAL ACCESS FORUM Members of the Local Access Forum have viewed the consultation document regarding Rookery South the Borough of Bedford Local Access Forum (BoBLAF) is concerned with Access and Rights of Way matters in the Borough of Bedford. We feel that we can only comment on these matters and therefore neither support nor oppose the application. In the event that permission is given for the facility then we would strongly suggest that the following conditions with respect to the Rights of Way on the site (and surrounding area) are made, 1) Although we are pleased with the inclusion of new footpaths and cycleways on the site, we regret that the footbridge over the Marston Vale Railway Line is only a possibility. We consider that this bridge is essential to give meaningful access to the site. With entrance from the Millennium Park the bridge will provide easy access to the new footpath network. Without it access is limited and hence usage of the new paths will be limited. We strongly suggest that on giving permission for the facility the condition of erecting this footbridge is made. In addition the applicant should ensure that the new footpaths connect to the existing Rights of Way network to the north and east of the site. It should be noted that this footpath connection would replace the paths on the existing Definitive Map which go through the applicant's site. 2) The condition that the paths should be multipurpose for use by walkers,cyclists and horse riders should be made. 3) The condition that these paths created are ‘Dedicated Rights of Way’ (as opposed to permissive paths) should be made."

Lizzie Barnicoat on behalf of Wilshamstead Parish Council
"The Parish Council feels Bedfordshire should look after its own waste and other local authorities should also take this stance. The Council opposes transport of waste from Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire and Windsor; this is not a green solution. There is concern regarding the very large anticipated HGV movements (171 per day), and by allowing deliveries between 5am and 11pm shows no consideration for local residents. The documentation makes reference to the site offering ‘potential for rail transport in the future’. The Council cannot see why this potential cannot be realised for the project’s planned start date. The Parish Council is mindful that there will always be concerns about stack emissions, noise and dust, to allay these fears the Council feel these should all be independently monitored. In regards to rights of way access, newly created dedicated paths with cycle rights have limited benefit unless they connect directly with the paths in the Forest Centre on the other side of the railway line. If a bridge is discounted due to cost then the existing crossings of the railway should not be extinguished. In addition there is no evidence of a car park adjacent to the new / improved footpaths, without the rail crossing this would further limit the use of the paths. The Council feels that if the proposal is granted then the following conditions are specified: • A railhead should be established and a specified proportion of the waste in and ash out should be by rail. • No hazardous waste to be transported to site, this must be separated at source not on site. • Independent monitoring of emissions, noise and dust with results published on the website and to local bodies. There must be serious consequences and penalties to Covanta if limits are exceeded, with the money from any fines going to local communities. • Measurement of emissions should be undertaken at various points near local population centres especially down wind of the plant, with one on the west of the A6 by Wilstead. • The movement of ash to be undertaken in an enclosed area so release of ash dust to surrounding area can be controlled using filters, with the removal of bottom ash and the more harmful fly ash removed in sealed containers rather than sheeted lorries. • Traffic movements, including those within the site should be confined to 7am to 7pm, and no weekend traffic. • There should be direct access to the Forest Centre from the Rookery North paths and to the footpath to the south of Rookery South. • Wilstead, though just outside the 5km radius from the site, must be ‘engaged’ with Covanta and be party to ongoing communications as it is a significant down wind settlement and part of the parish is within the ‘engagement’ area."

Barbara Coulson
"I do not want a massive incinerator near our village. We have suffered the polluted air of a landfill site and the brick works on our doorstep for many years. Many children and adults in our village suffer from asthma, its about time we had some clean air for once. Also our roads are already congested enough, being a river town, yet more lorries will only make the problem worse. Why should our area be the dumping ground for the rest of the country. Please please do not place an incinerator here."

Chris Thomas on behalf of Ann Dance
"I object to the health issues that will affect myself and my family. I understand that Covanta is being sued in the USA for exceeding its toxic emission levels and feel that this sort of foreign corporation should not profit from Bedfordshire. I object to waste being brought in from other counties with all its traffic issues. I also object to making submissions based on draft policy, why not wait until policy guidelines have been adopted?"

Lizzie Barnicoat on behalf of Renhold Parish Council
"The parish of Renhold lies downwind of, and some 12 kms from, the proposed Covanta incinerator. The prevailing wind direction is from Stewartby towards Renhold, and the parish lies on the first high ground at the end of the Marston Vale. Due to the high elevation across the Ouse basin the Parish Council is concerned that the measures proposed by Covanta to remove harmful particles from emissions from the chimney may not be sufficiently robust, and that the resultant pollution would be likely to affect the parish and its residents, especially those with breathing difficulties, as fumes from the brickworks did in the past. The Parish Council therefore requests that the IPC satisfies itself that the measures proposed by Covanta for cleaning effluent discharges will meet all national and international standards before determining the application."

Chris Thomas on behalf of Andrew Parker
"I object to being asked to submit objections based on draft policy guidelines, it would be far better to wait for guidelines to be adopted, such objections would then be relevant based on correct information. Why is Bedfordshire being targeted as a dumping ground for the UK?"

Lizzie Barnicoat on behalf of Lidlington Parish Council
"The representation will be in relation to the impact this proposal will have on Lidlington and the surrounding community. Lidlington Parish Council is deeply concerned with ALL ASPECTS OF PROCESS and PLANNING. The IPC and it's processes are untested and restrictive; 500 words is insufficient for organisations such as Lidlington Parish Council (LPC) to register views. Air Quality Monitoring LPC feels there is inadequate monitoring planned in our parish. Bedfordshire County Council Their approval of the site was faulty. Community Stewartby will stigmatised by the overwhelming presence of the plant. Corporate Responsibilities American corporations have a poor track record at non-US plants. Hanson sought to escape commitments with Sale of All Property(S.O.A.P) to O&H. Climate Change The proposal will increase immediate C O2 emissions. Efficiency Incinerators without fully subscribed local heat distribution schemes are inefficient. Employment Scheme provides minimal posts compared to real resource recovery. Environment The chemical outputs from the plant are not considered to be beneficial to the environment. Health This area has been subject to an Air Quality Management Order. Given the unknown long-term effects of pollution, current and potential legal liabilities must be co-joined and fully funded by this new polluter. History This area is subject to covenant and was refused permission for landfill. Human Rights Early morning “stacking” of lorries on Green Lane will severely disrupt normal family life in Stewartby. It will adversely affect the lives of school children attending Marston Vale School. IPC The IPC has little LOCAL KNOWLEDGE with questionable ongoing commitment to our community. Legal The site is subject to a ROMP. Approval of development will commute that financial burden. Our community should receive all that financial benefit immediately. Location The RURAL site is Greenfield and subject to a requirement to restore agricultural use. Presumption Approval will cascade development – the Rookery Energy Park is already muted. Proposal The IPC permitted a misleading and dishonest title for the proposal. LPC believes INCINERATOR has been omitted in order to disguise the true nature of the development. Radius Given the 5Km limit on consultation we are shocked there is no defined limit on IMPORTATION. Railway LPC believes all imports from over 20Km should be by rail. Rights of Way Many footpaths and bridleways on former Hanson land were ILLEGALLY obstructed. This scheme seeks to legitimise those unlawful acts and provide inadequate compensation to the community. There must be a review of ALL footpaths and bridleways within former Hanson land in the vale prior to the progression of this scheme. Scale This development is not appropriate to the needs of Bedfordshire. Tourism This development is incompatible with the proposed development of tourism. Transport The A421 upgrade was not planned with many hundreds of large vehicle movements per day. Wildlife Rookery South has much wildlife and must be part of the natural regeneration of the vale."

Andy Kirkham on behalf of Aylesbury Vale District Council
"APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER FOR AN ENERGY FROM WASTE GENERATING STATION AT ROOKERY SOUTH PIT NEAR STEWARTBY, BEDFORDSHIRE In line with the relevant section of the Planning Act 2008 Aylesbury Vale District Council wishes to register interest/concern in the above application. These comments are made with regard to the submitted application documents and the advice for registration (section 3) on the IPC website. From an analysis of the submitted application documents and the location of the energy from waste generating station the impacts on Aylesbury Vale District are likely to be limited to: an increase of HGV/Refuse vehicles movements in Aylesbury (depending on the location of the Waste Transfer Station )and along the A418/A4146 (through the villages of Bierton, Rowsham and Wing) corridor to Milton Keynes. While there are figures for such movements in the submitted transport assessment the analysis effectively ends at Junction 13 on the M1. Further work should be undertaken to consider the impacts of the new/increased HGV movements through Aylesbury Vale District and possible means of mitigation of any impacts arising – including financial contributions to larger schemes/proposals; and while acknowledging that the waste transfer station location does not form part of the application and may be dependant on an on-going process beyond the application the Council needs to raise the issue of and safeguard its position on possible transport/cost/economic impact for the Council in terms of Refuse vehicles movements – requiring transfer from their current operational routes. A Kirkham Aylesbury Vale District Council 19 November 2010."

Denise Molyneaux
"I am against the proposal at the Rookery site for the following reasons: 1.As a resident of Houghton Conquest my family and I will be only a few miles from the site in question. Its presence would be both unsightly and a blot on the landscape. 2. My family and I are members of the Stewartby Watersports Club which is very close to the site; I understand the increase in traffic along Green Lane will be enormous and therefore have an impact on the club.It is most enjoyable to sail on the lake and take in the surrounding countryside; apart from the size of the lake one of the reasons we host competitions for all four water sports disciplines is the location and availability of 'green and pleasant land' on which to pitch a tent for an overnight stay. No-one would want to come to Stewartby to sleep under the stars and.... in the shadow of an incinerator. 3. The area around the lake and indeed the lake itself is home to large numbers of wildlife and anything as unnatural as an incinerator would be detrimental to these birds and animals. Adjacent to the Club there is the Marston Vale Forest Centre which is a safe, clean and enjoyable centre for families to enjoy wildlife, exploring nature and being out in the FRESH air. This I feel would be ruined by the proposal. 4. The proposed site is too close to the local school. This school enjoys a very high standard of education and parents from outside the catchment area apply for the children to attend. With an incinerator as a neighbour, I foresee pupil numbers dropping - I would certainly not wish a child of mine to attend a school which was overshadowed by this incinerator. I am therefore totally against the erection of this incinerator which, as well as the points mentioned above, will disfigure our lovely Bedfordshire countryside."

Chris Thomas on behalf of Emma Dance
"I object to all the polloutin issues and disregard for local flora & fauna, why should be take on other counties waste, let them deal with their own. Why can we not wait until guidelines have been adopted, these are draft and are designed to prevent us protesting in the future. No to big foreign corporations exploiting the people of Bedfordshire"

David Williams
"For many years the residents of Marston Vale lived under the cloud of fumes created by the brick works. Now that we finally have some clean air to breath an American corporation want to build a huge incinerator that will pump out toxic emissions into the local atmosphere and be a blight on the landscape. After landfill incineration is the worst form of waste disposal. We do not want to be a dumping ground for other peoples waste especially when it is carried out in such an unenvironmentally friendly fashion. Covanta has a very poor record in the USA for accidental discharges into the atmosphere and for treating its employees poorly."

Geoff Molyneaux
"I am against the proposal at the Rookery site for the following reasons: 1.As a resident of Houghton Conquest my family and I will be only a few miles from the site in question. Its presence would be both unsightly and a blot on the landscape. 2. My family and I are members of the Stewartby Watersports Club which is very close to the site; I understand the increase in traffic along Green Lane will be enormous and therefore have an impact on the club.It is most enjoyable to sail on the lake and take in the surrounding countryside; apart from the size of the lake one of the reasons we host competitions for all four water sports disciplines is the location and availability of 'green and pleasant land' on which to pitch a tent for an overnight stay. No-one would want to come to Stewartby to sleep under the stars and.... in the shadow of an incinerator. 3. The area around the lake and indeed the lake itself is home to large numbers of wildlife and anything as unnatural as an incinerator would be detrimental to these birds and animals. Adjacent to the Club there is the Marston Vale Forest Centre which is a safe, clean and enjoyable centre for families to enjoy wildlife, exploring nature and being out in the FRESH air. This I feel would be ruined by the proposal. 4. The proposed site is too close to the local school. This school enjoys a very high standard of education and parents from outside the catchment area apply for the children to attend. With an incinerator as a neighbour, I foresee pupil numbers dropping - I would certainly not wish a child of mine to attend a school which was overshadowed by this incinerator. I am therefore totally against the erection of this incinerator which, as well as the points mentioned above, will disfigure our lovely Bedfordshire countryside."

Mrs Hazel Trustam on behalf of Marston Moreteyne Parish Council
"Marston Moreteyne Parish Council objects to the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) and sets out its objections below. The Council intends to explore the issues raised in more detail and will provide further submissions. 1. Air Emissions Severe concerns about emissions from both stack and other processes and the long term cumulative effect on the health of residents. These concerns are re-enforced by Covanta’s apparent poor safety record in the USA. Concern over potential effect of air/temperature inversion. 2. Traffic & Transport Impact The proposal is that deliveries will be made by road despite the fact that the site lies between two rail systems. The proposed traffic generated by the site will have a negative effect on residents of Marston Moreteyne. Traffic volumes will be beyond existing and predicted capacity of the road infrastructure with huge potential for congestion further afield. Traffic generated is likely to utilize the local road network. The proposed operating and delivery hours are likely to compound the negative traffic impact on communities. 3. Noise There will be a significant disturbance for residents from HGV’s accessing the site and also from the continuous operating noise of the EfW which will be within a countryside setting. The potential for an adverse impact on health and quality of life has not been adequately considered. 4. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation There is a future accumulation impact concern relating to the attraction of other industries should this be given the green light. The site is adjacent to Marston Vale Millennium Country Park whose primary purpose is to re-forest the Marston Vale. 5. Dust, Odour, Artificial Light, Smoke, Steam and Insect Infestation The potential for light pollution is not adequately addressed by the proposed mitigation. 6. Landscape and Visual Impact The sheer size of the proposed plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site is considered to lie within an “area of great landscape value” and whilst the weight attributed to this definition may have changed the sites relationship to some of the best panoramic views in Central Bedfordshire have not. It will detrimentally affect the views from the vale to the surrounding Greensand Ridge; and the panoramic views from the ridge across the entire vale, especially those seen from Ampthill Park, will be materially impaired. 7. Local and Regional Waste Management The EfW will undermine local waste strategy and discourage recycling 8. Socio-Economic The Parish Council does not believe that the proposed facility will enhance the local economy and there is doubt that any permanent jobs or community benefits which have been outlined will offset the negative impact the facility will have on socio-economic activities in the area. Again there is concern that this proposal will attract other industries to the site which will add to the burden the Vale will have to endure should this proposal be given the green light. There is no guarantee that any jobs created by this facility will be undertaken by local people."

Mrs Ruth Dant
"I am very concerned about pollution, health, volume of traffic and importing waste from distant counties."

donna noble
"I am extremely concerened about the application for the incinerator at rookery pit. This is due to several factors. Health is my primary concern as my son used to be hospitalised on a regular basis. Once the brick chimneys at stewartby had stopped operating the hospital visits ceased and he has been healthy ever since, Will this happen again if this incinerator is given permission, especially with covantas reputation of not complying to regulations. I also have several other major concerns. The environmental problems that will occur due to the huge amount of vehicle movements that will happen over the majority of the day. The noise as a result of these vehicles and, even with the new bypass opening, the inadequate infrastrucure of the local roads. The visual appearance of the building and the view from local places enjoyed by many people out enjoying the countryside. The air quality and the disappearance of the night sky, the landscape, the wildife inhabitants , the list is endless."

Lizzie Barnicoat on behalf of Elstow Parish Council
"Views on the impact to the local area. The Parish Council have considered the various documents and wish to support the proposal on the basis that electricity and new ways of generating power need to sought, and having considered the arguments for and against feel that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Also the Parish Council feel that it is vital that all modern health and safety laws are adhered to at all times."

David McNamara
"What will happen to any waste products generated by the incinerators? Not only will all the waste have to be transported through our communities to get to the plant but then the poisinous fly ash produced will have to be disposed of. Will this go to local landfill or will it be transported back through our communities? Either of these options could produce toxic emmisions. Was the increase in traffic tacken into account when designing the A421? The area is already extremely busy and with the large increase in traffic to and from the site this can only get worse. If the site is taking waste from the whole catchment area this will surely have an adverse efffect on local traffic. The size of the building will make it a complete eyesore. Noise and light pollution will be taken to an unacceptable level."

Mrs Nicky Upton on behalf of Harlington Parish Council
"1. The increase of traffic would involve a considerable number of waste trucks coming up the A5/A6 and using local roads to the detriment of our environment. This was not covered by Covanta’s traffic assessment which was determined by the Buckinghamshire origin of the waste. There is no assessment or proposed mitigation beyond the A421. Increased congestion on other roads and junctions needs to be addressed. A facility of this size is likely to generate 24-hour traffic movement. Disturbance caused by traffic to/from or associated with the site has the potential for significant adverse impact on the amenities and quality of life not only of the villages around the site itself, but those lying between major routes which may be used as “rat runs” or short cuts. 2. For an installation of this size substantial amounts of waste would need to be imported from other areas. As the site is in close proximity to railways, this should be the mandatory transport requirement. 3. The prevailing wind in winter when the demand for output will be highest will be from the north increasing the emissions in our environment. These concerns are reinforced by Covanta’s apparent poor safety record in the USA. The potential effect of temperature inversions on the safe dispersal of emissions has not been adequately considered. The area has previously been the subject of am Air Quality Management Order. 4. We do not believe it is possible that a construction of this size can be made to blend sympathetically with the surrounding countryside. There are no effective measures outlined that would mitigate the impact that the massive size and height of the proposed facility would have on the visual quality of the landscape in a rural setting. The visual impact will be made worse and extended over much a greater distance by the plume from the high stack. Light pollution is not adequately addressed by the proposal. 5. We do not accept that national need justifies a facility of this size in this particular location. Unlike many Combined Heat and Power proposals, this one has no obvious outlet for the waste heat and CO2 produced. The size suggests that large amounts of waste will need to be imported into Bedfordshire which will be no improvement on the current situation where large amounts of waste are imported to landfill. It will be hugely detrimental to efforts to regenerate the area properly. 6. Harlington Parish Council reserve the right to raise issues further to the above that may arise from amendments to the proposal itself or to the draft National Policy Statements."

Mr A Wright
"TRAFFIC . A new A421 by pass has been built to take traffic away from the local villages.If this new incinerator is built, this will result in waste lorries arriving from outside the local area. The resultant Toxic fly ash will then have to be removed, resulting in even more lorry movements on the minor roads that the by pass replaced. EMISSIONS. A failure in the emission monitoring system could result in major problems in the local area. I do not feel it is needed or is right to to site the massive unit so close to the Forest Centre which is doing a wonderfull job on improving the landscape of the Marston Vale."

Mrs Sally Teakle
"I object to Covanta's plans to site an incinerator at Rookery South, Stewartby for the following reasons - The impact of emissions on the local public and the surrounding environment would be detrimental to the health of us and also the local wildlife. This area is only just recovering from the emissions from the brickworks. I have concerns also about the montoring of these emissions given the recent issues with similar projects run by Covanta in the USA. -Huge amounts of waste will be transported nto the incinerator by lorry, and toxic fly ash will need to be removed by the same route. The local roads will not cope with this amount of heavy traffic. Even major routes such as the A6 go directly through Bedford town centre. Once the lorries leaqve the main route they must travel on some small and winding minor A roads to access the site. -The massive structure will be a dominating building in an area that is being regenerated by such projects as Marston Vale into an area of beauty. Visitors numbers will fall with such a large and potentially unhealthy structure adjacent to the area."

Rosie Davey-Hunt on behalf of Cranfield Parish Council
"Cranfield Parish Council objects to the proposed, and wishes to make further representations on the following in terms of the specific impact on Cranfield, and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation in relation to Cranfield, as well as the wider community. Traffic: Wide ranging comments on the traffic/transport assessment, including: The impact of the increased traffic movements generated by the site will cover a much wider area than covered in the transport assessment. This has not been addressed. The impact of the nuisance and unpleasantness caused by waste HGVs travelling through towns and villages has not been addressed. Long proposed operating hours will compound the negative impact of traffic on communities. The management plan is inadequate. Concern about routing of HGVs. Failure to give adequate consideration to the use of rail to transport waste. Landscape: The detrimental effect of such a large industrial facility on a rural setting in terms of visual impact, and impact on amenities. Assessment of the impact and proposed mitigation. Assessment of the visual effect of the plume. Emissions: Anxiety in the local community concerning safe dispersal of emissions, especially nanoparticles. Proposed monitoring and health statement do not provide adequate reassurance. Effect of temperature inversions on safe dispersal of emissions not adequately considered. Noise: Noise impact has been assessed using average noise. Irregular noise needs to be considered. Noise impact assessment is inadequate. Light: Potential for light pollution. Proposed catchment area: Where will the waste come from if proposed contracts not secured? Vale historically subject to brick making and landfill, however moving away from these now, and the Vale is cleaner and much more pleasant to live in. Community does not want a return to importation of huge quantities of waste, and the associated problems. Need: the sheer scale of the facility is the issue, in terms of all potential impacts. This site has been identified as suitable for local scale waste management. Site selection criteria questioned. “National need “is insufficient to justify such a large facility. Decision is to be based on draft, not adopted national strategy. Socio-economic. Proposal will have a negative impact on the Vale and surrounding area. Proposed benefits do not outweigh negative impact. Some benefits unclear. If built, site is likely to attract further industrial development, substantially altering rural character of the Vale. The consultation process has been difficult for lay people to access, and will have limited the number of responses from members of the public"

Sara Crann on behalf of Woburn Parish Council
"Woburn Parish Council object to the proposal. We object to the importation of large quantities of waste into Bedfordshire. Our primary concern is the route and quantity of HGVs. We note that the traffic assessment appears to be limited to the 5 km consultation area. With the predicted volume of traffic travelling to and from the site, this is inadequate. We believe that the assessment is limited to fulfil the requirement of Bedfordshire and Luton Mineral and Waste Plan, Policy GE23, that “waste must be transported to and from the site via the strategic highway network”. We do not believe that this limited traffic assessment fulfils the requirement of Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy, Policy DM9. Appendix 16 of the assessment shows traffic south of the site (which is 76% of the total) using the A421 and the M1 northbound or southbound to/from Junction 13, i.e. the strategic road network. However, there are two other routes to/from this junction, the A421 west towards Milton Keynes, and A4012 through Woburn. The A4012 is not a strategic route. This is a major omission. The A4012 is used as a route from the west/south west of England via the A5 to the M1. This is of specific concern as the applicants state that they are tendering for contracts from Buckinghamshire and Windsor and Maidenhead. In limiting the traffic assessment the applicants have made no effort to assess the quantity of traffic that will not use the strategic road network and therefore its impact on communities, particularly those west of the M1. These communities have had to extrapolate the source, quantity and route of traffic to assess the impact. The applicant has not proved how much of the HGV traffic will use the strategic road network, therefore we believe this application is not acceptable under the Bedfordshire and Luton Mineral and Waste Plan, Policy GE1, in terms of the suitability of the road network to be used. The chosen site does not fulfil the requirement to minimise road transport. As a result, we believe the statement in the application at 1.4.6 of the traffic assessment “that the results of the capacity assessments indicate that the traffic associated with the RRF project can be accommodated on the local highway network for all scenarios tested without the need for mitigation measures” to be misleading and incorrect. We note that AECOM for the Highways Agency highlighted the limitations of the traffic assessment and possible undercalculation of gross tonnage. Woburn is a Georgian village with the highest concentration of listed buildings in Bedfordshire. Increased heavy goods traffic will have a detrimental impact on the safety and comfort of its residents, damage the fabric of the listed buildings, and reduce visitor numbers impacting on local business and regional tourism. We may wish to amend these observations when the draft National Policy Statement on national networks (road and rail) is published."

Tony Talbot on behalf of Marston Vale Trust
"The Marston Vale Trust is an independent Charity which is charged with the creation of the Forest of Marston Vale – one of twelve Community Forests in England designated by Government as vehicles for the environmental regeneration of areas around towns and cities that have been degraded by industrial activities. There is extensive local, regional and national policy support for developer contribution towards the creation of the Forest of Marston Vale. The size of the proposed development means that it would dominate the Vale and particularly the adjacent Millennium Country Park and its visitor centre (the Forest Centre). The Park and Centre are popular attractions with 450,000 visits to the Park and 170,000 visits to the Forest Centre in 2009. All profit from the Centre is donated to the Marston Vale Trust for the environmental regeneration of the Vale. The Marston Vale Trust aims to work with developers to ensure that development in the Vale is of high environmental quality and contributes to the creation of the Forest of Marston Vale through woodland creation in line with national targets for woodland creation in Community Forests. The Trust has a policy of neutrality on development in the Vale that does not conflict with the objectives of the Trust or the Forest Plan and which contributes adequately to the creation of the Forest. While regretting the adverse impact that the proposed development will have on the landscape of the Vale and the attractiveness of the Park and Forest Centre, the Board of Trustees of the Marston Vale Trust recognises that the proposal is not at odds with the Forest plan or the objectives of the Trust and recognises the need for efficient and effective waste disposal. The Trust is, therefore, neutral on the proposed development provided there is significant mitigation to compensate for the impact on visitors and for the impact on the Forest Centre business. The Marston Vale Trust has been in discussion with Covanta since the initial public consultation. Covanta has been receptive to the concerns raised by the Marston Vale Trust and Document 1.11 (Heads of Terms) sets out some of the principles of support for the Trust and the creation of the Forest. While encouraged by the receptiveness of Covanta to the need for extensive mitigation and particularly: 1. Covanta’s commitment to achieving 39% tree cover (1.11, 5.4). 2. The provision of a fund for the Marston Vale Trust (1.11, 7,2) The Trust reserves its position until details are agreed, particularly in the following areas: 1. The design of the pedestrian, cycle and equestrian link between the Millennium Country Park and Rookery needs to be traffic free, attractive and avoid crossing the proposed haul road at grade (for safety reasons). 2. The rail crossing at Rookery needs to be designed to be safe and inviting for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. 3. Tree planting design in the Millennium Country Park to screen the development and redirect views to minimise the adverse visual impact of the proposal (1.11, 5.2). - A contribution towards the delivery of the Forest of Marston Vale - Impact on the neighbouring Millennium Country Park"

D.J.Green on behalf of Mrs Jean Alder
"I believe that the IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station because of the cumulative detrimental effects to local amenities that outweigh the potential benefits. My objections are: (1) The impact of the proposed high volume of Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) traffic: a. HGVs passing my residential property, which is only some 20 metres from the old A421 road, in a continual flow from 0500 hours to 2300 hours will be an amenity nuisance and will make it difficult to sleep. I am also concerned about the potential damaging effects of HGV-induced vibration on my house over a period. b. HGVs and other Covanta traffic are likely to cause congestion, queuing and accidents on the local Marston Moreteyne and Stewartby roads. Covanta should provide sufficient HGV parking on the proposed site to prevent queuing and ‘waiting-up’ on local roads. c. The Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) paragraph 5.13.10 requires that rail is used in preference to road transport where cost effective. Covanta has not provided a convincing analysis as evidence to show why waste should be transported to the site by road rather than by the under-used railway beside the proposed site. d. Actual traffic flows and peak times on the old and new A421 roads should be reassessed after the new A421 dual carriageway is opened. e. If the project goes ahead, a dedicated access link and bridge from the new dual carriageway directly into Green Lane should be provided to mitigate HGV effects on local residents. Also, Covanta should be responsible for ensuring that their HGVs do not deposit litter on our local roads; penalties for non-compliance should be large. (2) Potential for adverse health, amenity and ecological effects from HGVs and the proposed facility, i.e. noise, vibration, fly ash dust clouds on windy days, effects of downdraughts, and vermin and odours if loaded HGVs are waiting up owing to facility breakdowns. This includes an anticipated negative impact on the Country Park and its surrounds. (3) Visual impact of the proposed facility from various paths and viewpoints within the Marston Vale Country Park will destroy the peaceful nature of the existing landscape. (4) Negative economic impact on local tourism."

Mrs Joy Mead
"I would like to object to the building of the Rookery South Resource Recovery Facility as I am very concerned about the dangers of emissions which we will breathe in. I am also concerned about the number of large lorries which will be coming to and from the site and the negative effect for the people who live closest to the site."

Mr Richard Teakle
"I would like to register my objections to the proposed Covanta Incinerator plant at Rookery South, Stewartby. The massive structure will dominate the rural landscape. The 105m high Chimney will dwarf everything in the valley. This will scar a landscape that is being restored to an area of beauty by such projects as the Marston Vale and otentailly reduce the number of visitors to the vale and investors in more environmentally friendly projects . The amount of heavy lorries that would be needed to import the waste into the vale and remove the resultant toxic fly ash would be vast. The local roads are not designes to take these amounts or types of traffic. Even allowing for current improvements to the A421, it still remains that the minot roads and the A6 would be unable to cope with this traffic load. We do not need this incinerator for the local area. Now that the brickmaking has ended and with Stewartby landfill closing shortly the vale has begun to regenerate. We have experienced years detrimental effects and should be allowed a repieve to allow this potentially beautiful and wildlife friendly environment to repair. I am concerned about the amount and nature of the emmissions from the plant. Covanta have not demonstrated that they will adequately consider and measure emissions and temperature inversions in the vale and how they will effect safe dispersal of the emmisions from the stack."

Nigel Edwards
"I am extremely concerned about the Incinerator proposal and the history of Covanta in running such programmes. Having researched the history of Covanta I am disturbed to find that there have been numerous fines imposed on the company in the past few years for various issues. These fines have exceeded $1.5million and it would appear no matter what the fine amount or reason, they continue to flaunt Health and Safety rules and regulations. Of these fines, the majority are excessive emission levels of dioxins, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride and nitrogen oxide. There have also been major issues of "fly ash" polluting the surrounding areas when safety mechanisms fail. I am also additionally concerned at the safety record of Covanta for those local people who will undoubtedly be employed. There have been fines for safety violations at their facilities for improper use and maintainance of electrical equipment and storage of flammable gas cylinders. It would also appear there have been issues regarding general employment rights, ie. appropriate clothing not provided and illegal work rules. I have general concerns for the area surrounding the proposal plant and the effect it will have on air quality, noise/light pollution and water pollution of Stewartby Lake and those living in close proximity and the wildlife. If Covanta's level of violations in the US were to take place here, I am troubled as to the greater impact it would have on the area."

Sara Crann on behalf of Hockliffe Parish Council
"Hockliffe Parish Council object to the Covanta Planning Application because the documents to not clearly show the all the trunk roads that the HGV's would travel to the site at Rookery Pit. Hockliffe Parish is a small village on the A5 which already suffers from high volume HGV traffic, it is feared that if this application is granted there would be a considerable increase in HGV traffic on the A5."

Stephen Ivory
"Sir, My representation is being made in my capacity as Sailing School Principal at Stewartby Watersports Club. The Sailing School is an RYA recognised training centre. We have been awarded RYA Volvo Champion Club status and RYA On Board club of the year (Eastern region) for our work in getting youngsters on the water. Quite apart from the obvious visual impact and smell that will come from this facility and the possible detrimental effect it could have on the wind, thus affecting effective teaching of sailing, I have further concerns over safety. The Sailing School is used by a lot of local schools who would otherwise not have the opportunity to experience sailing and Bedford school regularly use the lake as part of their physical activities. This is quite apart from the adults who learn to sail here. My first concern is the increased volume of traffic. The extremely large number of HGV's entering and exiting the facility so close to the club entrance is an obvious concern with mini buses of school children also trying to access the sailing club. We also run residential summer camps for juniors and to have HGV's operating until 11pm at night and starting early in the morning would mean these camps would have to stop. That of course is assuming the operating times submitted by Covanta would be strictly adhered to, which I doubt. There is the added concern of numerous lorry drivers parking overnight within 50mtrs of our camping area. I have further concerns over pollution of the lake and the emmissions from the plant. I understand there is no method in place to monitor the water quality exiting the plant and entering our lake. Covanta claim that surface run off will not result in contamination of our water however I fail to see how that can be ensured during conditions of high winds and heavy rain. I understand there have been health problems reported around similar facilities and despite assurances from Covanta concerning emmissions I further understand they have been repeatedly fined in the U.S. for breaching regulations. Should they breach regulations and the reported health issues occur at the proposed facility then a fine will be of little compensation to the large number of young people using our Sailing School. Covanta claim that short immersion in the water would not be harmful, however, apart from the local schools that use our facility, usually for 6 weeks at a time, we have a very strong Junior section who use the lake regularly for coaching and racing. Immersion in the water is very much part and parcel of dinghy sailing. In view of the above points I consider that the proposed Covanta development could have a serious impact on the activities of the Sailing School, possibly even result in it being unable to continue. Regards Steve Ivory Sailing School Principal Stewartby Watersports Club."

Robert V King
"I am not objecting in priciple to the creation of an Energy from waste facility. I do however have concerns about 1. Traffic Movements. 2. Capability of the applicant to deliver a safe facility. 3. The need to provide a facilty for the treatment of waste from a greater area than Bedfordshire. It is particularily galling, that having reduced the landfill facilities to improve the general environmental appeal of the area where I live, we are now creating an even bigger facility with a potential bigger impact."

Elizabeth Thompson
"I would like to make a representation against the proposed development based on my concerns over 1) the health impact of the emissions 2) the environmental impact, including light, noise, dust and odour pollution 3) the impact on the local infrastructure due to an increase in the volume of traffic accessing the site 4) the detriment to local amenities from the visual impact of the structure 5) the precedence that this will set for other such developments in the area leading to Bedfordshire becoming the main dumping ground for England’s waste."

Denise Harding on behalf of Anglian Water Services
"AW Reference: 0101/SP58(017) Date 19 Nov 2010 ASSETS Section 1 – Assets Affected 1.1 Our records show that there are no assets owned by Anglian Water or those subject to an adoption agreement within the development site boundary. WASTEWATER SERVICES Section 2 – Wastewater Treatment 2.1 The site is in the catchment of Stewartby Sewage Treatment Works (STW) which does not have the capacity available. A drainage strategy will need to be prepared in consultation with Anglian Water and the Environment Agency to determine whether additional flow can be discharged to watercourse and to cover temporary measures in the interim, if additional capacity can be provided at the STW. We request a condition requiring the drainage strategy covering the issue(s) to be agreed. Section 3 – Foul Sewerage Network 3.1 Development will lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream. A drainage strategy will need to be prepared in consultation with Anglian Water to determine mitigation measures. We request a condition requiring the drainage strategy covering the issue(s) to be agreed. Section 4 – Surface Water Disposal 4.1 The preferred method of surface water disposal would be to a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) with connection to sewer seen as the last option. Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk emphasises the role of SUDS and introduces a presumption that they will be used in all developments. Building Regulations on Drainage and Waste Disposal for England includes a surface water drainage hierarchy, with infiltration on site as the preferred disposal option, followed by discharge to watercourse and then connection to a sewer. 4.2 The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the planning application is not relevant to Anglian Water and therefore this is outside our jurisdiction for comment and the Planning Authority will need to seek the views of the Environment Agency. We request a condition requiring a drainage strategy covering the issue(s) to be agreed. Section 5 – Trade Effluent 5.1 The planning application includes employment/commercial use. To discharge trade effluent from trade premises to a public sewer vested in Anglian Water requires our consent. It is an offence under section 118 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to discharge trade effluent to sewer without consent. Anglian Water would ask that the following text be included within your Notice should permission be granted. “An application to discharge trade effluent must be made to Anglian Water and must have been obtained before any discharge of trade effluent can be made to the public sewer. Anglian Water recommends that petrol / oil interceptors be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of such facilities could result in pollution of the local watercourse and may constitute an offence. Anglian Water also recommends the installation of a properly maintained fat traps on all catering establishments. Failure to do so may result in this and other properties suffering blocked drains, sewage flooding and consequential environmental and amenity impact and may also constitute an offence under section 111 of the Water Industry Act 1991.” Section 6 – Suggested Planning Conditions Anglian Water would therefore recommend the following planning condition if the Local Planning Authority is mindful to grant planning approval. Wastewater Treatment (Section 2) CONDITION No development shall commence until the wastewater strategy submitted with the planning application relevant to Anglian Water is acceptable and has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To prevent environmental and amenity problems. Foul Sewerage Network (Section 3) CONDITION No development shall commence until a foul water strategy submitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding. Surface Water Disposal (Section 4) CONDITION No development shall commence until a surface water strategy/flood risk assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding."

James Fuller
"I would like to make a representation against the proposed development based on my concerns over 1) the health impact of the emissions 2) the environmental impact, including light, noise, dust and odour pollution 3) the impact on the local infrastructure due to an increase in the volume of traffic accessing the site 4) the detriment to local amenities from the visual impact of the structure 5) the precedence that this will set for other such developments in the area leading to Bedfordshire becoming the main dumping ground for England’s waste."

Ms Maria-Rose Eves-Down
"I am against this Coventa EFW Development due to; 1) Lack of proper consultation with no postal notice therefore only today been made aware of this massive EFW Installation which will have adverse impacts on me& my family reasons outlined below; 2) I haven’t had reasonable time to examine the exhaustive Coventa/IPC documentation. 3) Air Quality & Control; Smaller particulate pollution is a health is at risk as these smaller particulates travel deep into aveoli and lodge and can cause disease from the Incinerator and increased traffic exhaust fumes. 4) Air Emissions will pollute environment locally, nationally and internationally. It can be ‘rained out’ onto our local vegetation/allotments/crops/river ecosystems causing various levels of pollution/damage dependant on season/rainfall/weather/wind patterns and output which will be made up of waste which it seems will not be discrimminately burnt. I have not had time to investigate whether this includes farm/animal waste as well as household waste. 5) I believe this developments unsustainable and not in harmony with local/national sustainability goals and CO2 targets aimed at reducing Climate Change. 6) I‘m concerned about storage, treatment and transport/disposal of toxic flyash and leakage into local ecosystems, rivers/waters. 7) Control concerns re incinerator and flyash dusts and vehicles residues on tyres exposing local environments/populations to toxic dusts. 8) Light pollution/wasted energy preventing my enjoyment/astronomy of night sky. 9) Local Biodiversity, geology and landscape/corridors which flora/fauna depend upon will be broken up adversely impacted habitat loss, including pollution from stack emissions, process dusts and exhaust pollutants from transporting lorries. 10) WFE Installation in Marston Vale Millennium Country Park which I have spent my childhood-to-teen years helping to grow by planting trees. Don’t wish this destroyed by such an unaesthetic huge incinerator building in middle of my favourite countryside spot for walking and enjoying peace and the constant plume will ruin panorama of blue skies I take great pleasure in, with imposition of unnatural adverse visual impact of constant clouds across what we love as our blue vista’s. I will never walk again nor plant another tree in an area blighted by huge incinerator. 11) Noise Pollution; vehicle movements and rubbish processing will add to the already intrusive noise from traffic. 12) This development undermines local waste strategies removing incentives for recycling when instead burning it, including waste from out of county. It’s unsustainable and reduces desire to recycle. 13) It seems electricity output will not benefit me, also lighting & indiscriminate burning of waste loses energy by not recycling/recovering vital resources. 14) Job opportunities limited. 15) It’s wrong that I cannot register without giving you my private tel no & email it has discouraged my friends from registering. There have also been problems registering online & imposed limited word limit is obstructive to my rights/concerns. I reserve the right to add to my above concerns, and to comment on the concerns of others."

Malcolm Smith
"The area is primarily used for agriculture and tourism. Pollution from this plant will seriously compromise this. Having the UK's largest incinerator next to a Country Park just seems plain wrong. Bedfordshire's BEaR waste programme deals locally. The economics of building a huge waste plant would require it to be constantly fed, despite the aim to reduce waste, by importing waste from further afield. Importing waste from other regions will require more local landfill, which is very expensive, but Covanta would likely escape that cost. The traffic caused by hundreds of daily lorry movements would gridlock local roads which were not designed to cope with such a huge development. Covanta claim that using rail is too expensive, but they are not factoring in the real cost of the considerable extra traffic infrastructure needed, way beyond the capabilities of the new A421 and M1 Junction 13, which was not built with this in mind and is already at capacity. Proposed advantages of the plant - to generate electricity, and create employment - are overrated considering the real costs. Better solutions exist. I have grave concerns about pollution, especially given the company's history of prosecutions. I live on a hill overlooking the Vale, and so would catch the clouds that would fall uncontrollably due to temperature inversion. I enjoy walking in the countryside but would worry about long-term health issues. As a composer I am especially concerned about noise pollution. I moved to this remote part of the countryside so that I can compose and record undisturbed, but low droning plant machinery and rumbling traffic would end this. Light pollution is also a worry, since we actually still have dark skies here at the moment. The proposal seems ill-suited to the needs of the region and causes serious issues."

Elizabeth Thompson on behalf of Grace Fuller
"I am concerned over the health impact of the emissions the light, noise, dust and odour pollution the increase in the volume of traffic the visual impact of the structure on the surrounding area the precedence that this will set for other such developments in the area leading to Bedfordshire becoming the main dumping ground for England’s waste."

Jack Fuller
"I have concerns over 1) the health impact of the emissions 2) the light, noise, dust and odour pollution 3) the increase in the volume of traffic accessing the site 4) the visual impact of the structure on the local area 5) the precedence that this will set for other such developments in the area leading to Bedfordshire becoming the main dumping ground for England’s waste."

Mark Howard
"I am concerned about health issues with this proposal as i do not believe that they have been answered appropriately i.e. environmental concerns for air & water. I am concerned about the increased traffic volumes surrounding the area - very large trucks long hours etc. The marston vale is an area of wildlife & countryside which would be blighted by this facility. I am concerned about Covanta's track record in the USA for environmental problems."

Chris Thomas on behalf of Tanya Dance
"Concerns and issues around the violation of emission legislation in USA involving Covanta and what it means to the health and environment of the people of Bedfordshire. Why are we being asked to comment on draft policy guidelines, why not wait until guidelines published and adopted? This is simply not fair."

Mrs Linda Coughlin
"I am concerned about the health implications of firstly, living down wind of the proposed site for the incinerator and secondly, having the lorries entering the site with rubbish and exiting the site potentially with fly ash within a few 100 yards of where I live with my husband and young children. I also do not believe that building an incinerator on the proposed site, next to the Forest Centre, is in keeping with other plans for the area ie Centre Parks, the Nirah Project and housing developments."

Adam Schwalm
"I have serious concerns over the emissions from the Incinerator and the effect it will have on the health on my family and the community I live in. I have seen no informative evidence, research or analysis that allays fears of the long term health effects the resultant dioxins produced as a waste by-product from the site will have on the local and surrounding population and wildlife. The Marston Vale Millennium Country Park is at the heart of a massive project planting a beautiful new forest between Bedford and Milton Keynes. This is creating breathing spaces where we will all be able to relax and escape the pressures of the modern world, for generations to come. This will breathe new life into a landscape scarred by decades of clay extraction, brick making and landfill. The incinerator will potentially spoil this project and the chance to encourage our children to understand the benefits of natural resources and associated wildife, which offers a clear and positive vision for a better quality of life which we can all share. Visually this site will have an adverse affect on the natural surrounding beauty of this area and is also a stones throw away from the aforementioned Forest of Marston Vale. The county is working hard to encourage responsible and environmentally friendly solutions to waste management. The BEaR Project is at the tender process to find providers of the best waste management solutions for this area. I cannot see in any of the information provided by Covanta how their Incinerator is going to provide environmentally friendly solutions to waste management. Covanta proposes to export electricity to serve the needs, not just of this community, but that of many more in the surrounding counties. The waste production output of Bedfordshire will not be adequate alone to service its own county, let alone surrounding areas. This would mean they would need to import waste from many more counties to make enough electricity to support the needs of the range of homes they state in their Project evaluation. This would then affect the transport infrastructure of the Marston Moreteyne and the surrounding communities. The Highways Agency have confirmed that their recent modelling carried out for the dualling of the A421 between the M1 and A1, does not incorporate any capacity for a large scale industrial area. My calculation would be that to produce the amount of waste predicted to supply to the scale that Covanta wish to provide, would require about 800 vehicles or more per day to be transporting waste to the site. There are no details or research that confirms who will pay for the impact these vehicles will place on the transport infrastructure. The A421 Dual carriageway was designed and being built to alleviate the existing traffic problems that it placed on the previous single carriageway connection between the M1 and A1."

Chris Thomas on behalf of Richard Nightingale
"I object to the possible long term health implications that will arise from the emissions from the chimneys and waste. Toxic emissions have been exceeded by Covanta in the USA, what is to stop them from polluting Bedfordshire? Why can we not object once we know exactly what the adopted guidelines actually say?"

Natalie Blaken on behalf of East of England Development Agency
"EEDA’s principal role is to improve the East of England region’s economic performance. Our main focus when commenting on planning proposals is therefore to address: • whether the proposal will help further sustainable economic development and regeneration in the East of England, and in particular, • the ability of the proposals to help deliver the new Regional Economic Strategy (RES), (Inventing our future – Collective action for a sustainable economy, 2008). The main issues are as follows: • The economic benefit of the scheme will include the 100+ permanent jobs it generates directly and indirectly, and the fact that it is an inward investment by a foreign owned company in the region. The main body of the analysis is included in Chapter 15 of the Environmental Statement. This covers, in some depth, the ambitions and targets from local / regional / national strategies - including the Regional Economic Strategy. To improve it, further analysis could be presented on skills levels, salaries and occupations of workers. • There are issues about the scale of economic benefits from this scheme relative to alternative ways to treat waste and generate renewable energy and heat, which some consultees suggested could generate more jobs. • The CO2 and renewable energy impacts of the scheme are potentially significant in a regional context. The region has ambitious targets for CO2 reduction and increasing the proportion of energy produced from renewable sources. • The region’s objectives are primarily concerned with reducing waste arisings and increasing recycling of waste. It is possible that a major EfW facility could limit measures to reduce waste (if local authorities enter into long term contracts to supply the facility) or lead to increased importation of waste into the region. • The strategic road transport infrastructure serving the site is currently being improved, but the fact that there appears to be no prospect that the site will be served by rail is a disadvantage. • The RRF is designed to include a CHP capability, but it is unclear whether its location is close enough to potential users of the heat output to enable it to be supplied efficiently. EEDA has identified the following issues to be addressed: • Information on the alternatives to this proposal in terms of managing waste • An assessment of how the proposal fits with the integrated network of facilities (eg Bedfordshire Energy and Recycling (BEaR) Project) • An analysis of the case for the proposed scale of the development. • Evidence to support the scale of the development through the forecasting of waste arisings. The employment, renewable energy and CO2 benefits of the scheme need to be weighed against disadvantages that could arise if the facility does not complement an integrated waste management approach, increases carbon or congestion through road transport, is scaled inappropriately, and wastes the heat generated from 65MW."

Mr John Tassell
"As a member of Stewartby Water Sports Club (SWSC), I object on the following grounds: THe Club, Marston Vale Country Park and surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape. An Energy from Waste plant Will affect the rural landscape and its regeneration. The RRF site is host to wildlife and the proposal will result in habitat loss. There will be exessive HGV movements makeing peaceful use of our leisure areas impossible. : The SWSC Club House is within 100m of the proposed access route affecting our peaceful enjoyment of the patio area, club and grounds. The camping area is with 50m of the proposed access route. The launch and Recreational Area is within 30m of Green Lane. All will be severely affected by traffic noise. Sailing area will be ruined by a view of the RRF Sailing is totally dependent on wind strength, direction and stability. The building will be vast and over 40m high. This will have unfavourable effects of the winds strength, stability and direction. My major concern is the detrimental affect on the amenity value of Stewartby Lake as a Water Sports Venue and is negative impact on membership numbers and volunteering. Taken to it ultimate conclusion this could affect the viability Stewartby Water Sports Club."

Chris Thomas on behalf of Mark Dobson
"Being asked to submit and objection based on draft policy guidelines in inappropriate, it would be better to wait for guidelines to be adopted and then any objections will be based on current and relevant material. Why is there a deadline of November 19th 2010 for registration of objections given the above comment?"

Chris Thomas on behalf of Hannah Dobson
"My objection is that the enironment will be blighted by pollution and that once the site is no longer economically viable, Covanta will leave a legacy of long term health issues, failing to comply with legislation relating to permitted emissions, traffic congestion that has added to toxic levels to name but a few. Will they clean up the site once they have finished bringing the UKs rubbish/recycling to Bedfordshire? Why can objections not be raised once draft policy guidelines become adopted guidelines? That would be fair and sensible."

Steven Hawkyard
"I object to the proposed facility on the grounds that the proposed location is in an area containing a large number of local villages. Principal concerns include - Release of trace elements and other pollutants from the plant; Very high number of vehicle movements necessary to transport waste to the site with consequent significant levels of air pollution and noise pollution from vehicle diesel engines; and Congestion caused by vehicle movements to/from the plant - adding to the high density of local traffic which is going to be further exacerbated by the construction of Centre Parcs near Ampthill and also the massive new housing development south of Bedford."

Chris Thomas on behalf of Hannah Bristow
"I object to hazardous waste being bought in from other counties by Covanta, this will increase traffic to a level that the local roads cannot support, let alone the exhaust pollution that 450 lorries per day will create. By processing Bedfordshire only, we would not have to have a wembley stadium size of site, nor the huge chimney, this is inappropriate for rural Bedfordshire. Is this the thin end of the wedge that will lead to major industrialisation in an area of new forest and country parks for local people to enjoy?"

Ms Eves-Down
"I reject the Coventa EFW Development because; 1) No proper consultation whilst pollution will affect my vegetables/fresh air etc. 2) Unfair balance cannot afford to aquire independant specialist help me/my family understand short & long term implications in the Statement. Feel disadvantaged vs Coventa experts. Need more time huge amount of documentation is far too much to digest in such short period. 3) Registration process limits words so I cannot list all concerns feel curtailed unreasonable. Unfair requests private information. Failed to register me few times this week already preventing myself & others proper input & proving obstructive. 4) Air Quality & Control; Smaller Particulate Matter (PM) pollution is most damaging to health and seems cannot be filtered out by the technology/filters . Therefore, my health is at risk as these smaller particulates travel deep into aveoli and lodge and can cause disease from the Incinerator and increased traffic exhaust fumes & aggravate asthma. 5) Lack of confidence in Coventa. 6) Air Emissions will pollute environment locally/nationally/internationally. It can be ‘rained out’ onto our local vegetation/allotments/crops/river ecosystems causing various levels of pollution/damage dependant on season/rainfall/weather/wind patterns and output which will be made up of waste which it seems will not be discrimminately burnt. Have not had time investigate whether this includes burning farm/animal waste as well as household waste. I will seek to leave this county for safer clean aired environments. 7) Believe this development’s unsustainable not in harmony with local/national sustainability goals/LA21 and CO2 targets aimed at reducing Climate Change. 8) Concerned about storage/treatment/transport/disposal of toxic flyash and leakage into local ecosystems, rivers/waters. 9) Control concerns re incinerator and flyash Dusts and residues on vehicles tyres exposing local environments/populations to toxic dusts. 10) Light pollution = wasted energy & spoils my enjoyment and astronomy of night Sky. 11) Local Biodiversity, geology and landscape/corridors which flora/fauna depend upon will be broken up adversely impacted habitat loss, pollution from stack emissions, process dusts and exhaust pollutants from transporting lorries. 12) WFE Installation in Marston Vale Millennium Country Park which we enjoy and plant trees at to create forests. This huge unaesthetic incinerator/EFW building in middle of my favourite countryside spot will marr and deter me from walking and enjoying peace. The constant plume will ruin our valued panorama of blue skies with imposition of unnatural adverse visual impact of constant clouds across our blue vista’s. I will never walk again nor plant another tree in an area blighted by huge incinerator nor feel safe to breathe. 13) Noise Pollution. 14) Incineration of waste is unnecessary as we have excellent and improving recycling & such an installment would undermine local waste strategies removing incentives for recycling when instead burning it including waste from out of county. It’s unsustainable long-term without further adverse impacts. 15) Electricity output wont benefit me and vehicular transport, lighting & indiscriminate burning of waste looses energy by not recycling/recovering vital resources so gain questionable?. 16) Transporting waste by vehicle waste energy, increased CO2 & toxic PM’s 17) Job opportunities/hours limited. 18) Unsure how safe protection of our groundwaters are. 19) Future expansion concerns, further adverse impacts. 20) Feel Coventa pictures of the EFW Plant unrepresentative showing small white plumes exiting stack against cloudy skies whereas not blue skies. 21) Stack size smaller therefore particulates/PM will not reach higher winds what’s environmental impact of smaller stack. I reserve the right to provide further detailed evidence in support of my above concerns and add/comment on concerns raised by other registrants."

David Sedgley on behalf of Flitwick & District Heritage Group
"We believe that the proposed generating station is too large for the needs of the local community. Therefore it follows that waste material will be brought in from a wider area - outside of Bedfordshire - with the increased traffic through small villages as well as increased CO2 from fuel. We fully support energy from waste projects, but only where small and serving the local community. This will generator is much too large and will be a blot on the landscape - particularly the views north from Ampthill Park. This 'Capability Brown' designed park is one of the jewels in the crown of Cental Bedfordshire, and this generator will totally destroy the views from this part of the Greensand Ridge."

Chris Thomas on behalf of Tracy West
"Being asked to submit objections based on draft policy guidelines is not acceptable. These guidelines need to be adopted so that informed objections can then be raised based on facts. Health issues relating to the effects of toxic emissions on the local population, particulary the elderly and young children are notable by there non appearance. I want to know what is coming out of those chimneys and what safeguards will be in place to stop Covanta exceeding those saftey levels, particulary as Covanta has failed to comply with USA guidelines on toxic emissions."

Nicola Chaplin
"Landscape and visual impact The proposed building is very big and will dominate the skyline The building is next to the Millennium Country Park which is an area of beauty and wildlife The chimney will be higher than the disused brickworks chimneys and will be accentuated by the smoke The area is a rural one and the size of the plant will have a major impact across the whole of Bedfordshire. The area is considered a beauty spot and this would ruin it. The Marston Vale Millennium Park was designed to regenerate and reforest the area. This plant would undermine this purpose It would lead to industrialisation of a rural area in a landscape where residents wish to preserve their rural way of life The site is home to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss There will be light pollution caused by the 24 hour running of the plant Traffic I am seriously concerned over the vastly increased traffic to and from this site from the lorries required to bring in enough waste to fuel the site Lorries would be arriving and leaving at anti-social times leading to disruption to residents It would have an impact on the environment, safety, noise and pollution in the area The new A421 was designed for existing traffic plus natural growth. The amounts of lorries required to fuel this plant and take away the waste would be far in excess of this Need Bedfordshire has a very good record on recycling which is improving. Incinerating the waste will be a step backwards There are other more ecologically sound methods of disposing of this waste There is a project called the Bear project set up by Central Beds to find a solution to this problem in an environmentally friendly way Emissions and Pollution I am concerned over the long term health implications on my family of the smoke emitted from the plant Covanta have been served with a number of legal improvement notices in the USA which increases my concerns over its safety I believe that the meteorological phenomenon of inversion which occurs in the Vale has not been taken into account when testing suitability of the site. I am concerned where and how the toxic Fly Ash generated by the plant will be taken Impact on Tourism There are a number of other proposed developments which would benefit tourism and employment in the area, such as Centre Parcs and Nirah. These developments would create far more jobs and opportunities for the area than the Covanta proposal These other proposals could be scrapped if the Covanta plant was to be built"

Max Chaplin
"Landscape and visual impact The proposed building is very big and will dominate the skyline The building is next to the Millennium Country Park which is an area of beauty and wildlife The chimney will be higher than the disused brickworks chimneys and will be accentuated by the smoke The area is a rural one and the size of the plant will have a major impact across the whole of Bedfordshire. The area is considered a beauty spot and this would ruin it. The Marston Vale Millennium Park was designed to regenerate and reforest the area. This plant would undermine this purpose It would lead to industrialisation of a rural area in a landscape where residents wish to preserve their rural way of life The site is home to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss There will be light pollution caused by the 24 hour running of the plant Traffic I am seriously concerned over the vastly increased traffic to and from this site from the lorries required to bring in enough waste to fuel the site Lorries would be arriving and leaving at anti-social times leading to disruption to residents It would have an impact on the environment, safety, noise and pollution in the area The new A421 was designed for existing traffic plus natural growth. The amounts of lorries required to fuel this plant and take away the waste would be far in excess of this Need Bedfordshire has a very good record on recycling which is improving. Incinerating the waste will be a step backwards There are other more ecologically sound methods of disposing of this waste There is a project called the Bear project set up by Central Beds to find a solution to this problem in an environmentally friendly way Emissions and Pollution I am concerned over the long term health implications on my family of the smoke emitted from the plant Covanta have been served with a number of legal improvement notices in the USA which increases my concerns over its safety I believe that the meteorological phenomenon of inversion which occurs in the Vale has not been taken into account when testing suitability of the site. I am concerned where and how the toxic Fly Ash generated by the plant will be taken Impact on Tourism There are a number of other proposed developments which would benefit tourism and employment in the area, such as Centre Parcs and Nirah. These developments would create far more jobs and opportunities for the area than the Covanta proposal These other proposals could be scrapped if the Covanta plant was to be built"

Susan Wendy Horner
"Landscape and visual impact The proposed building is very big and will dominate the skyline The building is next to the Millennium Country Park which is an area of beauty and wildlife The chimney will be higher than the disused brickworks chimneys and will be accentuated by the smoke The area is a rural one and the size of the plant will have a major impact across the whole of Bedfordshire. The area is considered a beauty spot and this would ruin it. The Marston Vale Millennium Park was designed to regenerate and reforest the area. This plant would undermine this purpose It would lead to industrialisation of a rural area in a landscape where residents wish to preserve their rural way of life The site is home to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss There will be light pollution caused by the 24 hour running of the plant Traffic I am seriously concerned over the vastly increased traffic to and from this site from the lorries required to bring in enough waste to fuel the site Lorries would be arriving and leaving at anti-social times leading to disruption to residents It would have an impact on the environment, safety, noise and pollution in the area The new A421 was designed for existing traffic plus natural growth. The amounts of lorries required to fuel this plant and take away the waste would be far in excess of this Need Bedfordshire has a very good record on recycling which is improving. Incinerating the waste will be a step backwards There are other more ecologically sound methods of disposing of this waste There is a project called the Bear project set up by Central Beds to find a solution to this problem in an environmentally friendly way Emissions and Pollution I am concerned over the long term health implications on my family of the smoke emitted from the plant Covanta have been served with a number of legal improvement notices in the USA which increases my concerns over its safety I believe that the meteorological phenomenon of inversion which occurs in the Vale has not been taken into account when testing suitability of the site. I am concerned where and how the toxic Fly Ash generated by the plant will be taken Impact on Tourism There are a number of other proposed developments which would benefit tourism and employment in the area, such as Centre Parcs and Nirah. These developments would create far more jobs and opportunities for the area than the Covanta proposal These other proposals could be scrapped if the Covanta plant was to be built"

Kim Hutchinson
"Landscape and visual impact The proposed building is very big and will dominate the skyline The building is next to the Millennium Country Park which is an area of beauty and wildlife The chimney will be higher than the disused brickworks chimneys and will be accentuated by the smoke The area is a rural one and the size of the plant will have a major impact across the whole of Bedfordshire. The area is considered a beauty spot and this would ruin it. The Marston Vale Millennium Park was designed to regenerate and reforest the area. This plant would undermine this purpose It would lead to industrialisation of a rural area in a landscape where residents wish to preserve their rural way of life The site is home to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss There will be light pollution caused by the 24 hour running of the plant Traffic I am seriously concerned over the vastly increased traffic to and from this site from the lorries required to bring in enough waste to fuel the site Lorries would be arriving and leaving at anti-social times leading to disruption to residents It would have an impact on the environment, safety, noise and pollution in the area The new A421 was designed for existing traffic plus natural growth. The amounts of lorries required to fuel this plant and take away the waste would be far in excess of this Need Bedfordshire has a very good record on recycling which is improving. Incinerating the waste will be a step backwards There are other more ecologically sound methods of disposing of this waste There is a project called the Bear project set up by Central Beds to find a solution to this problem in an environmentally friendly way Emissions and Pollution I am concerned over the long term health implications on my family of the smoke emitted from the plant Covanta have been served with a number of legal improvement notices in the USA which increases my concerns over its safety I believe that the meteorological phenomenon of inversion which occurs in the Vale has not been taken into account when testing suitability of the site. I am concerned where and how the toxic Fly Ash generated by the plant will be taken Impact on Tourism There are a number of other proposed developments which would benefit tourism and employment in the area, such as Centre Parcs and Nirah. These developments would create far more jobs and opportunities for the area than the Covanta proposal These other proposals could be scrapped if the Covanta plant was to be built"

Lee Hutchinson
"Landscape and visual impact The proposed building is very big and will dominate the skyline The building is next to the Millennium Country Park which is an area of beauty and wildlife The chimney will be higher than the disused brickworks chimneys and will be accentuated by the smoke The area is a rural one and the size of the plant will have a major impact across the whole of Bedfordshire. The area is considered a beauty spot and this would ruin it. The Marston Vale Millennium Park was designed to regenerate and reforest the area. This plant would undermine this purpose It would lead to industrialisation of a rural area in a landscape where residents wish to preserve their rural way of life The site is home to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss There will be light pollution caused by the 24 hour running of the plant Traffic I am seriously concerned over the vastly increased traffic to and from this site from the lorries required to bring in enough waste to fuel the site Lorries would be arriving and leaving at anti-social times leading to disruption to residents It would have an impact on the environment, safety, noise and pollution in the area The new A421 was designed for existing traffic plus natural growth. The amounts of lorries required to fuel this plant and take away the waste would be far in excess of this Need Bedfordshire has a very good record on recycling which is improving. Incinerating the waste will be a step backwards There are other more ecologically sound methods of disposing of this waste There is a project called the Bear project set up by Central Beds to find a solution to this problem in an environmentally friendly way Emissions and Pollution I am concerned over the long term health implications on my family of the smoke emitted from the plant Covanta have been served with a number of legal improvement notices in the USA which increases my concerns over its safety I believe that the meteorological phenomenon of inversion which occurs in the Vale has not been taken into account when testing suitability of the site. I am concerned where and how the toxic Fly Ash generated by the plant will be taken Impact on Tourism There are a number of other proposed developments which would benefit tourism and employment in the area, such as Centre Parcs and Nirah. These developments would create far more jobs and opportunities for the area than the Covanta proposal These other proposals could be scrapped if the Covanta plant was to be built"

Cynthia Keenan
"I am concerned about: air emissions; effects on the biodiversity and geological conservation of the area; dust, odour, light pollution etc.; adverse visual impact on the landscape for miles around; noise and heavy traffic pollution and their impact on local communities; economic blight on an area where touristic rather than industrial development is the priority; the poor track record of Covanta in the USA where ongoing litigation is taking place re dangerous emissions; unsuitable giant installations in a rural area, despite local investigations as to more suitable ways of managing waste; benefits re employment and amounts of electricity generated disproportionate to the risks and disadvantages."

peter dunne
"I write to voice objection to the proposed incinerator plant, on a number of grounds: There is insufficient evidence of impact on the environment and health for those living within a 30 mile radius of the plant. evidence available on line for existing plants suggest significant environmental and health related issues. The prevailing winds in this area are from a south westerly direction which would lead to significant emission flow across this village. 25 years expereince of the fallout from the previous chimney stacks located in Stewartby and Chimney Corner, empiracally proved the impact of gas emissions on the immediate environment. There is a dynamic tension between the employment opportunities of the recently announced Center Parcs, the proposed NIRAH project and this incinerator. The previous two porose significant direct and secondary job opportunities based on tourism, a people dependent bsiness dependent upon an attractive environment. Conversely the incinderator will be largely automated with limited job prospects, few spin off commercial opportunites, will not attract tourist pounds and traffic will be largely lorries. An incinerator will blight the landscape for a stop the development of Bedfordshire as a tourist destination. Given its proximity to London, new rail and road infrastructures, a Center Parcs, NIRAH, Water Park, Forest environment presents the best opportunity for sustainable employment opportunities. The Incinerator will, I believe, be bad for the villagers, health, the environment, employment and development opportunities in Bedfordshire for the next 50 years. I do not believe the data presented so far re the impact of incineration on either waste management, recycling or health has adequately addressed these issues so as to allow consent to proceed further passage."

Michael Headley
"* The planned facility is too large. This will result in excessive traffic. The facility will be counter productive in discouraging other methods within the waste hierarchy, as the facility will need a minimum level of material to operate. It will have a large impact on the amenity of local residents. * The facility is not the best technological solution in environmental planning terms. It requires consistently large volumes of waste, working against drives to recycle etc. * The facility will have a large catchment area, working against the proximity principle. This will mean excessive transport times over long distances. * Impact on local environment There are issues around potential smells, noise and traffic."

Mr T Mears
"I write to object to the Rookery Pit Incinerator plan primarily as a member of the sailing section of Stewartby Watersports Club, which finds itself in close proximity to the site and right alongside the main road down which the huge volume of site traffic is envisaged. Stewartby Watersports Club was established in 1972 and has grown to provide sailing, power, water-skiing and angling recreation to the locality. A particular focus is put upon introducing people to the sports, with public open days and youth training schemes. The sailing section regularly hosts ‘open meetings’ attracting national class competitors from around the UK. The above social and community activities frequently involve participant camping at the site for weekends or longer. It is hard to envisage this activity being viable when there are 500+ lorries rumbling close by between 0500 and 2300 hours and 24/7 light pollution from the plant itself. Indeed the peaceful enjoyment of our clubhouse and patio would be destroyed. With the strategic plan set up for the Marston Vale Community Forest, Forest Centre and Millennium Country Park, it is incredible that anybody can even consider this huge, tall building and its associated traffic in the vicinity. It would negate many years invested in the regeneration of this rural area. Additionally I am concerned to hear that Covanta, the proposed incinerator operator has been subject to legal improvement notices in its USA plants, suggesting that its reputation for ethical, clean operation is far from perfect. Why do we have to learn the hard way by letting them in here?"

Wendy Rousell on behalf of Luton Borough Council
"Policy - Compliance with the Waste and Minerals elements, of the emerging Core Strategy for Luton and Central Bedfordshire. Highways - Impact on highway network and potential for mitigation Environmental Impact - Implications for air quality, including the enforcement of any air quality management plan. Justification - Appropriate location for this development."

Nigel Allison
"I am concerned about the surface water pollution that would be caused by the increase in traffic volume on Green Lane, as during periods of rain this surface water pollution will be washed into Stewartby Lake. In addition to this, as Stewartby Lake is prone to flooding during winter months, this again will collect the surface pollution and draw it back into the lake when flood waters subside. I am also concerned about the increase in noise and air pollution which will be generated from the traffic density and the site and the difficulty in towing a boat into and out of Stewartby Lake from Green Lane."

Donna Lopez
"I have concerns over the following issues: Amount of additional traffic this will bring into the area Opening times of the proposed pit, these are very early and late, so lorries will be using the roads at these times. The effect of pollution in the area The size of the plant is immense and would be a blight on the landscape. Where will the rubbish come from the feed this? It seems that the catchment area has got much bigger This area has many proposals for development of a touristy nature and I do not feel that this fits in with these proposals"

Chris Thomas on behalf of Rebecca Dobson
"Bedfordshire processing its own waste/recycling, no problem, other counties No. Pollution will be on a massive scale, environmentally, traffic congestion, health problems like asthma & respiratory issues and all overseen by a company being sued in the USA for exceeding emissions standards, bad health & safety records and employee issues. Any main objection i have will have to wait until policy guidelines are adopted and i am aware of what we are up against."

Chris Thomas on behalf of Jessica Bristow
"Traffic congestion Toxic emissions ie Dioxin Light polloution More appropriate to await policy guidelines Size of building & chimney Taking in of other counties waste etc"

Mr B Dosser
"Apart from the volume of traffic that the incinerator will generate I am concerned that gases from the Chimney will pollute the air at the nearby village of Cranfield. The village stands on a high plateau and suffered from sulphur smells when the Brickwork factory chimneys were active. We have also had to endure 30 years of land fill smells and pollution whilst the Site Operators at Brogborough learnt their trade by trial and error. I am now retired and hope to enjoy some clean air. The people of Cranfield have suffered too much. Let somebody else take a turn at having their environment spoilt for the common good.."

Chris Thomas on behalf of Ruby Dobson
"Health concerns Traffic congestion Toxic emissions Major industrial site in rural Bedfordshire No other counties waste Await policy guidelines"

Anna Bunney
"Landscape and visual impact The proposed building is very big and will dominate the skyline The building is next to the Millennium Country Park which is an area of beauty and wildlife The chimney will be higher than the disused brickworks chimneys and will be accentuated by the smoke The area is a rural one and the size of the plant will have a major impact across the whole of Bedfordshire. The area is considered a beauty spot and this would ruin it. The Marston Vale Millennium Park was designed to regenerate and reforest the area. This plant would undermine this purpose It would lead to industrialisation of a rural area in a landscape where residents wish to preserve their rural way of life The site is home to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss There will be light pollution caused by the 24 hour running of the plant Traffic I am seriously concerned over the vastly increased traffic to and from this site from the lorries required to bring in enough waste to fuel the site Lorries would be arriving and leaving at anti-social times leading to disruption to residents It would have an impact on the environment, safety, noise and pollution in the area The new A421 was designed for existing traffic plus natural growth. The amounts of lorries required to fuel this plant and take away the waste would be far in excess of this Need Bedfordshire has a very good record on recycling which is improving. Incinerating the waste will be a step backwards There are other more ecologically sound methods of disposing of this waste There is a project called the Bear project set up by Central Beds to find a solution to this problem in an environmentally friendly way Emissions and Pollution I am concerned over the long term health implications on my family of the smoke emitted from the plant Covanta have been served with a number of legal improvement notices in the USA which increases my concerns over its safety I believe that the meteorological phenomenon of inversion which occurs in the Vale has not been taken into account when testing suitability of the site. I am concerned where and how the toxic Fly Ash generated by the plant will be taken Impact on Tourism There are a number of other proposed developments which would benefit tourism and employment in the area, such as Centre Parcs and Nirah. These developments would create far more jobs and opportunities for the area than the Covanta proposal These other proposals could be scrapped if the Covanta plant was to be built"

Steve Bunney
"Landscape and visual impact The proposed building is very big and will dominate the skyline The building is next to the Millennium Country Park which is an area of beauty and wildlife The chimney will be higher than the disused brickworks chimneys and will be accentuated by the smoke The area is a rural one and the size of the plant will have a major impact across the whole of Bedfordshire. The area is considered a beauty spot and this would ruin it. The Marston Vale Millennium Park was designed to regenerate and reforest the area. This plant would undermine this purpose It would lead to industrialisation of a rural area in a landscape where residents wish to preserve their rural way of life The site is home to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss There will be light pollution caused by the 24 hour running of the plant Traffic I am seriously concerned over the vastly increased traffic to and from this site from the lorries required to bring in enough waste to fuel the site Lorries would be arriving and leaving at anti-social times leading to disruption to residents It would have an impact on the environment, safety, noise and pollution in the area The new A421 was designed for existing traffic plus natural growth. The amounts of lorries required to fuel this plant and take away the waste would be far in excess of this Need Bedfordshire has a very good record on recycling which is improving. Incinerating the waste will be a step backwards There are other more ecologically sound methods of disposing of this waste There is a project called the Bear project set up by Central Beds to find a solution to this problem in an environmentally friendly way Emissions and Pollution I am concerned over the long term health implications on my family of the smoke emitted from the plant Covanta have been served with a number of legal improvement notices in the USA which increases my concerns over its safety I believe that the meteorological phenomenon of inversion which occurs in the Vale has not been taken into account when testing suitability of the site. I am concerned where and how the toxic Fly Ash generated by the plant will be taken Impact on Tourism There are a number of other proposed developments which would benefit tourism and employment in the area, such as Centre Parcs and Nirah. These developments would create far more jobs and opportunities for the area than the Covanta proposal These other proposals could be scrapped if the Covanta plant was to be built"

Melane Bayley
"My objections are as follows: The inappropriate scale of the development in a rural situation next to a country park. The amount of traffic (noise and nuisance) it will generate in a rural area: its environmental impact and also the hours it will be open will seriously diminish the quality of life of local people. The unsuitability of an incinerator as the solution to waste where recycling will be able to dispose of most waste. This means that, once built, it will continue to pull in waste from a wider and wider area to keep it going. We need to stop building anything that contributes to CO2 outputs. We need to recycle and manage waste disposal locally, not establish one village as a dumping ground for hundreds of others. The dangers of air emissions, especially of nano particles that will not be monitored or controlled. This will have long-term and insidious health impacts on people locally as well as farther afield. The problem of the disposal of toxic waste in the bottom ash. This will need to go to landfill as it is too dangerous for construction uses (despite the Environment Agency support of this policy). The danger of large piles of fly ash in the open in a very windy location. The extremely poor record of Covanta in the US in breaching pollution laws and in their treatment of labour (anti-union)."

Anthony Chaplin
"Landscape and visual impact The proposed building is very big and will dominate the skyline The building is next to the Millennium Country Park which is an area of beauty and wildlife The chimney will be higher than the disused brickworks chimneys and will be accentuated by the smoke The area is a rural one and the size of the plant will have a major impact across the whole of Bedfordshire. The area is considered a beauty spot and this would ruin it. The Marston Vale Millennium Park was designed to regenerate and reforest the area. This plant would undermine this purpose It would lead to industrialisation of a rural area in a landscape where residents wish to preserve their rural way of life The site is home to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss There will be light pollution caused by the 24 hour running of the plant Traffic I am seriously concerned over the vastly increased traffic to and from this site from the lorries required to bring in enough waste to fuel the site Lorries would be arriving and leaving at anti-social times leading to disruption to residents It would have an impact on the environment, safety, noise and pollution in the area The new A421 was designed for existing traffic plus natural growth. The amounts of lorries required to fuel this plant and take away the waste would be far in excess of this Need Bedfordshire has a very good record on recycling which is improving. Incinerating the waste will be a step backwards There are other more ecologically sound methods of disposing of this waste There is a project called the Bear project set up by Central Beds to find a solution to this problem in an environmentally friendly way Emissions and Pollution I am concerned over the long term health implications on my family of the smoke emitted from the plant Covanta have been served with a number of legal improvement notices in the USA which increases my concerns over its safety I believe that the meteorological phenomenon of inversion which occurs in the Vale has not been taken into account when testing suitability of the site. I am concerned where and how the toxic Fly Ash generated by the plant will be taken Impact on Tourism There are a number of other proposed developments which would benefit tourism and employment in the area, such as Centre Parcs and Nirah. These developments would create far more jobs and opportunities for the area than the Covanta proposal These other proposals could be scrapped if the Covanta plant was to be built"

Phyllis Chaplin
"Landscape and visual impact The proposed building is very big and will dominate the skyline The building is next to the Millennium Country Park which is an area of beauty and wildlife The chimney will be higher than the disused brickworks chimneys and will be accentuated by the smoke The area is a rural one and the size of the plant will have a major impact across the whole of Bedfordshire. The area is considered a beauty spot and this would ruin it. The Marston Vale Millennium Park was designed to regenerate and reforest the area. This plant would undermine this purpose It would lead to industrialisation of a rural area in a landscape where residents wish to preserve their rural way of life The site is home to large numbers of wildlife and the proposal will lead to direct and indirect habitat loss There will be light pollution caused by the 24 hour running of the plant Traffic I am seriously concerned over the vastly increased traffic to and from this site from the lorries required to bring in enough waste to fuel the site Lorries would be arriving and leaving at anti-social times leading to disruption to residents It would have an impact on the environment, safety, noise and pollution in the area The new A421 was designed for existing traffic plus natural growth. The amounts of lorries required to fuel this plant and take away the waste would be far in excess of this Need Bedfordshire has a very good record on recycling which is improving. Incinerating the waste will be a step backwards There are other more ecologically sound methods of disposing of this waste There is a project called the Bear project set up by Central Beds to find a solution to this problem in an environmentally friendly way Emissions and Pollution I am concerned over the long term health implications on my family of the smoke emitted from the plant Covanta have been served with a number of legal improvement notices in the USA which increases my concerns over its safety I believe that the meteorological phenomenon of inversion which occurs in the Vale has not been taken into account when testing suitability of the site. I am concerned where and how the toxic Fly Ash generated by the plant will be taken Impact on Tourism There are a number of other proposed developments which would benefit tourism and employment in the area, such as Centre Parcs and Nirah. These developments would create far more jobs and opportunities for the area than the Covanta proposal These other proposals could be scrapped if the Covanta plant was to be built"

Miss J. E . Green on behalf of Brogborough Parish Council
"Brogborough Parish Council is opposing this plan on nthe gorunds of: 1. Traffic generated around the village and in particular at the M1/A421 intersection, and through the village if the new A421 has a problem, as the waste will be brought by road from counties outside Bedfordshire. 2. Massive height of incinerator chimney dominating Marston vale and visible for miles around, made worse by the plume of steam and hidden nanoparticles of residue, which could blow towards Brogborough in certain conditions. 3. Possible toxic atmospheric pollution, light and noise pollution 4. Huge amounts of ash residue which will be toxic and of little economic use 5. Very few real jobs created for local people 6. It may attract extra industry whivh will generate more traffic 7. Waste being imported from outside Bedfordshire making this an unsustainable solution"

Miss Joanne Green
"1. Traffic generated along local roads, particularl;y A421/M1 intersection and through Brogborough if traffic is diverted off the new A421 2. Height of incinerator chimney blighting landscape of a regenerating de-industrialised area 3. Possible toxic atmospheric pollution, plus light and noise pollution 4. Ash residue which is toxic and should nbot be used for inductrial purposes, therefore producing mountains of toxic ash residue 5. Jobs created - very few and most of too low an income 6. Extra traffic if other industry is attracted to the site 7. It is not a 'local solution to a local waste problem' - waste will be imported"

Mr Simon Blevins
"I am opposed to Convanta's plan to construct a large incinerator in Rookery Pit, Stewartby. Although I may not like these aspects, my reasons for oppostion are not the fact the incinerator will be a large unsightly scar on the visual landscape, or that the phenomenal increase in traffic movements could lead to the newly widened A421 to become as conjested as previously. I believe that first-world citizens may expect a price for the luxurious lifestyles we have. However I am very strongly opposed to the proposal because the environmental implications it will have, directly and indirectly. There is a reason Convanta has not been allowed to build incinerators in the U.S.A. for the past decade: toxic waste, frequently beyond that of the legal limit. Furthermore, as a commerical industry [from another country] Convanta's only interests are financial. They require a minimum waste input to keep the plant profitable. This means imports from further afield, by road. Then when this still can't supply their commercial needs (or greeds), ther contracted councils will be forced to send recyclables to incineration. Not only will the factory be actively damaging the Earth by spewing out toxic waste, it will also work against efforts to increase recycling - a double blow in the wrong direction! Please do not let this happen. I realise that we, as a county, country and global community, cannot continure the way we are, but I believe that there are much better steps that can be taken in the right direction. The decision to allow Convanta to build wouldn't only be a bad one, but it would also prevent good decisions being made in it's place for may years to come. I would favour multiple smaller projects instead, preferably run by local businesses or the state. Many of the BEaR proposals are far more inviting than Convanta's. I do not say this as a purely selffish local resident, who cares only for his environmental aesthetic, health and mobility on the road. The alternative proposals are innumerably better in a whole plethora of ways, and certainly warrant consideration before IPC gives in to the largest company at the table. Please stand up for our country, hear our voices and think for the future."

lindsey Norman
"As a member of s.w.s.c my main worries come from the "unknown" safety of any emmissions to come out of the chimneys as covanta do not have a brilliant track record for such problems. The Fly ash also to be transported on top of the initial waste poses a number of problems for thousands of people the mian issue being that it is infact toxic. Also the unknown amount of potential overflow from the existing culvert that will be pumped into our sailing lake due to the existing connection, my father, sister and myself all use the lake and with any number of nasties being pumped in this is far from ideal!"

Gilbert J Trott
"I object strongly to Coventa’s plans to build an incinerator at Rookery Pit for the following reasons. 1. Their previous record in America and Canada, with violation of safety levels of emissions and Being fined for this at five plants (quote from internet). 2 The adverse effect on air quality in the Marston Vale and Surrounding Area. 3 The increase of HGV traffic which will be required to supply the site adding both extra noise and pollution. 4 The timescale and noise of the daily operation of the site. 5 The visual impact of such a large structure and chimney on an otherwise rural landscape. 6 Danger from toxic fumes to human and wildlife when emissions are exceeded.(as they have done many times in the past)."

Sarah Norman
"I leaae the catering contract from the stewartby water sports club. I cater for the sailing section mainly. But also for the regular powerboat events. This is my sole source of income. if the covanta proposal is allowed I fear that if the members and wider community fears become founded the membership will fall, This will directly affect me financially. My family also sail, and I worry about the health implications in particular any pollutants entering the lake, either from above or more likely through water entering the lake from the covanta pool. there seems to be very little information on anything connected with the lake, although not resident we are the largest group as close neighbours,"

Roger Griffith
"Concern about emissions from the stack and long term health implications Covanta have been served legal notices because of emissions at its USA plants Emissions not dispersing because of local conditions-temperature inversion Direct and indirect habitat and wildlife loss Massive traffic increase causing noise and air pollution Light pollution and adverse visual impact on the local landscape Change in the planning regime so original guidelines no longer applicable/appropriate Only local waste should be dealt with, I do not understand how other counties can shirk their responsibility to deal with their own waste by dumping it on us-how can that possibly be acceptable and eco friendly? If an authority can just shove it somewhere else that will surely affect recycling rates as destruction and it's associated pollution are usually cheaper and less visible in the short term."

Howard Murphy
"I am concerned about additional vehicles travelling through the village and the impact on the local environment air pollution additional noise"

rebecca turner
"I consider the proposal for such a large incinerator to be wholly inappropriate in the setting of a lovely rural landscape, particularly with its proximity to a Country Park. Secondly, I have massive concerns about increased heavy traffic in an area that does not have the infrastructure to cope. Finally Covanta have a far from unblemished environmental record. We suffered for years in this area with noxious emissions from the brick construction industry and it would now appear that we will be subjected to more of the same. In short, I consider that the proposed plant would cause lasting damage to my local landscape and indeed the quality of life of my family and myself. I would support a much smaller 'energy from waste' plant that is more suited to its environment and infrastructure and that dealt solely with waste from the local area."

Kimberley Griffith
"Concern about emissions from the stack and long term health implications of Covanta have been served legal notices because of emissions at its USA plantsEmissions not dispersing because of local conditions-temperature inversionDirect and indirect habitat and wildlife lossMassive traffic increase causing noise and air pollutionLight pollution and adverse visual impact on the local landscapeChange in the planning regime so original guidelines no longer applicable/appropriateOnly local waste should be dealt with, I do not understand how other counties can shirk their responsibility to deal with their own waste by dumping it on us-how can that possibly be acceptable and eco friendly? If an authority can just shove it somewhere else that will surely affect recycling rates as destruction and it's associated pollution are usually cheaper and less visible"

Alison Borrett
"I believe the following statements show the major concerns with regard to Covanata incinerator within Rookery Pit. There is serious concern about emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. Since clay extractions ceased in Rookery Pit – the adjacent Millennium Country Park and the Pit are now an ecologically integrated and co-joined wild life site. The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve Noise has only been considered in terms of ‘average’ levels so no adequate account been taken of intermittent noise such as that from rattling of empty HGV’s which lead to huge disturbance. their rural way of life. There will also be permanent loss of night sky with severe light pollution from a site operating 24/7. The volume of lorry and associated traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the predicted capacity of the road. Vehicle movements to and from the site – arriving and departing between 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and & days a week on Bank Holiday weekends will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community We are very proud of the local area we live in and we have had lived with the landfill sites at Brogborogh & Still at Stewartby, we do not want this incinerator blighting our landscape polluting our countryside and comprimising our health."

Stephen Minchington
"My main concerns are: * Air Pollution - we have suffered for years from poor air quality in the area due to the brickworks, and we have only recently been relieved of the pollution following its closure. We do not want any more pollution * Impact on conservation area- Marston Vale Country Park. * Other industrial pollutants - smell, dust and light. * Noise from plant and lorries * Increase in traffic due to number of lorries serving the site * Visual impact on the countryside - will be a blot on the landscape especially the view from Ampthill * It will have a negative effect on property prices"

c. speedy
"Stewartby is a beautiful place to live, we have wildlife lakes, farms and clean air. Also half of our village is retirement bungalows, you could be badly affecting many old folks health not only with the polution from the massive chimneys which this would need, but by the exhaust fumes all the extra lorries would belch out. The proposal for this industrial incinerator will not fit in here, we have a proposed "Eden project" style development planned for one of the pits and Centre Parks are planning on opening close to here soon, also the new canal which will join Bedord to Milton Keynes. All the above project along with Woburm safari park will suffer. Who would come for a holiday on the canal or centre parks knowing the air they breath has toxic waste in it. Will Centr Parks even open here knowing this is proposed. Is one clean industry suitable for this area being jeapodised by another unsuitable project? This is a heavy industrial project which should be built in a heavy industrial area, There are plenty of sites which have been effected by the recession, please reconsider putting it in our beautiful small village which is not suitable nor has the road network for all the heavy dirty vehicles it would have using it, and place it in a more suitable area"

Sarah Brown
"I object very strongly to the building of the incinerator which I believe would severely negatively impact an area of clam and beauty in Marston Vale."

Robert Shorter
"I believe that the proposed energy from waste development at Rookery Pit, Stewartby is far too substantial for the area. The impact on the local environment in terms of lorry movement, pollution by air and by noise, the visual aspect in terms of chimney height and the siting of this development right next to an area reclaimed for use as a country park and wildlife centre would be unjustifiable in terms of the amount of employment proposed for the local community. Also, it must be seen that waste matter from the local surrounding area will not be sufficient to justify a project of this scale. Waste matter would then have to be imported from other parts of the UK thus accentuating the negative aspects of noise and pollution. I believe that the proposed development is far too large an undertaking and is therefore unsuitable for this area and that any plans for this project to progress any further should be cancelled."

Rebecca Newbert
"I am a member of over 30 years of Stewartby Water Sports Club. We are a not for profit organisation providing sailing, water-skiing, power-boating and angling facilities. Our existence relies entirely on sufficient membership and in my view it is highly likely that our club will close if the Rookery South RRF proceeds due to loss of members. The issues impacting on our facilities are listed below. - Traffic - the continual flow of HGV lorries from the A421 along Green Lane across the level crossing into the access to the RRF site will be noisy, cause congestion, block access to our club and create safety issues especially as we have wide slow moving trailers going in and out of the club. This would be much mitigated if the hours were restricted to Monday to Friday and finished by 4pm as most of our members use the facilities out of working hours. The ideal solution would be to make use of the existing rail line to feed the facility and it is very surprising this alternative is not being considered. I am also concerned that Green Lane is not wide enough or the surface sufficient to take the HGVs. - Potential for contamination of our waters. Members will all be very concerned at the possibility of contamination of our waters not only to many of us who spend more time than we would care to in the water rather than on it, but also for the wildlilfe, flora and fauna of the country park. I understand the surface water from the RRF site will drain into the attenuation pond which then feeds via Mill Brook into Stewartby lake. - Potential for flooding for the same reasons. - The likely dust and odour from the site - the water sports club is a place of recreation and people simply won't want to be there if its a smelly dirty environment. - The size and proximity of the plant to the site will also inevitably discourage members from wanting to spend recreational time at the club due the visual, noise and light impacts. - Our camping areas are very close (approx 30m) from the access road to the RRF. We run many competitions and other events at the club every year where members and guests camp and it simply won't be an attractive option with a constant flow of lorries passing from 5am. Whilst we have a train line currently just as close, it is not a heavily used line. - it is proposed to acquire rights to part of our site for laying electric cables and we are concerned that this will block our access to the club, block use of our slipways, and potentially mean demolishing some of our brick built changing and storage facilities. I have two children who delight in spending time at the SWSC and the surrounding country park and it is a real shame to spoil such fantastic facilities."

William Gibb
"I beleive that if such a project were to proceed that the effluent produced would 1 affect the long term health of the population within Marston Vale & surrounding 30km radius 2 effluent would ener into human food chain via arable crops & live stock farmed within 30km radius 3 the increased carbon footprint of Bedfordshire would rise and ecxess traffic conjestion may occur"

Roger Charles Clements
"I am strongly opposed to the application by Covanta on the following key grounds:- 1. Potential adverse human and animal health impact in the local area over the medium/long term. 2. Significant impact on the rural nature of Mid-Bedfordshire and specifically the immediate area of villages, country park and wildlife. 3. Massive visual impact on the local rural landscapes created by the huge building and associated chimney which will be much higher than the former brickworks chimneys on the site. 4. Hugh impact of the predicted increase in heavy traffic going to/from the site which the local infrastructure even with the news, upgraded A421 was never designed to cope. 5. Significant concern about the extensive aggregate impact of all of the above if Covanta’s application is granted in that the site will become a focus for the disposal of waste from many other areas of the UK."

FA and CL Worrall
"Our worry is:- Bedfordshire and area is not going to have nearly enough waste to warrant a facility of this size, which means large filthy trucks seriously congesting our road system, 421/507, which are already heavily over used. The pollution that implies. The effect on our local environment, which probable includes light pollution as this thing with most certainly be gushing out muck 24/7. A strong possibility of Hazardous being included amongst the waste, a threat to both local children, wildlife and the elderly. An effect on local business people, who already have a hard time. An increase in the Rat Vermin population. We are given to understand Covanta’s not all together squeaky clean in the above areas and much more!!!!"

Dr Bill Temple-Pediani
"My company has been in negotiation with central Bedfordshire council for 7 years on a proposed 60-90 MWe renewable CHP station, close to junction 13 of the M1 motorway, to supply green electricity and heat to existing and new properties in Milton Keynes. We remain in Pre-Planning consultation with the council. Covanta has unexpectedly submitted a planning application for an Incinerator, without green heat distribution, not more than 7km from our site. Our protest complies absolutely with Waste Infrastructure Delivery Programme Information note on Combined Heat and Power, issued by DEFRA in January 2009 endorsed by DECC in renewable Obligation Order 2009 which came into effect 1 April 2009. We raise strong objection to the competing Covanta project which does not appear to comply with government waste and energy policies. Note: We advised Central Bedfordshire Council, as statutory Planning consultee to IPC for the 60-90 MWe renewable CHP station, that we intended to object to the Covanta project."

Mrs E J Meadows
"- We have had landfill sites for decades lorries, pollution etc etc. Enough is enough this Covanta project should not be built. There have got to be better ways for the environment and the long suffering people of Marston Vale. - The whole landscape with this monstrosity. It will be lit up like a Christmas tree 24 hours a day. We have just got a bypass to ease volume of traffic on the A421 if this goes ahead it will mean 1 lorry every 38 seconds, noise, and more pollution. - Also there are health issues (more worrying) Covanta as you will be aware has a plant in New Jersey, America. It has broken the law on 25 or more occasions and is being taken to court for toxic omissions. You cannot really think that this is not going to happen. We have the bear project it is not perfect but a whole lot better than Covanta. - People’s properties will be devalued and there life made a whole lot worse. - We have a chance to restore Bedfordshire after years of landfill with centre parks and Nirah. Centre Parks will bring more employment, Covanta will bring around 70-100 jobs not from this area. Please say no to Covanta"

Susan Clements
"I am strongly against the Covanta application for the following main reasons: 1. Possible adverse health impact on people and Animals living locally over the longer term from emissions which I do not believe we fully understand yet. 2. Impact on the rural nature of the area, the villages surrounding the site and the country park Marston Moretaine. 3. The visual impact of massive building and the chimney with it which will be visible and blot on the landscape for many miles around. 4. The impact of a huge increase in heavy traffic visiting the site which the local infrastructure of roads will not be able to cope with. 5. If the application is granted the danger of the site being extended over time to handle much increased amounts of waste from other areas of UK, with an increasingly major impact on the whole of the rural nature of Mid-Beds and the surrounding villages in particular."

Mr Terence Hyde
"Air Emissions • There is serious concern about the emissions from the EFW stack and long term health implications. • Residents are concerned about reports that Covanta been served legal improvement notices on its plants in the USA. • In the sky above Marston Vale there is the meteorological phenomenon of temperature inversion in still days emissions linger in the atmosphere above the Vale. And eventually drop into the Vale. Where invesion is not occurring the prevailing wind in south westerly. Bio Diversity and Geological Conservation • The proposed site is adjacent to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park. A primary purpose of which is to reforest the Marston Vale. An oversize energy waste plant will fundamentally undermine that purpose. • The surrounding villages are all within a rural landscape populated by residents who wish to preserve their rural way of life. The Covanta proposal will be a retrograde step ecologically and would ultimately lead to the industrialisation of rookery pit south. Landscape and Visual Impact • The sheer size of the building will dominate the skyline – most of which will be visual above the existing edge of Rookery Pit. • The Covanta Rookery Pit stack will be higher than the long – disused brickworks chimneys. • The plum will accentuate the stack visibility. • The sheer size of the Covanta plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of the area. The site was always considered to lie within an area of great landscape value and will materially impair the views from the vale to the surrounding greensand ridge. Noise • Noise has only been considered in terms of “average” levels. So no adequate account has been taken of intermittent noise such as that from rattling empty HGV’s which lead to great disturbance when subjected 24 hours per day • There will also be noise from the plant itself. Local and Regional waste management • We have our own local waste management project – “The Bear Project” which is currently evaluating the first stage of the tender process so they can shortlist the bidders to come forward with solutions that will best meet local needs. Economic • The project proposes to export electricity serving the energy needs of 82.500 homes broadly equivalent to the housing energy needs of Bedford and Marston Vale. It has never been explained how residents will directly benefit from this green electricity, and how this figure of 82.500 is arrived at. Covanta exaggerated their electricity generating capacity in terms of meeting average domestic consumption. • There can be no guarantee that the jobs ongoing or in consideration will be offered to local people. • The Covanta proposal is at odds with the stated desire of local people to be a leisure destination and not somewhere others send their rubbish. Traffic and Transport Impacts • The waste to be transported using HGVs and many of which will use the new junction 13. Evidence submitted by the Highways agency during the public inquiry into the duelling of the A421 from Bedford to J13 indicated that the new junction layout would peak times have just sufficient capacity to handle the anticipated peak traffic flows. Excluding the projected from the Covanta site. Further the adequate functioning of the new J13 is dependant on the further duelling of the A421 from J13 to M.K and funding of this future project must now be in doubt given needed cutbacks in public spending. • Significant vehicle movements to and from the site. Arriving and departing 5am and 11pm 6 days a week and 7 days a week on bank holidays, weekends will lead to immense and ongoing disturbance to the local community. • The Covanta proposal is that all rubbish will be delivered by road – despite that the fact that Rookery Pit lies between two railway lines. • Thus far there has been no consultation by Covanta on the impact of the proposed project on communities beyond the Marston Vale but within Bedfordshire. In Conclusion It our considered view the points made render the Covanta proposal the wrong solution in the wrong location dealing with Bedfordshire’s waste."

Michael Newman
"1. Why should this giant incinerator be of American design and construction? Particularly as I am led to believe that Covanta have been served with legal improvement notices on plants that it operates in the USA. In event of improvements being required on the proposed Rookery development. Could the British government enforce such improvements in Bedfordshire? Will this really be a viable and welcome asset for the local citizen and tax payer? 2. Green Lane, Stewartby will need modification to handle the excess HGV’s from a narrow ‘B’ road to something more substantial. It is stated that there will be between 530 – 768 HGV movements per day operating from 5:00 until 23:00, 6 days a week. This is a massive convoy of vehicles; the amount of diesel fuel emissions will be high. Such traffic movement will destroy the tranquillity of Stewartby water sports clubs. The traffic will be within 50 meters of the camping area and would interfere with the sailing, water ski, powerboat racing and our anglers in particular. 3. Pollution caused by HGVs going to and coming from the incinerator (every 40 seconds is quoted) will be extremely high and everlasting during operating hours, it will make things very unpleasant for those living in Stewartby village or using Stewartby Water Sports club, due to the prevailing wind direction. Will the benefits of the incinerator plant be outweighed by getting the CO2 pollution due to the convoy of HGV’s. 4. Pollution caused by the incinerator, burning rubbish on a daily basis, leaves the plant by a chimney 145 meters high. Burning plastic releases noxious gases into the atmosphere. Discharged at this height it will cover a large land area, depending on wind direction. What mixture of gases will be deposited on the landscape and are they harmful to animals, humans growing land? 5. Pollution via incineration introduces gases of a toxic and noxious nature from the burning of plastic and other rubbish which may not be removed by photosynthesis. Would much pollution over a period of years permeate into the water system via aquifers and the reservoirs and would it effect the local population? 6. In times of rain - fog or after precipitation in the area of the incinerator chimneys will there be noxious smells which may cause the build up of problems with those who suffer from breathing problems such as asthma and similar complaints? 7. I am also most upset that if this project should go ahead then as a member of Stewartby Water Sports Club and hiker in the area I, and other members of the club and the many members of the public who enjoy what this area has to offer will lose a marvellous asset. Both national and international meetings run at Stewartby Lake, cycle tracks abound and natural history supporters are in abundance. A never ending convoy of H.G.V.s, going to and coming from the incinerator plant will do nothing to enhance it being a much used area of natural beauty and tranquillity."

Mrs Cynthia Bagchi
"I wish to draw attention to the comprehensive report on incineration by the British Society of Ecological Medicine (2005). In conclusion the report recommended that no further waste incinerators should be build and those that exist should be phased out. The particulates, heavy metals, nitrogen oxides, toxins and other organic pollutants had extensive detrimental health effects as morbidity and mortality increased near incinerators. Also incinerators only reduce the volume of the waste by 30 to 50 per cent. There is yet no adequate method to dispose of the resulting toxic fly ash. Far safer alternatives are now available, including recycling, mechanical treatments and plasma gasification; a combination of these would be safer, would produce more energy and would be cheaper than incineration in the long run, much cheaper when the health costs are taken in to account. Further more, in 2001 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights stated that everyone has the right to live in a world free from toxic pollution and environmental degradation. The Stockholm Convention of 2001, agreed by more than 100 countries, including Britain, committed to eliminating persistent organic pollutants including PCB dioxins and furans. It identifies incinerators as the primary sources of these. Incineration is also a violation of the Environmental Protection Act of 1990 which states that the UK must prevent emissions from harming human health. I therefore maintain and my research suggests that incinerators are not sustainable for a healthy community and environment."

Barry R
"My main areas of concern are: 1. Health 2. Environment 3. Traffic Health Apart from producing CO2, incineration also produces acidic gases such as hydro chloride, sulphur dioxide, nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide. More worryingly, nanoparticles are also produced. These extremely toxic substances can include PCB’s, PCDD’s (dioxins) and PCDF’s (furans). It is well documented in many medical journals that these micro particles can enter the bloodstream, lungs and other organs, even brain tissue. The particles would remain suspended in the air over Marston Vale, only being dispersed via rainfall or wind. Temperature inversions are common in the vale resulting in these particles (as well as dioxins and furans) sinking to ground level on to crops and be ingested by cattle and sheep that graze in this area, thereby is entering the food chain. Recommendations from the Institute of Medicine in 2003 said that incinerators should not be built within 50km of food production, and in particular, grazing animals. Environment Visual representations currently supplied by Covanta show this facility will be seen from every vantage point in the vale. The proposed height of the stack would be higher than the long disused brickwork chimneys. The serious loss of rural landscape and wildlife, that habitat has been built up over a long period of time. The extremely close proximity to the millennium Country Park and Forest Centre. Many thousands of tonnes of other peoples rubbish (Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, plus others?) being dumped in Bedfordshire. We have a good level of recycling here (50%). Incineration has the potential to discourage recycling and significantly increasing atmospheric CO2. Traffic Major increase in vehicular traffic too and from this facility, meaning significant rise in exhaust pollution and congestion. Evidence from the highways agency submitted during the public inquiry into the duelling of the A421 from Bedford to M1 junction 13 has already indicated that the new junction would, at peak times, have just sufficient capacity to handle anticipated peak traffic flows, excluding the projected Covanta show a minimum of 532 two-way movements of which 68% will be HGV for 18 hours, 6 days per week from 5:00am to 11:00pm (18 hours per day!)."

Iain Metcalfe
"Visual impact Size of buildings will be huge, and they will be within a country park. The pit stack will be higher than old chimneys, which I hate the sight of anyway. The size of the plant will be a huge negative impact across the whole vale. Dust, ash and air emissions The long term health implications are terrifying to me. I believe the fly ash will be injurious to everyone’s health. I do not trust Covanta to be up front and honest about the air emissions, they have previous history of dishonesty in this regard. Conservation I enjoy the country park, the green vale, and the tens of thousands of replanted trees here. I thought this whole area was being rejuvenated and returned to a pleasant green land after years of neglect when the brickworks scarred the vale. Covanta is a backward step in this regard. Jobs As I see it there will be very little in the way in the way of local jobs created, maybe a handful that’s all. It is a spurious argument to use in favour of Covanta. Noise I object to noise from the plant operating and from the in created vehicular traffic the plant attracts. Socio-economic There will be a detrimental effect on property price, and the area around Covanta will not be a desirable place to live. I thought this area could attract visitors with the country park, Centre Park, and the huge aquarium at Stewartby. Covanta’s plant will repel visitors to the vale. Traffic and Transport There could be huge numbers of HGVS, train journeys delivering other peoples waste to the site, all day every day, causing noise, dirt, litter, on local roads and tracks, adding to delays and road collisions and breakdowns. This will go on virtually every day of the year. The volume of rubbish freight will be enormous, hundreds of thousands of tonnes a year, for a lifetime. This is unacceptable to me, and disgraceful that other people are shipping their waste to us, then we and our children have to have to breathe in the micro-particles of what is left over. No, that is not green and not good enough."

Mrs Dian L Wigley
"1. The size of the structure will dominate the Marston Vale and in particular it will distract from the beautiful surroundings of the Forest Centre. 2. The local area has no need for such a large incinerator and if waste is transported into the Vale, there will be a detrimental effect through local villages, with an increase in vehicles. 3. I am concerned about the safe monitoring of emissions. 4. These negative effects will therefore not enhance the local area and I am opposed to Covanta’s plans."

Maurice Rust
"I and members of my family suffer from asthma. I understand from our family doctor that this area and the county of Bedfordshire have a higher than normal rate of asthma suffers than of counties in the UK. For the past 75 years we the residents of Marston Vale and the surrounding villages have had to put up with fumes and smoke inhalation from the brickyard chimneys as these declined we then as now have to put up with obnoxious smells and fumes from decomposing rubbish tips. Large smelling lorries cause congestion on our road system. The road verges and hedges are full of litter either wind blown from the tips or fallen from lorries. Road side hedges around the tip sites are not trimmed and kept tidy. Other county and district councils send teams of men and machinery to pick up roadside litter but no Bedford or Central Bedfordshire. Other counties would not put up with it, why should the residents of Marston Vale and the surrounding villages. We should have a reduction in our rates for putting up with this blight on our beautiful county. Enough is enough. Burn the rubbish somewhere else. I would suggest the main source of rubbish in the first place London and the outer suburbs."

Karen Metcalfe
"Air Emissions Health of local residents with the ash from the chimneys falling in our area, also further a field. Constant smell from the ash and chimneys. Biodiversity and geological conservation After putting up with the brick chimneys for years, I was delighted when they were knocked down and the brickworks closed, why we should now put up with an enormous chimney that can be seen from all around the area. Artificial Light At night I am able to look at the stars through my telescope. The light pollution this construction will cause will stop me from enjoying my pastime. Noise Empty lorries going along the local road every few minutes will be heard at night. I am sure the plant is not silent so there will be constant drone 24/7. Waste Management We have a very good recycling ethos in this area. Why should we have every one else’s rubbish from the surrounding area brought here. Let them deal with their own waste. Socio-economic Not enough jobs for local residents will be made. Most of the staff will be brought in from outside the area. The cost of my house will be affected. Why should I loose money? Why should tourists want to come to the area with a large incinerator becoming a blot on our beautiful landscape?"

Frances Howell
"Serious concern about what will be emissions from the stack i.e. what they contain and will Ampthill be in direct line due to the height and how much knowledge there is on long term effect. How many years has one of these been in service? As operating 24/7, will there be permanent light pollution also visual impact from Ampthill, negligible impact on employment and also it would appear little on electricity out put going down. Volumes of lorries in the region increasing diesel/petrol more than saving of electricity, discouraging recycling."

Susan C Cole
"My concern if firstly the health issue, with so many toxins being given out from this incinerator and the fact that they would lay over the Marston Vale and be deposited within the vale and all surrounding villages simply because of the nature of the landscape, affecting people, crops and animals obviously to a very high degree. My second concern would be for the beautiful landscape, wildlife and habitat that has been cared for and invested in for many years would all have been in vain which would be a huge loss and waste of valuable time and money. My third reason in lorries the obvious increase in lorries along some rather small roads, causing no doubt huge congestion at particular parts of the day, which would also create extra pollution, again in an area that strives to stop such a thing."

Hilda Duguid
"• God never intended us to be exposed to the emissions from an incinerator, particularly the nano particles, which are so dangerous to our health that Americans have not permitted a new incinerator since 1995. • Once burnt, core elements of the earth’s resources are destroyed and nothing can be salvaged or re-used; the residue becomes dangerous micro particles that travel for miles in the air and are harmful to our lungs. • The ash created from this destruction cannot be reused or disposed of safely because of its toxicity. • People in this valley should not be exposed to further fumes as the community and the atmosphere is still in recovery from fifty years or so of brick making industry emissions, recently closed. • The hospice already sees a number of our elderly residents being admitted with respiratory diseases after years of living in the valley and surrounding areas and there are many asthmatic sufferers of all ages, my neighbours and myself included. • Destruction of the earth’s resources particularly as they have become so depleted is unthinkable when most of this waste could be recycled. • The idea of a waste plant of this nature is in direct conflict with the nature reserve, Wildlife Park, lake, boating club and leisure areas that we currently enjoy. • Our countryside is beautiful and there are many tourist attractions surrounding us, which would be completely at odds with the incinerator, and very unattractive to visitors, causing a detrimental effect on our economy. • Very few jobs would be created to recompense that. • Central Beds currently recycles 50% of our waste, so we are already half way there. • We would have to accept waste from surrounding counties in order to keep the incinerator supplied with enough fuel to burn. • We would expect a high volume of traffic to supply waste to the incinerator. • We would be exposed to continuous, day and night, light noise and air pollution for at least the next thirty years. • We have not spent 25 years buying our homes to have it devalued. • There are alternative proposals that would create jobs. • This area has been a dumping ground for rubbish, for far too long; its time to clean the area up for us, that is what the Nirah Project and Centre Parcs is all about. • There are always plans to build more homes as we have become a community that attracts young families and starter home couples. • All MEDc in the west have agreed, for a long time now that reducing emissions to cut greenhouse gasses and therefore releasing less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the way forward. • Recycling has been the word for what 25 year? • My family live locally and I was born in this valley 56 years ago, so I cannot stress vehemently enough how much I do not want Covanta settling here, or anywhere else in this country – ever."

Julie Day
"Proposed Resource Recovery Facility at Rookery Pit 1. Covanta have lowered the height of the chimney because of concerns for the aircraft at Cranfield and by residents request not to have such a large blot on the landscape. The consultant at the exhibition they do simulation tests having taken weather conditions over the last five years and make sure the worst case scenario is covered. I was not sure I knew exactly what was emitted from the chimney or where these said emissions would fall. 2. The increase in traffic will be tremendous which poses lots of questions a) Who will pay for the road repairs caused by the increase in traffic? b) The traffic consultant said that the increase in traffic would be insignificant but extra lorries using M1 and M25 even if only 20 extra during peak travelling hours will have a huge impact on motorways already over subscribed. c) The transporting of waste from the Buckinghamshire/Maidenhead area will cause major disruption in many areas other than motorways en route to Marston Vale. d) The increase of at least 200 lorry movements a day will also have an impact on air pollution and road networks even if they are banned from travelling through Marston and Stewartby village centres. 3. Toxic waste (ash) is only 4% of overall amount i.e. 1000 tones of rubbish 4% toxic waste which has to be transported to one of the very few sites that can handle this product. Nobody at the exhibition knew where the waste from Marston was going, several hazarded a guess at Cheshire salt mines and they only had a scant knowledge at how waste was processed once on site. I feel very strongly about dumping our toxic waste in someone else’s back yard. We need to be clear about the process before agreeing to it. 4. Although it was stated the area for taking waste would not be expanding as the predictions of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire’s waste would keep the plant running adequately, I am not convinced. Any extra rubbish transported will make a mockery of transport issues, working hours and emissions statistics stated. 5. Their hours of business were vague and open to abuse. 6. 10% reduction on electricity bills for surrounding villages (Wootton, Marston, Stewartby etc) is unfair for other rate payers in the very near vicinity who are affected by increase in transport and pollution etc. 7. It still seems inconceivable that the railway was not considered for transportation of some waste. 8. There is no mention in the use of solar panels or alternative energy use for powering the plant. 9. I am concerned by the reports of Covanta’s track record in the states, it does not fill me with confidence to have them on the doorstep. As the proposal stands I am not in favour of it."

Rio D'Souza on behalf of Highways Agency
"No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into use unless and until a Travel Plan (substantially in accordance with the Travel Plan prepared by Waterman Boreham dated 4 August 2010) has been submitted and approved in writting by the Local Planning Authority (who shall consult with the Highways Agency on behalf of the secretart of State for Transport.) Reason - To ensure that A421 Trunk Road continues to serve its purpose as part of the national system of routes for through traffic in accordance with section 10 of the Highways Act 1980 and to satisfy the reasonable requirements of road safety on that road. Following delivery of the A421 M1 Junction to 13 to Bedford Improvement scheme scheduled for later this year the existing A421 trunk road will be detrunked and will become the responsibility of the local highway authority. All construction works affecting the new A421 trunk road are to be approved by the Highways Agency prior to commencement. Covanta are to contact the Route Performance Manager for Area 8 at the Highways Agency, Manton Lane, Bedford MK 41 7LW to discuss and agree method of work. The proposed electricity transmission lines should be installed using non-intrusive methods and no supporting structures or poles should be erected within Highways Agency land. Any cables to be laid in highway land must be placed underground no less than 2 meters below existing drainage using directional drilling, or similar methods. No overhead poles are to be erected in highway land. In the interest of safety and the free flow of traffic no traffic management or crossing of the carriageway by any construction operatives will be permitted at any time."

Roger Garratt
"I believe that the proposed incinerator will have an extremely negative effect on both short and long term health of residents within a significant radius from the incinerator. The environment will clearly be adversely and irrevocably affected. The amount of traffic in particular levy lorries will be considerably increased. Waste in substantial quantities will be brought into the area and I believe that this is a BAD proposal, which whilst substantially boosting Covanta’s profits. It will reduce the quality of life for the thousands of people who will be affected. Should this ridiculous proposal ever be approve? And of course we should not overlook the effect or house prices within possibly a ten mile radius of the plant, coupled with the increased difficulties in selling one’s house."

Alan Richard Bastable
"• I oppose the building of this Covanta waste incineration facility • The volume of traffic to and from the site is unacceptable (approx 900 movements per day) • I have justified concerns about emissions. Covanta has faced many lawsuits in the USA ( ref fly ash and visual impact) • The scale of the incinerator is excessive for Bedfordshire • I am happy to dispose of our own waste (Central Beds) but not from all over the country and possibly Europe • Central Bedfordshire can make its own waste disposal facility locally • The environmental impact of a facility of this immense size and capacity, 75% of which according to Covanta will be above the existing edge of Rookery pit i.e. visible, will dominate the skyline and blight the whole area. Coupled with the volume of vehicles, the known emissions and fly ash problems, and the ‘bullying’ and ‘legal actions’ brought against Covanta in the USA, this project will prove to be an environmental disaster for Marston Vale and Bedfordshire"

Mrs Rebecca Cook
"How will the issue from the incinerator affect any livestock?"

Barbara Pilbeam
"Representations: • The size and scale of the proposed development • The location of the proposed development • Potential pollution • The effect on the local community/area • The planning process • Effects on health • Effect on house prices • The materials/design of the development • Pollution from the plant • The effect of construction of the plant • The need for this type of development in Bedfordshire"

Frank James Cook
"I farm 360 acres on the West side of this proposed site and when the kiln chimneys were working we had deposits on our land streets. What will happen with the poisons from this plant? F.J.C"

Anthony Haigh
"1. I have concerns about the emissions from the unit particularly as we are on higher ground than Stewartby (approx 350ft above sea level). We experienced pollution from the brickworks emissions if the winds were easterly. 2. I also have serious concerns about traffic levels and their long hours of operation"

Wendy Joyce Haigh
"I am concerned about the emissions from this unit I live on the higher ground than Stewartby (approx. 350ft above sea level). We experienced pollution from the brickworks emissions if the winds were easterly. I am also concerned regarding the traffic levels and when long hours of operation."

Leslie James and June Anne Gilson
"My worries & concerns are: 1. Emissions from Plant. Waste must give off chemicals; powders, ash and a lot of dangerous substances. 2. Accidents at plant e.g. some chemicals in forest, Chernobyl, oil rigs etc. How can Covanta guarantee the safety from emissions to the close and distant population? 3. How many Covanta plants for waste disposal been closed because of toxic waste the figures need publication. 4. My life is coming to an end, I do not want my young relatives put in any danger from emissions from a wide variety of waste burning over there is not a finite control. 5. Traffic will be a major difficulty with the volume of lorries and general traffic on the new main roads. Especially since traffic has been reduced by the closure of the brickworks only to be increased by the enormous no. of lorries proposed daily. 6. Toxic emissions must be a deep concern for population in the area despite all the claims of safety"

Mrs Pauline M Jennings
"1. Should not be build on clay 2. Where is all the water going? 3. We have just got clean air after the bricks 4. Will it have a bad effect on all the trees that have been planted? Too late to do anything when they are all dead. 5. The working 24/7 with increased lorry traffic 6. We have a lot of young children coming to Wixams 7. We also need Nirah as that will bring in a lot more work than the waste site 8. Not knowing what will come of the chimney 9. Not know knowing hat or how far the waste will come from 10. It will change are landscape"

C. J Robertson
"My main concerns with this development are extra traffic size and pollution. I have been told 900 lorry loads of rubbish will be transported daily; with the Bletchley/Bedford/ St Pancras lines viably close to hand why not use the railway? Does the size need to be so big? Why have it so large a capacity to be able to dispose of waste from 50 miles away A445? My main concern is toxic fumes. When L.B.C were up and running and North West winds were blowing we in Houghton Conquest in variably suffered with sulphur fumes, even though L.B.C were meant to deal with his problem and eradicate it. Will the new plant be able to say confidentially 100% there will be no fumes at all; if the answer to this is no then strongly object to the development. If these issues can be addressed i.e. smaller premises for 30 mile catchments, only use railway transport and contain all fumes etc. then I will have no qualms as rubbish has to be disposed somehow; but please only local rubbish for incineration, not from London."

Mr B C Garner
"I have no objections to an incinerator being built at Rookery South. I do however object to the proposed size of the plant, and to the importation of large amounts of waste from outside the local area. Finally the emissions that would be generated, will it be safe?"

Amy Eleanor Blackwell
"We are extremely concerned by the damage to the infrastructure that will be caused by the incessant traffic of the waste lorries. 1. Who will be responsible for the damage that will most certainly result from this excessive throughput of traffic 2. The noise and pollution to the area will be unbearable and will cause additional healthy problems to the elderly local residents and to those already suffering from ill health 3. How will Covanta recover the costs and make a profit from this venture presumably by increasing the volume of activity in the area"

Terence Victor Pritchard
"I have deep concerns regarding the proposal to build an incinerator at Rookery pit, Stwartby for the following reasons: 1. It will have a detrimental effect on the Marston Vale landscape 2. The infrastructure of the area is not suitable for a huge increase in heavy lorries to feed the incinerator on a 24hr basis 3. The prospect of dangerous emissions from the incinerator and I believe the company involved has been fined on a number of occasions for breaching safety rules 4. in respect of No 3, there are many young families in the surrounding areas and this may jeopardize the health of future generations 5. The need to feed the plant on a 24/7 basis will require waste to be brought from many other counties creating a huge increase in traffic 6. The very large building and chimney will have a detrimental effect on the very popular Millennium Country Park Nature Reserve in Marston Moreteyne."

Mrs Jillian Wyer
"I am very concerned about the toxic fumes which will be put into the ait in surrounding villages. We have an unusual amount of people dying with cancer in this village, and this could be due to the brickworks so we don’t want any other waste to our air. Also the fumes may kill the new forest at Marston a forest which is supposed to improve air quality. Also is the matter o the water which is going to be pumped out of the pit. This will affect out water table I’m sure. Also we are a small quiet village, and do not want lorries coming through 5 am-11pm. Another thing to contaminate, our air as well as accidents. Also why do Bedfordshire people have to have other counties waste? Also with Bedford’s good recycle record, what will you burn in the future, we don’t want waste from all over Britain. If America is concerned about this incinerator I think it is so foolish to go ahead with this project when other ways of waste disposal could be used. At the age of 70 this is probably no threat to my health, but for my children and grandchildren. Please, do think again of what you will be putting on our lovely Bedford countryside. No to Covanta."

Mrs Sylvia Avril Pritchard
"As a senior citizen I am very upset at the proposal to build a large incinerator at Rookery pit, Stewartby. What Covanta is proposing I believe will affect the health not only of my precious family, but future generations of local people. My husband and I live in a lovely village which has done its duty with the hazard of emissions from the brickwork chimneys- now fortunately closed down. The prospect of a huge increase of heavy lorries carrying waste from numerous surrounding counties I find appalling. People in central Bedfordshire are proud of their area and look forward to the building of centre parks and the Nirah Project. This will obviously attract a sizeable increase in visitors and I feel that the proposed Covanta large building and very tall chimney will be detrimental. I know that no one wants unpopular and controversial buildings in their backyard but I feel that this proposal will be a disaster for central Bedfordshire."

Valerie Ann Alden-Salter
"Why when we already have a good recycling system in Bedfordshire so we have to have the pollution of other peoples waste being burnt here. I’m very concerned about the traffic. I’m particularly concerned about the future health of our children from unknown fall out, its harm (long term) to the environment air, water and Earth. Here are new methods of reducing waste, so why can’t we go down that road. I’m also concerned about noise and light pollution. It’s not going to create many jobs and will damage all the work that we here all done for our Marston Vale Forest."

John Murgatroyd
"My representation about this project concerns the emissions from the plant, in particular the fine particles emitted after combustion. Since these fine particles have the ability to cause, and make worse, respiratory disease, I consider that the project should be requires to reduce these to a negligible amount. Further, any emissions of substances such as dioxins have the ability, a very great ability, to build-up in the food chain and I consider these should be reduced or removed as well."

Shelagh Boddington
"We don’t want this old solution. We don’t want any more landfill nor incineration. There are health problems from the pollution. This pollution will not be contained to Bedfordshire borders."

Major J Boddington
"This is a bad solution driven by panic. Bedfordshire does not want all the pollution from the plant and lorries. This pollution will affect al neighbouring counties and possibly further a field."

Mrs Doreen Joyce Holme
"1) Incineration is not a 21st Century solution to waste disposal. 2) The pollution knows no country boundaries therefore not in the U.K at all."

Mr Robert Ronald Holme
"1. Incineration is not a 21st Century solution to waste disposal. 2. The pollution from the incineration of waste knows no country boundaries and should not therefore be in the UK at all."

Mr Eric Holme
"1. Incineration is not a 21st Century solution to waste disposal. 2. The pollution from the incineration of waste knows no boundaries and should not therefore be in the UK at"

S. R Pointon
"We do not want plumes of smoke and toxins and nano particles which could be the equivalent of blue asbestos polluting Beds and surrounding counties. We have taken everybody else’s rubbish for years now is the time to make Beds an attractive county with something like the NY Rex Project not a place which people will avoid. We do not want a fall in house prices nor do we want a pariah county."

J Hewett
"There are better ways to deal with waste. We must not be panicked into an old fashioned solution. The toxic waste will pollute the whole of the UK possibly. Bedfordshire and adjoining counties do not want pollution form the plant, the lorries and the building. The building works should stop immediately. We need the vision to make Bedfordshire an attractive county. A project to bring people to the county not drives them away that will bring wealth to the county. We don’t want to be a pariah county with falling house prices, pollution and health problems for our citizens. This project will bring the possible equivalent of the asbestos problems."

George French
"My concerns are as follows. • Long term health implications from the emissions generated by the EFW incinerator. • Contamination to soil and water. • General effect on wild life in the area surrounding Rookery Pit including that which is already in the location. • The proposed conveyance of rubbish to the facility is by road only when there is a railway nearby. • The effect on the mental and physical well being of persons who currently reside near the roads anticipated for use by the carriers of the rubbish between 0500-2300 days/year."

Joan French
"I wish to register my concern:- 1) About the emissions from the EfW stack and long term health implications. 2) The contamination from the emissions of air, soil and water and the pollutants entering the food chain. 3) The loss of large numbers of wildlife in Rookery Pit South. 4) The volume of vehicles using the A421 and minor roads leading to the Covanta Resource Recovery Facility which will be beyond the predicted capacity for these roads."

Kathleen Gray
"Loss of green space. Possibility of particulates in the atmosphere. Many additional vehicular movements. Collection of out of county waste."

Francis Martin Day
"I own no land on the proposed site, but I am concerned by the possibility of fall out from the plant on to my land. My concerns are: • Emissions on to my property • Temperature inversion which occurs over Houghton Conquest in certain weather conditions • Damage to wildlife in the area • Fallout of injurious and disfiguring material from the plant • Visibility of plant, which will be very large, from a great distance • Noise levels • Lowering of property values • Huge increase in traffic, both carrying waste materials to the plant, and removal of residents which may be corrosive and toxic • The small scale plant as envisaged by the bear project is much more realistic and would not subject the area to huge disruptions to the local population"

Mrs Pauline Elizabeth Black
"INTRODUCTION From the many issues emerging from the present incinerator proposal, three specific issues have been selected for this representation. This is followed by further considerations on the proposal. EMISSIONS The emissions from the proposed incinerator will, it is claimed by supporters of the project, be harmless to public health. The published evidence from a number of different sources about incinerator emissions from the processing of domestic and industrial waste, strongly disputes this claim. The proposed quantity of waste for processing by the incinerator will result in emissions comprising large amounts of particulate material, plus a range of noxious gases, some of which may be cancer producing. The medium and long term effects of these emissions on public health cannot be predicted with accuracy. Furthermore, the emissions cannot be guaranteed as having been rendered harmless by the plant cleaning equipment, regardless of the degree of maintenance. VISUAL IMPACT The proposed incinerator, massive in size and with an extremely tall stack, will be visible from most of Bedfordshire. The visual impact will considerable, dominating an otherwise rural and residential area, which will be permanently disfigured, and with its character totally altered. In blighting the landscape, it will be an eyesore for residents, and for tourists responding to the programme to create a tourist-friendly environment within the county. Local amenities such as the country park, the growing water sport facilities and the intended holiday village will be negatively affected by the sheer proximity and size of the incinerator, as well by the continual emissions. VEHICLE MOVEMENTS The intended number of lorry movements required to feed the proposed incinerator will add considerably to the present traffic volume in the area. From the new A421 road, which will carry the bulk, but not all, of the lorry movements to and from the incinerator, there is likely to be traffic congestion as lorries enter and leave the minor roads leading to the plant. This will affect local residential areas. The noise and pollution from these lorries will inevitably add considerably to existing levels. Any expansion of the incinerator facility, which is a very real possibility, will merely exacerbate the traffic problems caused by the plant in the first place. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS The proposed incinerator, once built, will inevitably encourage an economic case for increasing the amount of waste collected and processed, as well as collection from an ever widening area. IF incineration is eventually deemed as unavoidable, even if to a lesser extent than presently proposed, a less environmentally and socially damaging approach would be to construct smaller plants to deal with the waste from smaller catchments areas, perhaps on an individual county basis. This would reduce the intensity of traffic problems that would affect a single localised area. It would remove the extremely dominant presence of a single incineration plant, and emissions would be realised to the atmosphere from a number of different locations, thus reducing the total emissions from any single source."

Mr Derrick Holland
"We do not want the incinerator, full stop."

Mrs Pamela Hazelwood
"1. I am concerned about pollution and the effects on health 2. Amount of traffic already on our roads, this will only add to it 3. This incinerator will be unsightly 4. Light and noise from this, both day and night 5. This will no doubt not give local people work and could also be bad for currant business 6. Concerned about property being devalued"

Mr & Mrs Key
"We strongly object to Covanta incinerator being built at Rookery pit. The incinerator will produce toxic waste and chimney emissions cannot be controlled. The village roads are not designed for this level of additional traffic estimated 900 lorries’s a day. The plant is operating 24 hours a day. The chimney will be approx. twice the height of the old brickworks chimneys. It will be seen from the village. Incinerators do not remove the need for landfill. Central Beds is looking at different ways of reducing the need for landfill at a local level through the Bear Project. Why should we take all these other counties waste all the pollution, no benefit."

Kathleen Holland
"• There will be unhealthy pollution • Too much extra traffic • The amount of work for people will be small, but the amount of noise will be large • Our homes will be devalued"

Janet Griffith
"My comments relate to pollution, air, land and water, and the effects on health and well-being of the community and the natural environment. I do have asthma and breathing difficulties and therefore have a particular interest in this issue. 1) In this area we have high pollution levels and poor air quality from the waste disposal landfill sites at Brogborough and Elston and the green waste facility at Haynes all cause air pollution from the sites and from the emissions from the great many waste carrying vehicles coming into the area and working within Bedfordshire. The landfill sites also create leachates which can pollute surrounding land and water courses. For these reasons I believe the poor air quality generally in this part of Bedfordshire puts everybody at a disadvantage. The proposals for Rookery South Pit would exacerbate all of these problems: - Air pollution, leaching, increased traffic pollution and in addition will create gas emissions (Dioxins) from the proposed incinerator. I believe the levels of air pollution would increase to unacceptable levels and in consequence adversely affect the lives of very many people living in the Marston Vale. 2) The Marston Vale Forest Centre has been developed over a number of years involving much time, effort and expense. It was designated a protected area to provide a natural environment for wildlife, flora and fauna and is now maturing very well. In addition to the many advantages it provides for a variety of natural habitats, both on land and water, it is a facility of benefit to all who live and visit the area and is considered by many to be quite and asset to the Marston Vale. Unfortunately the site of the Forest Centre is right on the doorstep of the Rookery South Pit, with the lake being adjacent. The natural habitats and the environment which has been carefully managed will undoubtedly be compromised by the polluting emissions from such a facility as the one proposed by Covanta."

Mr Raymond Cope
"We do NOT want the incinerator belching l out toxic smoke near our home for our children to breath in giving them health problems. We do NOT want toxic ash blowing into the air for all of us to breathe in. We do NOT want the incinerator to harm the environment polluting the water around our village. WE DO NOT WANT THE INCINERATOR FULL STOP."

Mr Julian Hazelwood
"1. Stewartby brickworks were closed due to the pollution hundreds of jobs lost, so why should we want an incinerator to causes more pollution? 2. There is already enough traffic on our close by roads making it hard to get in and out of the village especially at 5pm, so we need so much more? 3. In my opinion this unsightly incinerator will devalue properties in our village."

James Gahagan
"When we moved into Houghton Conquest in 1993 we knew that the brickworks had only a limited life span and the rubbish tips in the area were approaching the end of their lives. We thought that no planning authority would expect a community to take on a “new health hazard” having been subjected to both landfill and brick making. The Covanta project will provide a threat to my family’s health. • 24 hours of activity less than 2 miles from my home will impact on the light pollution and noise pollution of the area • What is going to be burned and what impact on the air quality. • What impact on the road links will the hundreds of lorries have on the roads in the area o The Wixhams have not yet been completed o The houses linked to the A421 development o The proposed fresh water site and centre parks. • The visual impact on the Greensand Ridge with the size of chimney and factory site • The site will blight this area for the next 3 decades and longer if the site is further developed. Surely an incinerator is better suited to an area where there is a lower population and less planned expansion of housing and leisure facilities. What point is there in continuing the woodland site and nature sites if they are to be dominated by an incinerator."

Steven Plant
"As a keen angler who fishes Stewartby Lake I do not want to see the enviroment that I fish in all the time destroyed or damaged by the proposed structure. I have concerns about noise effect on wildlife, birds, fish, etc. Noise will increase significantly as a result of lorries and increase in traffic, reversing bleepers this will impact upon what is currently a very peaceful enviroment. Increases in rodent activity as a result of the plant will increase the potential of weils desease. Pollution from surface water run off into the lake will impact on the health of the fish stock as well as othe water users."

Paul Maison
"The proposed Bedford – Milton Keynes waterway is a project that has been supported by us and all the Local Planning Authorities involved both in their core strategy key diagrams, where the preferred route is shown and by supportive policies. Considerable progress has been made in defining the route and implementing activities to further the waterway. The preferred route of the waterway crosses Green Lane at its western end. Green Lane is the proposed haulage route for this major proposal. An alternative route for the waterway in this area is very difficult to envisage and would lead to considerable additional costs even if an alternative was feasible. Therefore it is imperative that the proposed waterway is accommodated by this major proposal. This should be achieved by a Section 106 agreement or a similar mechanism to secure adequate passage for the waterway. We were founder supporters of the waterway and British Waterways is an active member and supported of the Waterway Trust. I am aware that the Trust has made representations on similar lines. As our previous comments of 2nd February 2010 state, we would expect all efforts to be made to reduce the visual impact of this development on the environs of the proposed waterway."

Andy Hawkes
"We (Gallagher Estates on behalf of Gallagher Elstow Limited and Wixams first Limited – the landowners of Wixams a development of four villages in the Elstow area which will comprise a total of some 4,500 housing units) are content to reterate our views that the Rookery Waster to Energy Scheme could be beneficial to villages 2, 3, 4 and employment areas on the Wixams if we choose to pursuer CHP propasals. Also that we believe the Rookery South Scheme would not have a material impact on either the take up or price of houses on the Wixams and that it should not deter inward investors to the Waxams."

Andy Hawkes
"We are the recipient of a notice served under regulation 8 of the infrastructure planning (applications: prescribed forms and procedure) regulations 2008. This is our holding objection to the Rookery South (resource recovery facility) order. We are currently engaged in concidering the impact on our interests affected by the proposed Rookery South (resource recovery facility) order which involves 29 areas of land in our ownership as identified in the schedule of interests affected as sent to us with the regulation 8 APFP regulations notice. We are in dialogue with Covanta Rookery South Limited and will formalise our response at a later stage after dialogue has progressed further."

Graham Mabbutt on behalf of B&MK Waterway Trust
"This representation from the Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway Trust considers the potential impacts on the Waterway, should the Proposed Facility gain approval. There is no reference to the impact of the Proposed Facility on the B&MK Waterway in the Submission documentation, this issue needs to be evaluated by the Infrastructure Planning Commission and, should the Proposed Facility gain approval, mitigated by Covanta. The Proposed Facility impacts B&MK Waterway immediately south of the current A421 at the north-western end of Green Lane. The Waterway will be a new 26km link between the River Great Ouse at Kempston in Bedford and the Grand Union Canal at Newlands in Milton Keynes. The project design & development work is being led by the Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway Consortium, comprising eleven public sector and charitable bodies including Bedford Borough Council, Central Bedfordshire Council and Milton Keynes Council. The Waterway is included as a protected project in the adopted Core Strategy or adopted Local Plan for all three Local Planning Authorities. The Proposed Facility access road and the two grid connection routes cross the Waterway route at the north-western end of Green Lane. The Proposed Facility could have a serious negative impact on the Waterway and could prove fatal to the project as alternative Waterway routes from Stewartby Lake to the New A421 Underpass may not be possible. However, this impact can be mitigated during construction of the Proposed Facility. It should be noted that if the Waterway is constructed at a later date it would require a period of closure of Green Lane and routing delivery vehicles via Broadmead Road through Stewartby village and would incur additional construction cost. The Waterway and its green corridor passes through the three local authority areas via the Bedford Waterway Park, Marston Vale Waterway Park and the Milton Keynes Waterway Park. Green Lane marks the boundary between the Bedford and the Marston Vale Waterway Parks. It is an enhancement of the established Milton Keynes Parks and Forest of Marston Vale green infrastructure projects. Minerals and Waste Full Planning Permission was granted to Bedford Borough Council for extraction for extraction of 22,828m³ of topsoil and 59,249m³ of clay to create the Waterway channel between the New A421 Underpass and Fields Road and provide material to local development. The creation of the Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway Park is recognised as being of regional significance. Developer contributions collected through the Planning Obligations Strategy will supplement other sources of funding to bring these projects forward. The Consortium Members recognise that the best way to bring the project to fruitition is by developing ‘bite size sections’ within an overall long term plan. The Status Report, updated November 2010, lists an A-Z of sections being progressed over a period of years in co-operation with other development along the route. The section between Stewartby Lake and the new A421 Underpass is Section M. The first structure (section N), constructed by the Highways Agency, is already in place as New A421 Underpass accommodating both the Waterway and Sustrans National Cycle Network Route 51; the first channel cut will be in place by March 2011 at Marston Vale Innovation Park using the Minerals and Waste Planning Permission. A number of the sections are progressing, including: master planning the Grand Union to Willen Lake leisure park (including the UK’s deepest lock at 11.6m); linking Brogborough and Stewartby Lakes to provide strategic flood management mechanism for Marston Vale; a destination attraction at the junction of the Waterway and the river at Kempston; and the Bedford Waterspace Strategy to consider opportunities along the river. The route of the Waterway between Stewartby Lake ans the New A421 Underpass runs along the drainage ditch around the north-west edge of Lake and under two arms of the access road. The impacts are located at: 1. the bridge (OS reference 008431) across Green Lake access road; 2. the bridge (OS Reference 007430) across the southern link from Green Lane; 3. the location and underground burial depth of the grid connection cable routes shown in the Covanta proposal as being in both locations above. The proposed facility could have a serious negative impact on the Waterway and could prove fatal to the project as alternative routes from Stewartby Lake to the Underpass may not be possible. However, this impact can be mitigated during construction of the Proposed Facility by construction of appropriate bridges and appropriate location of the grid connection cables. There is a window of opportunity to deliver this mitigation while minimising disruption. Green Lane currently provides access to the WRG Stewartby Landfill Site which, at current rates of infill, is expected to reach capacity by the end of 2011. the window exists between closure of the landfill site and the construction of the Proposed Facility. The Proposed Facility could instead provide a positive impact on the Waterway. Accommodation of the Waterway could provide part of Covanta’s proposed community contribution by facilitating the route as it intersects the access road and the grid connection route. There could also be an opportunity to make clay available to Covanta as the Waterway channel is cut with the minerals and waste planning permission for extraction currently in place immediately north of the New A421 Underpass."

Heloise on behalf of Waste Recycling Group Limited
"Application by Covanta Rookery South Limited Energy from waste facility and MRF at Rookery South, Stewartby, Bedfordshire We are instructed by Waste Recycling Group Limited of Ground Floor West, 900 Pavillion Drive, Northampton Business Park, Northampton (WRG). Our client is a leading UK waste management and energy recovery company, operating facilities throughout the UK for the reception, recycling and disposal of waste. In this regard, it owns and operates a number of facilities within the catchment area proposed by Covanta in the current application; Brogborough and Stewartby in Bedfordshire; Calvert and Bletchley in Buckinghamshire; and Buckden in Cambridgeshire. It also owns a dormant mineral site at Elstow in Bedfordshire which it is promoting for waste management use through the Development Plan process. In addition, companies within the Group, WRG Waste Services Limited and Anti-Waste Limited, have interests in land which would be directly affected should the Order be confirmed. More particularly:- • Ownership of the sub soil of the areas marked 22 and 23 on the Land Plan, in relation to which the Applicant is seeking to acquire the right to install and maintain an electricity transmission line and to improve the highway; • Land/land interests which benefit from a restrictive covenant (together the Covenant Land), namely: (a) freehold ownership of land and buildings on the south west side of Wilstad Road, Elstow, Bedford, marked G within the area shaded gold on the Extinguishment of Rights Plan; and (b) a caution against first registration of the freehold of Grog Plant, Stewartby and marked S within the area shaded gold on the Extinguishment of Rights Plan. In each case, the Covenant Land lies outside the development boundary, but benefits from a restrictive covenant which prevents the Covenant Land (and a substantially larger area shaded gold on the Extinguishment of Rights Plan) from being used for any 'Protected Business' (the Restrictive Covenant). The Protected Business is defined so as to include the undertaking of commercial waste management and disposal activities including, without limitation, waste processing, recycling, recovery, composting and other waste minimisation and waste treatment activities. The application, therefore, seeks to extinguish the Restrictive Covenant by way of the CPO sought. With the exception of Annex A of the Needs Assessment which WRG has not had an opportunity to review, it having been made available only yesterday, our client has reviewed the documents submitted and relied upon by Covanta and wishes to object to the Order sought. WRG questions the legitimacy of Covanta's application, whether at this time or indeed at all, both in terms of the planning and the compulsory purchase elements of the Order. 1 PREMATURITY Firstly, there is the issue of prematurity. As acknowledged in Government Guidance, The Planning System, General Principles, at paragraph 17:- “In some circumstances, it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity where a DPD is being prepared or is under review, but has not yet been adopted where a proposed development is so substantial, or where cumulative effect would be so significant, that granting permission could prejudice the DPD by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed in the policy in the DPD”. Such circumstances arise in this case. The proposal is clearly premature and pre-empts the Local Development Framework process. The waste DPD's emerging within the Bedfordshire and Luton area, are at an early stage of development. The draft Waste Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation Document identifies the application site as a Preferred Strategic Recovery Site. As a strategic site, and given the facility's capacity of 585,000 tonnes per annum, it is by definition of such significance that the grant of permission would prejudice or predetermine subsequent decisions which should be made within the LDF process as regards type scale and location of new development. This is all the more evident given the preferred approach in the draft WCS for a small number of larger, strategic facilities and the fact that the wide catchment area proposed is inconsistent with the preference in the draft WCS for Rookery to serve "locally arising wastes" only, a restriction which does not apply to Brogborough, another preferred site in the draft WCS. WRG is promoting sites at Calvert and Brogborough for waste related development, as an EfW facility in the case of the former. Both sites are within the relevant catchment area and have been identified by Covanta as suitable alternatives in their supporting documentation. There is a material risk that the prospect of both, or either, of these sites being developed for this use will be adversely affected in the event that consent is granted for Covanta's development. Accordingly, the risk of prejudice being caused to the outcome of the LDF process will be increased, as sites which are currently being selected as preferred options for EfW facilities may no longer be required in the event that the Order is granted. Given the significant catchment area proposed, such a decision would therefore have significant potential to materially predetermine the outcome of several emerging development plans. Any decision ought therefore to be delayed until the LDF process has run its course and it has been adopted or at least further advanced. An early decision on the application site would effectively negate a comprehensive and even handed review of alternative sites that full Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal during the development plan process would facilitate. Whilst alternative sites can be considered as part of this application process it is inappropriate and unwieldy to consider each proposal in sufficient detail at this stage to support genuine like for like comparisons. This exercise is better suited to being undertaken as part of the LDF process. 2 ALTERNATIVE SITES Given the scale of Covanta proposal, it is highly likely that the development of an EfW will have, to some degree, a significant adverse effect in planning terms (or disadvantage to the public). The harms arising from the Covanta proposal will fall within the principles identified by the Court in Trusthouse Forte Hotels Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1987) S3 P & CR 293. Equally, it is clear that the major argument advanced in support of the application is that the need for the development outweighs the planning disadvantages. It is also the case that there could be only a very limited number of permissions granted for such developments within the relevant catchment area. It is therefore appropriate, and necessary, for the IPC to fully consider the availability of alternative sites which are able to meet the same need, with less damaging or similar adverse effects, and within a similar timeframe to Covanta's proposal for an EfW facility. Our clients have not had sufficient time to date to fully assess the adequacy of the Alternative Sites Assessment undertaken by Covanta in support of their application. However, it is notable that Covanta has identified that there are three alternative sites within the relevant catchment area which are 'deliverable' for the development of a EfW of the same scale. Amongst these options are the two sites which are being promoted by our client, namely Brogborough and Calvert. It is not accepted however that Covanta have provided a clear explanation as to why the three alternative sites it identifies are to be discounted and it appears that the rationale for this approach is simply due to the fact that the alternative sites are not owned by Covanta. This is indicated by paragraph 7.22.6 of the Alternative Site Assessment which states "Critically, Site 4 [the Rookery] is available to Covanta to develop now". WRG contends that the proposed EfW facility is equally deliverable on either of their two sites. Given the fact the development requires the acquisition of private rights, and the Order if made as sought would permit such acquisition, it is all the more important to fully consider whether a development of this size is required, and if so, whether the proposed location is the best site for this development, when compared to other alternatives which are available. Accordingly, if the proposals are not to be judged premature it would be necessary for a more detailed analysis of the three alternative sites to be carried out prior to the grant of the Order, to ensure that the respective environmental and sustainability aspects of each competing site are properly and fully assessed on a comparative basis. Such an analysis should, in this case, be carried out as part of the requirement to undertake a Sustainability Assessment and Strategic Environmental Appraisal of alternative sites. We reserve the right to undertake and submit evidence in respect of the comparative advantages of each competing site, and their ability to meet the identified need for such development within the same, or similar, time frames. In particular our client contends that the proposal compares unfavourably to alternatives because of its proposed scale judged against the overall need for such facilities, location, environmental impacts, accessibility, including the safety risk associated with the increase in use of the level crossing which does not appear to have been properly assessed as yet. 3 CPO The powers of CPO relied upon by Covanta in the Planning Act 2008 are subject to the decision-maker being satisfied that: (a) the land is required for the development to which the consent relates, or is required to facilitate or is incidental to the development; and (b) there is a compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory acquisition [Section 122]. In this instance, the compulsory acquisition of land, interests in or new rights over land is being sought over the whole of the application site, and indeed beyond in the case of the benefit of the Restrictive Covenant, affecting a significant number of people over a substantial area. Leaving aside the question of whether there is a need for a development of this scale, the fact that there are alternative sites to the Rookery site which could be brought forward for waste management purposes and which would avoid the need to acquire the proposed third party land or interests in land clearly brings into question whether the first criterion is met. Whilst Covanta did not approach the issue on the basis of identifying the best site or that Rookery should be the only site available, the fact that other sites are available is clearly pertinent to the issue. As Circular 06/2004 makes clear one of the relevant matters which one can expect the Secretary of State to consider in deciding whether to recommend confirmation of a CPO is "whether the purpose for which the Acquiring Authority is proposing to acquire the land could be achieved by any other means. This may include considering the appropriateness of any alternative proposals put forward by the owners of the land, or any other persons, for its re-use. It may also involve examining the suitability of any alternative locations for the purpose for which the land is being acquired". As highlighted earlier in this letter, a more detailed analysis of alternative sites is needed to ensure that the respective environmental and sustainability aspects of each competing site are properly and fully assessed. Until this comparative analysis is undertaken it cannot be asserted that the land is "required". Nor is the second criterion met. Covanta's Statement of Reasons does not establish a ‘compelling case in the public interest’ for making the CPO, as required by Section 122 of the PA 2008. This is a more stringent test than the one that applies when considering whether to grant planning permission, justifiably so, given the number of interests that would be affected in this instance if the CPO were confirmed. It is difficult to see how such a large scheme, proposed on unallocated Greenfield land without any obvious locational benefits and, indeed, having a number of locational disbenefits in terms of environmental impact, can be considered to be in the public interest when there are alternative sites which offer a number of advantages over the application site, including significantly, the fact compulsory acquisition would not be required. The ‘public interest’ test cannot 'reasonably' be made out in these circumstances. The resourcefulness and tenacity of the applicant is no substitute for a compelling case in the public interest. As such, if the Order were to be confirmed, a breach would occur of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 seeks to protect; the extinguishment of our clients' Restrictive Covenant and the commercial implications that are likely to ensue would not be proportionate to the interest being pursued. In this regard, the Restrictive Covenant that WRG benefits from and which the Order proposes to extinguish is necessary to protect WRG's legitimate business interests which were negotiated in good faith in order to protect legitimate commercial concerns. The Restrictive Covenant was imposed a number of years ago on London Brick Property Limited on the disposal of part of its property portfolio. London Brick was selling off its waste management portfolio and the purchaser wanted to ensure that London Brick did not have the ability to undertake any commercial waste management and disposal activities on the land it was retaining. The development of the dominant tenement for "Protected Business" purposes was always in prospect and the restriction on the servient tenement was intended to prevent land use competition. WRG later purchased part of that waste management portfolio (i.e. the Covenant Land) in the comfort of knowing that its interests would be protected by the Restrictive Covenant. The restriction, particularly the ban on waste management related uses, remains as important to WRG in terms of protecting its land use interests in the waste management industry as it did to those who originally entered into the covenant. In particular the Covenant Land includes WRG's Elstow site, where planning permission exists for mineral extraction, with restoration by backfill of waste and other proposals are intended. The use of CPO powers would be unfair and disproportionate in the circumstances of the case. Yours faithfully WALKER MORRIS"

John Tait
"1. The environmental Effect in the parish of Stewartby and surrounding villages. 2. Benefits to local community of a RRF 3. Transport a) the road network b)the advantages by recieving waste from outside Bedfordshire by rail."

Miss Tara Lowings
"Health risk: to people, animals and the environment in long and short term. Pollution: from the incinerator. The extra traffic will be going to and from the unit to bring in waste and remove the toxic fly ash to landfill. Covanta have a very bad history of allowing carcinogenic fumes to pollute the atmosphere. Road Capacity: the new A421 was designed to cope with current road congestion and a small amount of growth, not the volume Covanta quote, also over using small local roads. Living Environment: as the incinerator will be running 24/7 it will no longer be a village but more like an industrial area, from the continuous noise of the running plant but also the lorries coming and going and the light pollution. Tourism: we currently have area of interest to tourists. I feel they would be greatly put off by the incinerator and doubt people would want to holiday at the proposed centre parks site near Millbrook. Employment: I believe that once centre parks opens local unemployment will be almost nonexistent. Properties: I feel that most local properties and surrounding villages would have their house value affected in a negative way. I would like to conclude with: Would you like to live in a village where there is a polluting incinerator 10 minutes away? Where you can’t avoid seeing it?"

Desmond George Summerfield
"I am fully against this project. I have lived in Houghton Conquest since 1957 and had to put up with the awful smell from the brickworks chimneys. At least we are rid of that smell and threatened with more smells which will be a lot worse, but even more problems with the fall out from the incinerator which will consist of a large amount of pollutants and must cause a strong health hazard. This must be stopped at all costs because where the village is situated will be in direct line with the chimney from the prevailing wind and I should know as I live in the first house in the village with no wind breaks of any kind and when it blows well the smoke comes down to the ground. Please see sense and don’t let the project happen."

Monica Mannings
"I do not think there is a local need in Bedfordshire, for such a large incinerator. The ‘BEAR’ Project (Central Bedfordshire Energy and Recycling Project) is being set up to deliver a waste treatment solution for central Bedfordshire. This seems to be a viable solution to our local recycling targets. We do not need to have waste from other regions transported to this county. They should be encouraged to set up their own facilities. I am concerned extremely concerned about the toxic emissions from the proposed incinerator especially as I live only 1.5 miles away from the proposed site. It has been confirmed in the USA that these emissions cannot be controlled, and that they can pose long term health threats to citizens. I believe that the size of the plant is totally at odds with the ideals of the ‘Marston Vale Millennium country Park’ which was concerned as a means to re-forest this beautiful landscape for people. Over the years it has become such a place and is well used by local people. A giant incinerator right next to its boundaries – spewing out toxic waste, will certainly not enhance anything."

Mrs Heather A (Mr Thomas & Mrs Lyn)Jowitt
"I wish to protest about the proposed development of Rookery South energy waste as an ex-resident; and my son and my daughter-in law as residents of Houghton Conquest. This is a pretty village, but even with traffic calming measures has a constant problem of cars and lorries using it as a short cut form the A6 to the Bedford-Ampthill road B530, and visa versa. Stewartby is barely 2 miles from Houghton Conquest and even with a two percent increase in the traffic generated by the hundreds plus of lorries (six days a week), which would be feeding the waste disposal unit – it would be catastrophic for the village. The toxic fall out from the very high chimneys (also a blot on the landscape), and the water table also inevitably being affected: what you are proposing for the residents, who have been unlucky to live in any town or village nearby, is poisoned, whether by air or water! The road from Bragborough to Bedford A421 has for years been a complete bottle neck, and has recently been improved, but this was well before any of your proposals were thought of. Therefore the entire infrastructure in the proposed area is totally inadequate, irrespective of the environmental damage you would be causing to what is trying to become a lovely area in which to live. I must also mention the plans for the Marston forest centre and proposed extension from the Grand Union canal to Stewartby. Are all these fantastic ideas for the area, making it a tourist destination, to be shelves because a waste disposal plant and thousands of lorries clogging up the roads, can’t find a less populated area to dispose of waste?"

Ms Catherine Jane Black
"INTRODUCTION From the many issues emerging from the present incinerator proposal, three specific issues have been selected for this representation. This is followed by further considerations on the proposal. EMISSIONS The emissions from the proposed incinerator will, it is claimed by supporters of the project, be harmless to public health. The published evidence from a number of different sources about incinerator emissions from the processing of domestic and industrial waste, strongly disputes this claim. The proposed quantity of waste for processing by the incinerator will result in emissions comprising large amounts of particulate material, plus a range of noxious gases, some of which may be cancer producing. The medium and long term effects of these emissions on public health cannot be predicted with accuracy. Furthermore, the emissions cannot be guaranteed as having been rendered harmless by the plant cleaning equipment, regardless of the degree of maintenance. VISUAL IMPACT The proposed incinerator, massive in size and with an extremely tall stack, will be visible from most of Bedfordshire. The visual impact will considerable, dominating an otherwise rural and residential area, which will be permanently disfigured, and with its character totally altered. In blighting the landscape, it will be an eyesore for residents, and for tourists responding to the programme to create a tourist-friendly environment within the county. Local amenities such as the country park, the growing water sport facilities and the intended holiday village will be negatively affected by the sheer proximity and size of the incinerator, as well by the continual emissions. VEHICLE MOVEMENTS The intended number of lorry movements required to feed the proposed incinerator will add considerably to the present traffic volume in the area. From the new A421 road, which will carry the bulk, but not all, of the lorry movements to and from the incinerator, there is likely to be traffic congestion as lorries enter and leave the minor roads leading to the plant. This will affect local residential areas. The noise and pollution from these lorries will inevitably add considerably to existing levels. Any expansion of the incinerator facility, which is a very real possibility, will merely exacerbate the traffic problems caused by the plant in the first place. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS The proposed incinerator, once built, will inevitably encourage an economic case for increasing the amount of waste collected and processed, as well as collection from an ever widening area. IF incineration is eventually deemed as unavoidable, even if to a lesser extent than presently proposed, a less environmentally and socially damaging approach would be to construct smaller plants to deal with the waste from smaller catchments areas, perhaps on an individual county basis. This would reduce the intensity of traffic problems that would affect a single localised area. It would remove the extremely dominant presence of a single incineration plant, and emissions would be realised to the atmosphere from a number of different locations, thus reducing the total emissions from any single source."

Mr Mark Anthony Black
"INTRODUCTION From the many issues emerging from the present incinerator proposal, three specific issues have been selected for this representation. This is followed by further considerations on the proposal. EMISSIONS The emissions from the proposed incinerator will, it is claimed by supporters of the project, be harmless to public health. The published evidence from a number of different sources about incinerator emissions from the processing of domestic and industrial waste, strongly disputes this claim. The proposed quantity of waste for processing by the incinerator will result in emissions comprising large amounts of particulate material, plus a range of noxious gases, some of which may be cancer producing. The medium and long term effects of these emissions on public health cannot be predicted with accuracy. Furthermore, the emissions cannot be guaranteed as having been rendered harmless by the plant cleaning equipment, regardless of the degree of maintenance. VISUAL IMPACT The proposed incinerator, massive in size and with an extremely tall stack, will be visible from most of Bedfordshire. The visual impact will considerable, dominating an otherwise rural and residential area, which will be permanently disfigured, and with its character totally altered. In blighting the landscape, it will be an eyesore for residents, and for tourists responding to the programme to create a tourist-friendly environment within the county. Local amenities such as the country park, the growing water sport facilities and the intended holiday village will be negatively affected by the sheer proximity and size of the incinerator, as well by the continual emissions. VEHICLE MOVEMENTS The intended number of lorry movements required to feed the proposed incinerator will add considerably to the present traffic volume in the area. From the new A421 road, which will carry the bulk, but not all, of the lorry movements to and from the incinerator, there is likely to be traffic congestion as lorries enter and leave the minor roads leading to the plant. This will affect local residential areas. The noise and pollution from these lorries will inevitably add considerably to existing levels. Any expansion of the incinerator facility, which is a very real possibility, will merely exacerbate the traffic problems caused by the plant in the first place. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS The proposed incinerator, once built, will inevitably encourage an economic case for increasing the amount of waste collected and processed, as well as collection from an ever widening area. IF incineration is eventually deemed as unavoidable, even if to a lesser extent than presently proposed, a less environmentally and socially damaging approach would be to construct smaller plants to deal with the waste from smaller catchments areas, perhaps on an individual county basis. This would reduce the intensity of traffic problems that would affect a single localised area. It would remove the extremely dominant presence of a single incineration plant, and emissions would be realised to the atmosphere from a number of different locations, thus reducing the total emissions from any single source."

Mr AJW on behalf of Ampthill & District Preservation Society
"1) Rookery South Pit has reverted to a natural state including a lake and reed beds which are inhabited by several species of waterfowl. It is essentially a rural environment and wholly unsuited to industrialisation. 2) The proposed plant will be vast and completely out of character for this rural area; it will be visually obtrusive which no amount of camouflage will conceal. The enormous chimney stack will be clearly visible from the Greensand Ridge to the south as it will protrude above the horizon and will be accentuated by the incessant vapour plume. 3) The location is surrounded by heritage and leisure sites, several of which are on a higher ground thereby rendering the plant more obvious: East: Kings Wood – Ancient woodland which is a public recreation area. South East: Houghton House a historic English Heritage building South: Ampthill Park – a much used public recreation area All are connected by the Greensand Ridge Walk with glorious views over the Marston Vale. West: Marston Vale Millennium Country Park – the plant will be adjacent. North: Stewartby Lake Water Sports Centre – all heavy good vehicles using the plant will travel along two sides of the lake. 4) There is anxiety regarding the risk of toxic emissions from the stack in the light of reported enforcement action against Covanta for unlawful emissions from plants in the United States. 5) Heavy Goods vehicle traffic will increase on the A507 road traffic which includes Ampthill Bypass. This road is a single carriageway which carries heavy traffic. The police already regard it as a high accident route. 6) It is wholly unreasonable that this rural area should have imposed on it an industrial facility which is so vast that it must accept waste from much of the northern Home Counties and East Anglia in order to be economically viable. 7) If this project goes ahead it will inevitably be seen as a precedent for further industrial development nearby."

Kathleen R Smith
"This area of Bedfordshire has for many years been a rubbish dumping ground, largely due to the brick-works excavations. Now that we do no longer have the pollution dust/smoke from the brickworks, the air quality has greatly improved. I am very concerned about the pollution which there will be from this proposed site. I am very concerned about the vast increase in traffic. The newly redeveloped A421 will not be able to accommodate all these lorries, much less the local roads. Light pollution along the A421 valley is already great because of all the distribution companies. Rookery Pit since it has no longer been dug for clay is an important local wildlife wetland. The whole area which has been recovering will be completely ruined. The biggest problem to me is the huge scale of the project – building size, traffic, light and noise pollution. I do realise that we must reduce land-fill of rubbish but I do not see why we should have to put up with this monstrosity which will burn the rubbish of such a huge part of the southeast of England. I would support a small scale incinerator which took local rubbish."

Mr Wickings
"1) Increase in heavy traffic in the area. 2) The scale of the project – too large for this rural area 3) More emphasis on recycling not incineration."

Ms Baker
"After spending 30 years of my life in this and other close areas of Bedford I feel we have been already dogged by too many waste disposal propositions. I was one of those that fought to keep mirex out. We were successful on that score. I was also one that helped keep the conservation area at Elston pits. I would like to keep thins chimney from being put up after heavy watched all the other chimneys being pulled down at Stewartby. The air seeds a lot cleaner and the smells not as bad. We do not want to start all over again!! NO"

Michael Mannings
"I do not think there is a local need in Bedfordshire, for such a large incinerator. The ‘BEAR’ Project (Central Bedfordshire Energy and Recycling Project) is being set up to deliver a waste treatment solution for central Bedfordshire. This seems to be a viable solution to our local recycling targets. We do not need to have waste from other regions transported to this county. They should be encouraged to set up their own facilities. I am concerned extremely concerned about the toxic emissions from the proposed incinerator especially as I live only 1.5 miles away from the proposed site. It has been confirmed in the USA that these emissions cannot be controlled, and that they can pose long term health threats to citizens. I believe that the size of the plant is totally at odds with the ideals of the ‘Marston Vale Millennium country Park’ which was concerned as a means to re-forest this beautiful landscape for people. Over the years it has become such a place and is well used by local people. A giant incinerator right next to its boundaries – spewing out toxic waste, will certainly not enhance anything."

James Benjamin Nockels
"The Covanta development creates a high risk of pollution across Bedfordshire. The fumes are poisonous and Covanta has a history in the USA of claims and legal action against it in there matters. The A421 was not designed to allow for the volume of vehicles, at their weight. Local employment will be minimal."

Elizabeth Jane Thornton
"My concerns about proposed solution of waste disposal by Covanta: • Prime Minister David Cameron is strongly opposed to waste disposal by incineration. • The proposed plant will be the size of Wembley Stadium and the chimneys twice the height of the brickworks. – A blot on the lovely countryside and villages for miles around, possibly the largest such plant in Europe. • The toxic emissions would be a danger to health and property prices. • Covanta have already faced court cases in Connecticut, USA for above acceptable toxic emissions. • Huge lorries, making 900 journeys per day (one every 36 seconds) to and from the plant. • Our local roads were not built to cater for such heavy traffic. • The effects of chimney emissions on the nearby water sports club, endangers wild life and people pursuing leisure activities. • Bedfordshire’s main Industry is tourism – why should central Bedfordshire handle waste and recycling materials from Buckinghamshire and possibly Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, Milton Keynes, and Cambridgeshire in the near future, in addition to Bedfordshire and Bedford Borough? • How would Covanta dispose of harmful deposits left by burning waste?"

Gillian Markham
"I am against Covanta’s proposals for the following reasons: 1. Why should central Bedfordshire be responcible for disposing of waste and recycling materials from Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, Milton Keynes, and other authorities in the near future? 2. Prime Minister is opposed to waste disposal by incineration. 3. The toxic emissions from Covanta’s chimneys would be a danger to health and property values, and wildlife. 4. The site would be the largest in Europe – as big as the Cardington Hangers with chimneys as tall as Big Ben. 5. Covanta have faces at least two court cases in USA concerning the dangerous toxic emissions from their plants. 6. Our local roads were not built to carry the heavy traffic Covanta would produce – 900 lorry journeys (one every 36 seconds). 7. How would Covanta dispose of harmful deposits left by burning waste? Surely not landfill?!"

Mrs Emma Louise Tomuins
"This proposal does not include Bedfordshire’s waste so there is no benefit to the country only increased traffic and pollution. The Bear Project proposed by Bedfordshire would be adequate to deal with its own rubbish – other councils can do the same with theirs, smaller plants which are non-invasive and not so controversial. Covanta have not got a good safety record in America, there is a general concern for health through emissions from the huge stack situated at the bottom of a valley, which has problems with thermal inversion when the brick yards were operating. The proposed site of Rookery Pit is massive 300 acres – what else would they do down there? Access to the site is not good this would create more problems on the A421. Through no fault of our own Bedfordshire has become a dumping ground for rubbish, we thought once the pits were full this would end and the scars could heal. This proposed application is too large, why should we take the risk for other councils when there own people object as it is such an unpopular operation? All counties should deal with their own waste and not just shift the problem on."

Mr and Mrs David Luck
"Living in the area for the last forty years, we have had to overcome the smoke and sulphur from the brickyard chimneys, then the smell from local waste tips. To be fair I think we have put up for long enough. And now we are being asked to accept Covanta’s incineration plant, which is a definite NO NO. We’re fed up of being the dustbin of the area. Christine and David Luck"

Ian Carr
"1. I have grave concerns over the gaseous emissions from the incinerator giving rise to unpleasant odours and long term and short term health issues. This has been highlighted by the legal notices Covanta have been served over infringements in the US. 2. The air sampling in Marston Vale carried out by Covanta was not conducted in a representative fashion. 3. On still days the emissions will not disperse but rather fall directly on the surrounding population. 4. A rural, residential area is NOT the place to position a giant incinerator. This will be a blight on thousands of people’s way of life. 5. Several initiatives and much hard work have been put into improving the area in recent years to benefit the local population and increase tourism. This will have been in vain if this scheme goes ahead. Mid Beds has been evolving into a pleasant and attractive area to live in recent years, and this scheme would completely spoil this trend and change the character of the region. 6. There will be no benefits to the area, due to the resulting decline in tourism and general depression the area will suffer, the net effect will be fewer jobs. 7. The resultant effect of reducing the value of thousands of homes in the area will bring even further economic hardship in already difficult times. 8. The effect on wildlife will be catastrophic. Since the establishment of the adjacent Marston Forest country park bird and mammal species have began to recover. The loss of habitat and industrial activity caused by this scheme will dramatically reverse this trend. 9. Expert evidence reveals that Covanta greatly exaggerated the amount households will benefit from the energy produced. 10. The vast amount of road transport required to maintain production of this plant will be intolerable to the surrounding villages who will suffer noise, congestion and pollution during most hours of the day. 11. The main interest of the American owners of this plant will be to generate profit from it. Therefore future expansion of operations to drive profit will be their target, increasing even further to the detriment of the local population. 12. The American owners have no interest in the UK’s ecological environment. This is purely a business venture to them. 13. I have spoken to no-one who is in favour of this scheme. There appears to be unanimous condemnation of it from the residents who will be effected."

Margaret Vaughan
"How can this project be considered? This firm have been fined in America on more than one occasion for flouting health, safety and pollution laws. In this area we have a beautiful Marston Vale Country Park (opened for the millennium) decent walks, cycline area, plenty of open space and wild life; this would be completely spoilt by this ugly monstrosity, which would loom up and over the country park. Also in the one particular place, these two would be separated by our local railway branch line. Traffic would yet again be horrendous. Although the new A421 will be opening shortly, lorries would still have to use part of the existing A421 as there is not a get on/off point, between the little chef roundabout, and Marsh Leys junction. We would also see the road sides full of littler again plus noise, dust and anything else that goes with this type of project. Why do we have to have waste from other countries yet again? We in this area have had enough, in fact more than enough of other people rubbish being dumped “in our back yards”. We are having a Centre Parks Holiday Village within approximately 3 miles of the Rookery Pit and should be open within the next 2 – 3 years. Are these people going to want pollution etc? I think not. Even closer to the Rookery Pit the Nirah Project is going ahead, which will have a large freshwater aquarium in Quest Pit in Stewartby. It is also planned to be an International Leisure attraction, as well as Science Research Centre. We do not want Covanta in this area."

Susan Carr
"1. Covanta’s growth plans will be aggressive to make such a venture economically viable with ever increasing traffic flows, hugely detrimental to the health, safety and wellbeing of the local community. 2. I also have grave concerns over the gaseous emissions from the incinerator giving rise to unpleasant odours and long term and short term health issues. This has been highlighted by the legal notices Covanta have been served over infringements in the US. 3. The air sampling in Marston Vale carried out by Covanta was not conducted in a representative fashion. 4. 75% of the planned building will be above the existing edge if the Rookery Pit i.e. visible. This will dominate the skyline. 5. Fly ash is a hazardous waste needs that will need to be transported through our villages or it could become a licensed site for landfill of hazardous waste. With hazard materials arriving from elsewhere. 6. Treatment of staff in their US operations does not add up to a very caring company and does not bode well for the local workforce. 7. On still days the emissions will not disperse but rather fall directly on to the surrounding population 8. A rural, residential area is NOT the place to position a giant incinerator. This will be blight on thousands of people way of life. 9. Several initiatives and much hard work have been put into improving the area in recent years to benefit the local population and increase tourism. This will have been in vain if this scheme goes ahead. Mid Beds has been evolving in to a pleasant and attractive area to live, and this scheme would completely spoil this trend and change the character of the region. 10. There will be no job benefit to the area, due to the resultant decline in tourism and general depression the area will suffer, the net effect will be fewer jobs. 11. Inevitable fall in local house prices will bring even further economic hardship in already difficult times. 12. The effect on wildlife will be catastrophic. Since the establishment of the adjacent Marston Forest Country Park bird and mammal species have began to recover. The loss of habitant and industrial activity caused by this scheme will dramatically reverse this trend. 13. Expert evidence reveals that Covanta have greatly exaggerated the amount households will benefit from energy produced. 14. The vast amount of road transport required to maintain production of this plant will be intolerable to the surrounding villages who will suffer noise, congestion and pollution during most hours of the day. 15. The American owners have no interest in the UL’s ecological environment. This is purely a business venture to them. 16. I have spoken to no-one is in favour of this scheme. There appears to be unanimous condemnation of it from the residents who will be affected."

Roger Parker
"It should not be built in an area that has been developed over the years to be one of Natural Beauty. The size of the building will be an eyesore for miles. The number of vehicles required to feed a plant of that size will mean receiving waste from many counties around which will cause road congestion on roads already congested. The process creates waste which is toxic, the bottom waste has to go into landfill. That has lead and other metals which will leek out into the ground. The fly ash has nano particles which will fly from the chimney for indefinite distances. After serious problems in America with Covanta plants, why have there been no incinerators allowed since 1995."

Richard Howell
"This area of Bedfordshire has been the rubbish tip for the rest of the Southeast for many years. Now there is a chance to clean it up and make it more pleasant to live in. The emissions from the stack seem poorly accessed, roads can’t cope, effect on the country park."

Sandra Butterworth
"Marston Valley and the surrounding villages have had emissions from the brickworks for a large number of years. For 20 years we have had tipping of waste at Stewartby causing asthma to people living in the area. With the closure of the brickworks there has been regeneration around the Millennium Park and Stewartby Lake. America does not allow these incinerators which cannot be re-used or disposed of safely. Central Bedfordshire Council currently recycles 50% of waste and with time and constant improvements this figure would increase. In view of the American position, the question has to be asked “How safe will this area be for future generations?”"

Judith Richardson
"1. I am concerned about long and short term health implications in light of the fact that Covanta has been repeatedly fined over toxic emissions – this doesn’t not give confidence that Covanta will work within rules and guidelines. 2. I am concerned about pollution from lorries transporting waste from other counties, transportation and disposal of fly ash."

Quentin Bowker
"I am concerned about the traffic impact on out village of Apsley Guise and the already congested Junction 13 of the M1. I am also worried about the possibility of air, noise and light pollution in our area which has suffered in the past from Brick making in the Marston Vale. This area is just starting to recover from years of Brick making use as a landfill site."

Mrs Joan Gray
"Health Concerned on potential long term health implications. Concern on Covanta allegedly being fined over toxic emissions in America. We are always told these options are safe only to find out years later there are health problems. Environment Will spoil the country park; make people scared to use it, traffic pollution, in their own literature they say they would bring in waste from seven other countries. Traffic Impacts Concerned on the increased number of vehicles coming into Bedfordshire. The M1 becomes closed on many occasions following an accident. When this happens the surrounding roads are grid locked for miles around. More lorries will be added burden."

Christine Tomber
"Central Bedfordshire is well on its way to recycling 60% of its waste. Why should we import other peoples. The site proposed is in the centre of a designated new forest, where thousands of trees are being planted. Why spoil the area with this building and chimney. The number of traffic movements every day will have a serious impact on local residents. Dirt, noise and usual. The new bypass will not be able to cope with the extra traffic and was not designed to do so. The county has only recently recovered food air quality after years of emissions from the Brick Works. Nano particles are a major concern as they will travel large distances before falling and being inhaled. E.g. acid rain from sulphur discharge from the brickworks killed tree in Norway."

Rosalind Hutchings
"I think incineration is not a solution in this day and age. Pollution by Nano particles can spead mile across the country. Bottom ash will still have to be buried. Lorries transporting the waste will cause pollution in many counties and considerable disruption to the local population."

Mary Tomlin
"This proposed site is adjacent to the beautiful Forest Centre which is a haven for wild life. It is used by the public for numerous activities. What impact will the noise and emissions have on the health of the public and the wild life? Where will the ash be dumped? Will it be transported through local villages or buried on site? Either way, what are the health hazards to those living nearby or using the park? We have a good record in Bedfordshire for recycling, why should we have to suffer other counties waste, who are not so efficient? Can the road infrastructure cope with the amount of lorries required each day to keep the incinerator fed. Should the M1 junction 13 be closed at any time, as often happens, will the lorries find their way through local villages that cannot cope with such vehicles. Every county needs to concentrate on reducing waste and recycling, this way we will not need to burn everything. We need provision of recycling warehouses where the public can take materials that can be used by others that they themselves have no use for. We do not want or need an incinerator in Bedfordshire. We value our health and environment. Don’t burn it recycle!"

Paul Alan Duckett
"The proposed use of this land for the building of an incinerator is not compatible with the areas in which it sits on the following grounds: • Noxious fallout in an area of forestation and residential properties • Harm caused to greensand scenic walk detraction from the ridge as a major leisure • Impact of traffic movements on the A421, M1, J13 and surrounding B roads • Harm from fall out of load and other incinerator by products nano particles in Ampthill which always picked up fall out from brick work chimneys with prevailing wind • No evidence that incineration adds any value in the form of jobs, energy production and or recycling"

Adele Leonie Lowings
"Pollution: from the resource facility itself and the traffic to supply it. For such a large installation the volume of lorries needed will be almost continuous. There is also the need to dispose of toxic fly ash from the incinerator. Roads: the new dualled A421 has no exit to where Covanta propose to build a link road to the site. All vehicles will have to use small, local roads which will increase noise and air pollution and cause congestion. Health: Covanta has a history of allowing carcinogenic [articles to escape into the air. This can only have an adverse effect on the health of people, animals and the environment. Environment: the building of the RRF and support buildings and roads will […] the peace and beauty of the surrounding villages and countryside; the habitat of animals, birds and have a lasting adverse effect on tourism in the area. It will cause noise, light, and air pollution and undoubtedly devalue property over large vicinity."

Mr A M Robertson
"1. The large amount of heavy traffic on and off at Beancroft Road and using the old A421 (which by then will no doubt be reclassified) and using green lane. 2. To accommodate this amount of heavy and large trucks a large roundabout would be necessary at the green lane intersection this would be necessary to limit the amount of road damage from the tri-axled vehicles. This roundabout must be at the lost of Covanta. 3. As this old A421 will be declassified it will become the responsibility of central Bedfordshire Council to maintain it. Why must we as rate payers pay for this? This should be the responsibility of Covanta as they will be the main users on this road or rather they are the reason. These vehicles are using this route. 4. With the proposed size of the plant and the enormous chimney this will be next to the Millennium Park for all to see and lower the appeal of the park. 5. The fall out from the chimney is of great concern as this will be felt for villages for miles around Wootton, Kempston, Biddenham and Bromham to mention just 4. As this is so tall the effect will be to travel further reaching more villages than the Stewartby chimneys. 6. Why must Bedfordshire residents have all these inconveniences of vehicles tramping through Stewartby and Marston, when it has been stated that rubbish will be “imported” from other counties. Let these counties dispose of their own rubbish. Bedfordshire is one of the smallest counties in the country and it is expected that it will have to accept rubbish from a number of much larger counties which have much more room to site a plant. Let larger county import rubbish from the smaller counties, this would see far less truck movements and be far better for the environment which is the main issue in the firs place. 7. My last question is – will the waste be empted out of the trucks directly into the facility or would it have to be dumped and then fed in. If the latter this would have serious health risk apart from the awful smell to the local area? 8. The smell from all these vehicles (a vast amount more than a present would make the area that they travel very uncomfortable)."

Audrey Walker
"Since the Brickworks closed we have much cleaner air in Cranfield benefiting people with lung problems. It would be a backward step if Covanta were allowed to site the incinerator in Marston Vale. I do not think anyone has taken into account Cranfield is 110 mtrs above sea level, so despite the height of the proposed chimney it would mean, once again, Cranfield would be likely to suffer from emission. Since living in Cranfield from 1975, we have had immense increase in housing, and this is on going – plus all the extra people working on the airfield, now part has become a technology park, do definitely it should not be given planning consent. The fact that considerable time and money has gone into planting trees etc, in the Marston Forest Country Park, for the enjoyment and benefit of people and wildlife, the proposed incinerator is definitely in the wrong place and will cause much more congestion of traffic and fumes, which we co do without."

Peter Michael and Linda Beavis
"As residents of Aspley Guise, we feel that we must raise objections to the Covanta incinerator project in the Marston Vale. After the closure of the brickyards in Stewartby and Ridgmont, we have enjoyed a much improved quality of air for a number of years. Should this project go ahead, we will once again face the prospect of being denied clean air in our area. There is also the possible threat of a backlog of traffic through the surrounding villages due to the fact that all this refuse in to be delivered by road transport i.e. H.G.U.S to the said plant. As the Marston Vale is in the process of returning to its natural state after years of brick making, it seems to be a big backward step in this preservation process, to say nothing of the Marston Vale area, particulary – as we understand – this plant is to be situated within the viginity of the Marston Vale Forest Centre P.M Beavis L.E Beavis"

Mrs Marianne Louise Spicer
"Key points Traffic - increase and attendant difficulties re. movement, noise, pollution - noise and fumes, foul odours and dirt. Noise pollution is already high here. The A421 and M1 deliver a high drone here, night long in Cranfield. Interference to local traffic will increase travel time. Size of vehicles. Demands which mean that the lorries etc. coming from outside the county will be travelling increasingly longer distances according to this plan, converging on this small area in perpetuity, therefore unnecessary usage of fuel resources, motorways etc. and time, blocking roads too. Waste and recycling – preference for dealing with this on a local basis- more efficient, works well as it encourages people to care - if there is a breakdown at the plant it does not mean that it affects a vast area with ensuing chaos. With too much emphasis on burning and a real possibility that the volume of burnable will not meet key targets, there is a temptation not to recycle for re-usage in other forms of pass on to another user, but to burn everything and anything. Pollution – from burning – seriously dangerous emissions to human health and the environment is a proven fact. Also the waste from the landfill is still there, giving off emissions. This proposal would be the subject the population exponentially to increased localised emissions – pollutant dangerous, carcinogenic contaminants falling locally and on a path to Europe. Cranfield, Lidlington etc. Marston Vale are all part of the highest point from the coast, Bedford is at sea level. The pall of the smoke can worry us and engulf or for times of suitable weather conditions, fall on others,. This being the case – do we find people waiting for decades to resolve claims for compensation? No mention has been made of Covanta’s attitude to this answers to this please. Covanta’s plan for Rookery south and Martson Vale, the setting buildings and environment. Local wildlife. 1 question a huge facility like this being situated and in view of our valued and love millennium forest. What guarantees are there that the area of millennium forest will not be blighted by this in the future? 1 question the wisdom of having a tall thin structure (the chimney) with extreme height within 5 (five) kilometres of Cranfield airport – a very active resource often with many aircraft movements. The fact is that pits and chimneys here are the past. The alteration to the landscape contours are to return eventually to the natural contours. The clay extraction pits filled or left as lakes leaving a flat (filled) contour as before. Does this plan give us a chimney structure that is not an ‘icon’ but announces itself as industrially dominant from the Greensand Ridge? Yes. From ‘Centre Parcs’ leisure venue area? The population here - the departure from heavy industry here was very welcome. The people here realise that attracting businesses here means jobs, but they are not the stalwarts who accepted the circumstances of air contamination as necessary for achievement of the end result, on such a large scale. A chimney of this height here is unprecedented. There is no absolute on promise. We should be aware and consult the demographer of areas where there are Covanta type installations. This application – plan does not sit well in our vale landscape. 585,000 tonnes of waste coming towards us every year in order to supply 82,500 homes is too high a price to pay. The height of the chimney from toe to top in relation to a resident population near to ground level building (Covanta) is understood. But the land climbs to a greater height e.g. Cranfield – Lidlingotn – Ampthill. These areas are therefore nearer to the pall of smoke. (If there was a great flood Cranfield becomes a very small island). How much nearer?"

Frederick George Blackwell
"We are extremely concerned about the damage to the infrastructure caused by the waste disposal lorries. 1. Who will pay for the damage that will result from the incessant use of traffic – presumably the council tax payers 2. The noise and pollution to the area will be unbearable and cause severe health problems to the local residents 3. How will Covanta recover the cost of this project, presumably by increasing the through put of waste 4. How do they hope to show a profit"

Mrs Paula Elliot
"I am opposed to the development for the following reasons: • Increased emissions to air as there is currently no incinerator in area • Concerns that emissions will create immediate and long term health impacts • Capacity of proposed development is significantly higher than waste volumes produced in Bedfordshire currently going to landfill. Therefore waste is likely to be imported from outside the county with potential to increase traffic movements and associated vehicle emissions • It will create a negative visual impact • Concerned that odour may be generated • Consideration should be given to other technologies that do not involve burning • Consideration should be given to dealing with Bedfordshire’s waste only • Bedfordshire’s waste figures have reduced over last few years. Therefore there is no justification for such a large plant"

Mrs Mary Knight
"The negative impact on a newly created Country Park, the loss forever, of a rural landscape currently a haven for wildlife. The permanent loss of uniquely quiet area, as site will be open 24/7. The new A421 was designed to cope with existing traffic problems, and some elements of growth, the volume of lorries and other traffic for a large scale industrial area will be beyond the capacity of the road. The natural lorry route will be on/off the new A421 at the Marston Moretaine junction then travelling to and from the site in the heart of a rural setting and village communities. The lack of clarity about what will come out of incinerator chimneys, and it’s long term health implications. This monster of a building will dominate the skyline, and negatively affect the country park. In the past years Marston Moretaine, has been enveloped with stinking chimney smoke from Stewartby brick yard; which is no longer in use, we have two land fill sites, at Stewartby and Brogbourgh. I think we have been a dumping ground for far to long it’s about time elsewhere obliged."

Lynne Faulkner
"I object strongly to this application on the following grounds: 1. Biodiversity and geological conservation • The proposed site is close to the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park which aims to reforest the Marston Vale. A gigantic EFW plant will undermine that purpose. • Large numbers of wildlife will be affected, leading to loss of habitat • Residents in surrounding villages wish to keep their rural way of life • The Covanta proposal will lead to industrialisation of Rookery pit and is a retrograde step ecologically 2. Visual impact and landscape • This huge building will dominate the skyline with a chimney stack twice the height of Stewartby brickworks and the main building is the height of Cardington • The plant will have a major impact on the visual amenity of this rural area, impairing views of the Country Park and Marston Vale 3. Local and regional waste management • Central Bedfordshire has its own local waste management project - The Bear Project which is currently short listing bidders to create a more comprehensive waste management solution to local needs in Bedfordshire • I object strongly to this proposal by a US Company for a massive plant which will serve 5 counties, not just Bedfordshire generating 900 vehicle movements daily on congested local roads with associated noise and pollution 4. Air emissions • I am seriously concerned about emissions from the Plant and long term health hazards • Covanta is reported to have been served legal improvement notices on its US Plants 5. Socio economic • For years Bedfordshire has been the dumping ground for London’s waste, and the home of Stewartby brickworks. Now we are changing this former barren landscape into a beautiful tourist and leisure amenity for Bedfordshire’s expanding population. This proposal will destroy wildlife and the quality of life for local residents 6. Traffic and transport impacts • Covanta proposes to move 600,00 tonnes of waste by road in 900 lorry movements daily –despite the fact that Rookery pit lies between two railway systems • Volume of traffic will exceed the predicted capacity of the A421"

Lynda Galler on behalf of Maulden Parish Council
"Maulden Parish Council wished to register as an interested party in order to make further comments once all the applicants have submitted their applications and their proposals. The Council does not have any comments to make at present on the application made by Coventa. We understand that in the future there could be several more applications from other organisations, and feel that we will then be able to make comparisons and then come to a decision, although we would appreciate being kept informed of any developments. We do, however, object to Covanta seemingly being premature in their application and make it appear that they are the only applicants (which of course they are at present) and ignore the fact that the time limit has not yet elapsed."

Mrs M Harrison
"People come to live in villages for the beauty of the countryside and cleaner air. And now being free from the pollution caused by the chimneys at Stewartby, the thought of that pollution being replaced by something far worse is totally unacceptable. It will also have an ongoing effect on the local flora and fauna already struggling for survival because of loss of habitat i.e. new road works etc. a new country park has been created, the beauty of which will be ruined by this proposed building and the emissions created by it. And do we really need the pollution and overload of all the extra lorries on our roads? There is also a huge building project going on in the area i.e. the Wixams, how these homes to be sold knowing potential buyers are would be moving to an area polluted by emissions from this proposed plant."

Mrs Patricia Denyse Weiser
"I am opposed to the incinerator because of the bottom ash which is highly toxic, and the top ash with nano particles that can pierce the lung walls and go into blood and tissue. From a health point of view I believe it will be very bad. There is a technology created in Australia that is being developed in Ireland which is much more appealing. I would also object to this incinerator regarding its size. It would be as high as the snow dome in Milton Keynes and together with the chimney 105 meters high; just far too large. The USA had said no to Covanta as has parts of Italy – I am with them"

Mrs Delise Ball
"Concerns about: Infrastructure Emissions from the chimney Visual Impact Noise Impact on the surrounding communities I am against the proposal"

Janet Orchart
"Main Concerns. The health impact on the local wider communities to cover. 1. Issues leading up to incineration (i.e transport) etc. 2. Issues during incineration (air emissions) etc. 3. Issues after incineration. (Ash storage and disposal) etc. Local Authority (central Beds). At present exploring vital methods of disposal of unrecyclable waste best suited to our area. This area has a good recycling record. For viability an incinerator will need to import waste from surrounding counties adding to previous concerns. Since the closure of Stewartby Brickworks the local area has benefited much from air quality improvement this being shown in the Marston Park and surrounding areas. Better air quality must have a knock on effect in the surrounding village’s fields and woods. (Much advertised Forest of Marston Vale). Local communities need to know the in-depth health implications as these from previous Information Meetings, seem not to have been explored, either here or abroad. I welcome further news from my local authority on their approved method of disposal i.e BEAR project."

Margaret Avis
"I am against the waste giant Covanta building at Rookery Pit in Stewartby. The creation of the forest centre has been highly successful and is very popular with local and people afar. It is wonderful for people wildlife; it caters for walkers, birdwatchers, horse riders, cyclists on all weather surfaces and much more. I think the traffic this place would create would be tremendous, heavy lorries bringing waste from outside the county. The height of the chimneys indicates it will not be good what comes out of them. I fear the pollution from it, people and that type of industry does not mix. I myself have a lung problem that I keep in check by exercising daily, mainly walking. Undoubtedly there will be related breathing problems; it’s too big for this area. The A421 improvements will be lost and the A507 is notorious already with fatalities and we are already having a building project of 400 houses which in turn create more traffic. Please rethink this, a lot of money has been spent on creating the Forest Centre, which was the old Brickworks, and this waste facility will be right next door. Keep the open space, better to build new homes and a lot more people from far and wide come to enjoy it."

L R G Page
"1. Pollution This area was subject to heavy air pollution from the brick making industry in Marston Vale for decades. This has begun to improve but, despite Covanta assurances I am concerned that this situation will be made worse once more by the Rookery South site development. 2. Environment The proposed Covanta plant, in its scale and size, with 24 hour noise, pollution, lights and endless traffic movement, will dwarf, dominate and defeat the Herculean efforts made to create an improved environment, after years of industrial pollution, in the Millennium Park. This is unacceptable to me. 3. Road congestion This is already a busy area and Marston Vale and surrounding communities suffer accordingly. Other traffic generating projects (Centre Parcs, Nirah, extensive new housing in southern Ampthill and Flitwick), are already planned. To add the traffic the Rookery South proposal will generate, almost entirely in terms of HGV’s, will make congestion (and related pollution) much worse in locations essentially designated for the horse and cart. The intention to bring waste material into the Rookery South plant from, outside Bedfordshire is simply unacceptable in that it worsens every ground on which my objection rests. 4. Transport alternatives The rail option for movement of waste material does not seem to have been adequately explored and avoids many of the drawbacks to which I object."

Barbara Joyce Halse
"I am concerned about: My great grandchildren’s and other people’s health, the enormous amount of traffic, how big it would be, taking waste from other parts of the country, the continuous noise and light pollution night and day."

Ann Elicabeth Sonnestein
"I object to the Rookery pit incinerator because: Size of incinerator and chimney(s) plus a giant blot on landscape for miles around. Extra movement on roads- giving extra dangerous emissions the 421 was build for existing traffic not for ‘Covanta’ (extra vehicles means more road repairs at local tax payer’s expense). Having other counties rubbish to run incinerator as they refuse to have there own (Buckinghamshire for example). As Bedfordshire is one of the best counties in the country for recycling – why build it here – the more we improve our recycling programme the more refuse we shall have to having coming in from elsewhere – where will this end? This will not put end to landfill sites as there will be tons of tons and tons of toxic wasted ash to dispose of and I don’t suppose this will be returned to the counties where the waste came from. It cannot be guaranteed 100% that there is no health risk when the chimney(s) are emitting nano particles into the atmosphere for miles around (not just localised) Why haven’t the USA allowed incinerators to be built since 1995? and why have ‘Covanta’ been fined numerous times over toxic waste?"

Mrs Barbara Griffiths
"1. Trucks will cause too much chemical pollution from fumes. They will be too noisy and could cause accidents. Sometimes the M1 is closed because of accidents. Ampthill will be badly affected if trucks are re-routed through the town. 2. Gases from the Covanta plant will land on Ampthill. Certain weather conditions will prevent gases escaping vertically from the chimneys. They will spread horizontally and affect Ampthill, as was the case from the brick fields. 3. There is a worry about danger or health problems if maintenance is sub-standard. Explosions are possibility and poisonous gases could be released. 4. The Covanta Scheme is far too large, taking rubbish from a very large area outside Central Bedfordshire. I accept that Central Bedforshire should deal with its own rubbish. Other areas should deal with theirs. 5. It will ruin the whole area and especially the beautiful Marston Vale Park. 6. Who will pay for the repairs to roads damaged by heavy trucks?"

Andrew Ball
"The areas of concern are as follows: • Infrastructure • Impact on environment • Quality of life I am objecting to the proposal."

Mr David Ball
"I have concerns about the following area: • Transportation and waste transference • Visual impact on surrounding areas • Air quality and emissions • Congestion of surrounding villages I am objecting to the development"

Richard James
"1) I am in favour of this method of disposal of waste because it is FINAL in its results. 2) Discharges of gases can and should be controlled to be safe for all species of life. 3) The benefit of the process giving a positive net gain of energy is important but secondary! 4) Covanta’s charges for this service to various neighbouring county administrations should be fixed for 10 years. Bedford BC and Central Beds Council should pay nothing!"

Mr N Pointon
"The emissions from bottom ash is so highly toxic it would need to be buried somewhere. The ash nano particles are so small they will pierce through the lung walls, which in turn would pass into blood tissue. Other issues – would devalue property and we would like a cleaner Bedfordshire, over many years we have suffered other counties waste in landfill and so have the smell of methane gases."

Stuart Pointon
"This incinerator is not just a local problem but a national one, the ash is toxic and the nano particles are so small that it will cause me a problem with my asthma."

Mr Neville Stimson
"1) a massive increase in lorry traffic in the surrounding roads already totally “chock-a-block” at busy times. As happens now, the surplus will divert to the “rat-runs” through the villages. 2) Poulltion from the incinerators will have the same effect of the brick chimneys. Smell, corrosion of stone work on buildings. No cows allowed to graze on the grass."

Christopher Baker on behalf of Eastern Power Networks plc
"I act for Eastern Power Networks plc the licensed distributor licenced under Section 6(1) (c) Electricity Act 1989 and statutory successor in title to Eastern Electricity plc and its statutory predecessor the Eastern Electricity Board. My client has electric line and/or electrical plant (as defined in Section 64(1) of the Electricity Act 1989) that will or may be affected by the development the subject of the application and my client wishes to reserve its position in relation to the application pending a more detailed assessment of the proposals. I understand from solicitors acting for the applicant that the application includes a power of compulsory purchase to secure land rights for electric lines and electrical plant necessary to distribute electricity to and from the application site. Subject to the power of compulsory purchase being confirmed in the development control order on terms which entitle my client to discharge its statutory and contractual obligations I can see no reason why at this stage my client would not support the application and any acquisition of my client’s existing land rights being appropriately compensated."

Neville Benn on behalf of ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
"In addition to the main points below, we have provided detailed comments and suggestions for the Order in our full response, reference AC/2010/113063/01. Need for an Environmental Permit The energy from waste (EfW) generation station must have an Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) 2010 prior to operation. Any pollution risks inherent with the undeveloped site, including construction and geographical location are not covered within the Environmental Permit application. Groundwater Any discharge of sewage or trade effluent, contaminated water or other polluting matter to surface water would require an Environmental Permit under the EPR 2010 from us. We have concerns regarding the storage of Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA). There is potential that large amounts of fines will be washed off site into the attenuation lagoon, then discharged to Stewartby Lake County Wildlife Site. It must be demonstrated that the bottom ash from the incinerator is properly processed and that there are no contaminative materials that could potentially cause environmental damage. Evidence is required to show that all IBA contaminated water will remain on site or disposed under consent to foul main sewer, or be taken to another appropriate permitted facility. It is necessary to establish the background levels of the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) metals in both the soils and the groundwater. It is unclear whether any assessment of environmental impacts to Stewartby Lake, caused by the proposed removal of standing waters prior to this proposed development, has been carried out. We recommended that a Foundation Works Risk Assessment (FWRA) be produced to determine the risks to the underlying aquifers from proposed piled foundations. We recommend that this be produced and stipulated in 'the requirements'. We recommend the re-wording of the paragraphs in Section 14, paragraph (1). Flood Risk We recommend that the list in Article 5 should be extended to include the relevant elements of the Environmental impact Assessment (EIA), such as Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), Foundation Works Risk Assessment (FWRA) and foul and surface water drainage arrangements. We recommend the re-wording of the paragraphs in Schedule 1, Part 3, Article 11. Environment Management The applicant should be aware that if any controlled waste is to be used on the site the operator will need to obtain the appropriate authorisation from us. The Duty of Care regulations for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. Waste Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) is still considered a waste and subject to regulation through us. The sources of residual waste from local authorities known as municipal waste stated in the document are not guaranteed as procurement for treatment facilities, and are in most cases still ongoing. Water Resources If the development requires abstraction of more than 20 cubic metres per day of water, not supplied by the mains, under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 as amended by the Water Act 2003 an abstraction licence will be required from ourselves. Whether we are able to grant such a licence depends on water resources availability. Waterways This proposal impacts the Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway project (protected in the adopted Plan for all three Local Planning Authorities). The impacts can be mitigated during construction of the Proposed Facility by construction of appropriate bridges and appropriate location of the grid connection cables. The Infrastructure Planning Commission Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN Our ref: AC/2010/113063/01-L01 Your ref: EN010011 Date: 18 November 2010 Dear Sir/Madam PROPOSED ROOKERY SOUTH (RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY) ORDER IPC APPLICATION REFERENCE: EN01011 ROOKERY SOUTH ENERGY FROM WASTE GENERATION STATION ROOKERY SOUTH PIT, NEAR STEWARTBY, BEDFORDSHIRE. We have reviewed the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) and Environmental Statement (ES) as part of the above mentioned application, which was received on 9 October 2010 and wish to make the following comments at this stage. Need for an Environmental Permit The energy from waste (EfW) generation station must have an Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) 2010 prior to operation. Covanta has submitted an application to us and we are awaiting further information prior to starting the determination process. We are therefore not currently in a position to indicate whether we are likely to be able to grant an Environmental Permit. We will not issue a permit unless satisfied that a high level of protection is provided for the environment and human health. Any Permit issued would be concerned with operation and control of the process carried on at the EfW generation station.. We would highlight the following areas which would not be covered under any Environmental Permit 1. The proposed facility is to be located on a former clay pit, which has also been used as a licensed co-disposal landfill (by mixing non-hazardous organic waste with surface water to form callow). Due to the physical ground profile of the pit, re-profiling will be required at this location. It is unknown as to whether any lining or capping of this site is present. 2. Investigations into ground conditions (phase 2 report) recommends that further intrusive ground investigations are carried out to cover the areas of the site that were not accessible due to surface water collections. 3. The proposal includes the development of a surface water attenuation pond and surface water pumping via existing culvert to Stewartby Lake. It is unclear within the application whether any assessment of environmental impacts to Stewartby Lake, caused by the proposed removal of standing waters prior to this proposed development, has been carried out. Groundwater Section 13 It is not clear how the consent to discharge water from Rookery Pit is processed through this section. Section 13, paragraph 1 Any discharge of sewage or trade effluent, contaminated water or other polluting matter to surface water would require an Environmental Permit under the EPR 2010 from us. Section 13, paragraph 3 Discharge to public Sewer will need Anglian Water consent. Section 13, paragraph 7 Section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 has been repealed and replaced by the requirement to obtain an Environmental Permit for discharges to water under the EPR 2010 Section 13, paragraph 9 “This article shall have effect in relation to watercourses or drains that are or to be created as part of the “Low Level Restoration Scheme (LLRS)”. This only covers the LLRS. Schedule 1, part 1, Work No.3 A drainage channel is to be constructed on an east west alignment linking with a drainage channel to be constructed pursuant to a review of old minerals permissions bearing statutory reference number BC/CM/2010/8. However, from the Environmental Statement only the North west section of the LLRS will be constructed before the work on the EfW plant commences. When are other phases of LLRS required by? It is not clear how this relates to the DCO. Environmental Statement, Section 3.1 We have concerns regarding the storage of Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) outside on concrete hard standing in mounds of up to 10 metres high. The IBA will be crushed to yield 50-10 mm and 10-0 mm incinerator bottom ash aggregate (IBAA). Runoff water from the non roofed IBA / IBAA storage areas will fall to a two part catch pit with a weir to allow settling and periodic sludge removal. The water will be returned to the ash quenching process. There is potential that a large amount of the fines will be washed from the IBA and IBAA. We have concerns that this will result in ash fines being wind blown or washed off the site into the attenuation lagoon then discharged off site to Stewartby Lake County Wildlife Site. The unwashed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) IBA is likely to have approximately 8% passing the 200# size 0.074 mm. Information is required on how the ash will be washed, and what the residual dust levels (percentages) are likely to be, Including fines from size reduction. It is understood that the Ash handling will be subcontracted. Confirmation of the dust mitigation strategy is required. As noted in the scoping response, it is necessary to establish the background levels of the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) metals (cadmium, thallium, mercury, antimony, arsenic, lead, chromium, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and dioxins and furans), in both the soils and the groundwater. The open storage of large quantities of Bottom Ash is likely to lead to emissions of some of these metals, as dust to land or via surface water or groundwater. The storage area has been sized to contain 6 months supply of IBA. It must be demonstrated that the bottom ash from the incinerator is properly processed and that there are no contaminative materials that could potentially cause environmental damage. Evidence is required to show that all IBA contaminated water will remain on site or disposed under consent to foul main sewer, or be taken to a other appropriate permitted facility. In our scoping opinion we recommended that a Foundation Works Risk Assessment (FWRA) be produced to determine the risks to the underlying aquifers from proposed piled foundations. This has not been provided in the EIA. We recommend that this be produced and stipulated in 'the requirements'. We recommend that section 14 should be amended as follows: 14. - (1) The undertaker may for the purposes of this Order enter on any land shown within the Order limits or which may be affected by the authorised project and- a) survey or investigate the land b) without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (a), make trial holes and/or boreholes in such positions on the land as the undertaker thinks fit to investigate the nature of the surface layer and subsoil and/or groundwater and remove soil samples and/or groundwater samples. This will ensure the applicant will be authorised to obtain the necessary information on groundwater related issues. Flood Risk It is noted in Section 3 that the draft order states: 'The development authorised by this Order shall be constructed in the lines or situations shown on the works plans and in accordance with the drawings specified in the requirements' In Article 5 of Part Three of Schedule One, the referenced EIA sections (2.12 to 2.35) only include building elevations and plans. We recommend that the list in Article 5 should be extended to include the relevant elements of the Environmental impact Assessment (EIA), such as Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), Foundation Works Risk Assessment (FWRA) and foul and surface water drainage arrangements. We will advise further on this issue. In addition to the comments above, we recommend that the following wording be inserted into the draft order presented by the applicant: Schedule 1, Article 13, addition of paragraph (10) - to read as follows: (10) This article does not relieve the undertaker of any requirement to obtain any permit or license under any other legislation that may be required including consents for works affecting watercourses under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, or Section 109 of the Water Resources Act 1991, or under the Anglian Water Authority Land Drainage and Sea Defence Byelaws. We recommend that Schedule 1, Part 3, Article 11 should be amended as follows: Surface Water Drainage and Flood Risk 11. - (1) Except where the authorised development is constructed in accordance with the approved drainage strategy and flood risk assessment, written details of the surface and foul water drainage system (including means of pollution control) and fluvial flood risk management measures have, after consultation with the relevant planning authority and the sewerage or drainage authority, been submitted to and approved in writing by the Commission, such details shall accord with the principles of the drainage strategy and flood risk assessment submitted with the application, making provision for the construction of Work No. 3, and be implemented as approved. 11. - (2) The drainage strategy and flood risk assessment shall provide that all drains provided as part of the authorised project shall, where necessary and appropriate contain trap gullies or interceptors. Environment Management The applicant should be aware that if any controlled waste is to be used on the site the operator will need to obtain the appropriate authorisation from us. We are unable at this time to specify what exactly would be required due to the limited amount of information provided. The Duty of Care regulations for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate licensed disposal site and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations. If the applicant needs more specific advice they will need to contact the Environment Management Team at our Bedford office on 01480 483216 or look at available guidance on our website: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorised facility. Any facilities, above ground, for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge into the bund. The applicant can find further guidance on The Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 on the Environment Agency's website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk/osr. Waste The European Landfill Directive requires a reduction in the tonnage sent to landfill. We support the need to move suitable wastes up the Waste Hierarchy, which states that energy recovery, material recovery and potential heat recovery are preferable to landfilling such wastes. We would encourage the use of excess heat by a combined heat and power scheme (CHP). We will assess energy recovery when determining the application for an Environmental Permit. However, the location of the site is the most significant factor in enabling energy recovery to be maximised through CHP. Reviewing the proposed location against the heat map for the area produced by the Department for Energy and Climate Change suggests that there are alternative locations with higher heat demand. The developers proposal is to link CHP with future developments in the area but should these developments not proceed it would appear unlikely, based on our experiences on similar sites in the UK, that CHP would actually be developed. An EfW facility would provide an opportunity for both Commercial and Industrial and Municipal residual waste to produce energy. In doing so it will reduce the dependency on landfill and adhere to the Landfill Directive. The waste hierarchy should also be adhered to, so that all waste arriving at an EFW facility has previously been treated for reuse and recycling. Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) is still considered a waste and subject to regulation through ourselves. In the future we will be producing a protocol on IBA. The Reception/Bunker waste areas and storage areas for bottom ash should be such that no waste can either be wind blown or caught on vehicles, that would be deposited in the surrounding natural and built environments. If the applicant is successful a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) must be completed for the construction of the facility as this is a requirement under the Site Waste Management Plans (2008) for sites as previously stated in Covanta’s Non-technical summary. The sources of residual waste from local authorities known as municipal waste stated in the document are not guaranteed as procurement and in most cases negotiations are still ongoing. Water Resources If the development requires abstraction of more than 20 cubic metres per day of water not supplied by the mains, under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 as amended by the Water Act 2003 an abstraction licence will be required from ourselves. Whether we are able to grant such a licence depends on water resources availability. Dewatering the proposed excavation may lower groundwater levels locally and may derogate nearby licensed sources and other water features. The applicant should locate all of these and an agreement should be reached with all users of these supplies for their protection during dewatering. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the development will not affect any water features in the area, including licensed and unlicensed abstractions. Waterways This Proposal impacts the proposed Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway immediately south of the current A421 at the north-western end of Green Lane. The Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway will be a new 26Km link between the River Great Ouse at Kempston in Bedford and the Grand Union Canal at Newlands in Milton Keynes. The Waterway is included as a protected project in the adopted Core Strategy or adopted Local Plan for all three Local Planning Authorities. The proposed facility access road and the two grid connection routes cross the Waterway route at the north-western end of Green Lane. The proposed facility could have a serious negative impact and could prove fatal to the project as alternative Waterway routes from Stewartby Lake to the New A421 Underpass may not be possible. However, this impact could be mitigated during construction of the proposed facility by construction of appropriate bridges and appropriate location of the grid connection cables. It should be noted that Waterway construction at a later date would require a period of closure of Green Lane and routing delivery vehicles to the proposed facility via Stewartby village. We reserve the right to expand, add to or amend our comments and to seek any protective provisions we consider necessary to insert in Schedule 7 of the draft Order. I hope the above comments are helpful. Please advise me in due course of the date and place of the pre-examination meeting relating to this application. Yours faithfully Mr xxxxxxx xxxxxxx Planning Liaison Officer Direct dial xxxxx xxxxxx Direct fax xxxxxxxxxxx Direct xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc xxxxxx xxxx, Covanta Energy Ltd"

Penelope Jane Sowter
"Many facts here were provided in a talk at Flitwick by Paul Connett, Emeritis Professor of Chemistry NY. See powerpoint at: www.americanhealthstudies.org/incinerationvxerowaste Burning waste is a tempting idea. It removes landfill and generates electricity. But the toxic ash and emissions replace on problem with another. Incineration produces trillions of nano-particles too small to be contained by filters. Professor Connett wrote in a personal email to me “…when you burn trash, all the toxins used in commercial products end up in the incinerator- all of these- especially the toxic metals will end up in the nano-particles. Also because waste has chlorine and bromine in it, both chlorinated and brominated dioxins and furans will end up in these nano-particles. Therefore it is safe to assume that incinerators put out the most toxic nano-particles of all high temperature processes.” Dioxin nano-particles contaminate land used for producing food, especially milk. Dioxins are transferred to foetuses and breast-feeding infants, interfering with neurodevelopment, reducing IQ (Institute of Medicine 2003). Nano-toxicology research has found nano-particles penetrate all cells producing many diseases. www.stefanomontanari.net. Three tons of waste produce one ton of toxic ash that will build up indefinitely. Gloucestershire is one dumping ground. www.thisisbristol.co.uk. In another email Professor Connett stated “the fact is that no permit for a new incinerator (by any company) has been issued in the US since 1995” instead the US and many other countries are developing waste reclamation and reduction projects to create zero waste. These businesses produce more wealth and jobs than incineration and replace toxic waste with useful products returned to farming and industry. They are also cheaper to set up. An incinerator in Italy cost 800,000,000Euros – siphoning off public money that could be used to invest in better ways to deal with waste. San Francisco plan to have zero waste by 2020. Markham in Ontario diverted 70% from landfill in 2 years. Contact Councillor Erin Shapiro, there are zero waste initiatives all over the world www.grrn.org www.zwia.org www.crra.org www.ecocycle.org. Waste reduction starts with separation into recyclables and organics, leaving residual waste. In Italy, householders are fined for residuals using chipped bins. Repair and deconstruction by local businesses divert more waste. Burlington in Vermont offer an excellent example: www.recyclenorth.org. Industry can dismantle their own products. In the Netherlands, Xerox recover 95% of photocopier parts from 16 countries, generating $76,000,000. In Nova Scotia, residual waste is processed at residual screening plants where toxics and remaining recyclables are removed. Dirty organics are stabilised in interim landfill sites. Non-toxic and non-biodegradable left over’s are temporarily stored until on-site research centres find ways to deal with them. Instead electricity from waste can be produced with an anaerobic digestion power station as in Devon www.andigestion.co.uk/content/holsworthy two 4,000m3 per year of organic material. The plant has 2.7MW of generating capacity. Feedstock’s include food processors, abattoirs, fish processors, cheese producers, bio diesel manufacturers and councils. Perhaps one could be set up in Bedfordshire. See also www.anaerobic-digestion.com"

Wendy Herbert
"1. Concerns over increase in traffic, lorries and therefore pollution. 2. Lack of clarity over emissions: toxicity levels and health implications. Covanta has legal notices issued for infringements in U.S.A 3. Generation of CO©ü which is lost to the atmosphere: a tall stack confirms this and heat loss. 4. Loss of revenue locally: The Forest Centre and neighbouring wildlife areas, parks etc are important tourist and employment attractions. 5. The original brick factory was closed because of emissions and health concerns. 6. Local waste processing is already being undertaken: Bear Project. Covanta would not improve facilities. 7. The local railway line is not being used to transport waste. 8. Once built there will be a need to ensure continuing business, revenue, and growth. Expansion to feed the facility is inevitable. 9. The number of homes which this facility could supply with power is inaccurately stated. Many fewer homes can be provided with usable quantity of electricity."

Clifford Herbert
"1. Electrical output: query the number of houses that Covanta say can be supported 2. Traffic: significant and unacceptable rise in traffic owing to delivery lorries. Bad effect on main but especially minor roads. 3. Operation: 24 hour operation. Lorries 24 hours/day: noise pollution. 4. Pollution: Toxicity of expiated gases from plant. Heat expiated from plant: only part of heat generated by incineration converted to electricity, remainder (min 30%) expelled into atmosphere. 5. Toxicity: Lack of clarity on this. Possible/probable bad affect on health. Covanta have not a good record on this in USA. 6. CO&#8322;: CO&#8322; generated by the plant. The plant is not a carbon reduction facility. 7. Heat: heat generated that is not to be used for generation will not be used for district heating scheme but lost to atmosphere adding to warming the planet. 8. Tourism: tourism is important to this area. This plant complete with its 24hr operation will badly affect this, e.g millennium centre, forthcoming Center Parc. 9. Eco: will have deleterious affect on eco system of pits that have returned to nature. 10. Deliveries: the proposed plant is next to a railway line – should the plant be considered, deliveries should be by railway. 11. Necessity: local waste is already being taken care of and due to Government legislation and pressures on public, amount of waste liable to fall which means the plant will seek waste from other areas – even more traffic and pollution. This plat would be for the shareholders not the public. The plant is unnecessary and will simply be a commercial plant seeking expansion. 12. General Health: the brickworks that were in the vicinity were shut down owing to emissions and because of health concerns."

Vincenzo Straccia
"There are cleaner safer and more economically sound methods of dealing with waste and make electricity. This is a backwards step in every way."

David Miller
"1) How does it apply to the clean air act of GB as filters are not satisfactory! 2) Describe protection of fumes and dust for asthmatics and people with respiratory problems 3) If no pollution from the incinerators. Why go to the expense of high chimneys as this did not work with the brick works fumes on a windy day. 4) Please describe if any soil pollution with trace elements from waste and dust landing on vehicles etc."

Mark Hodgson on behalf of AWG Landholdings Ltd
"AWG Landholdings Ltd is the landowner of a site that has been considered in the Alternative Site Assessment Report dated 4 August 2010 (ref: Document 5.2). The site is known as Northampton (East) in this document and is referenced at Table A5, Table C1.4 and Table G1.2. According to this report the site has been assessed and pronounced ‘undeliverable’ by ERM Ltd due to access and flooding issues (see tables A5 and C1.4) AWG consider that this conclusion is unsound and our reasoning is as follows. 1) The site has been proposed as an allocation for an integrated waste management facility in the Northamptonshire Locations for Waste DPD. This DPD has been subject to numerous rounds of consultation since 2006. Access to the site can be achieved via Lower Ecton Lane and an internal road along the northern edge of the wastewater treatment works and a new road along the southern edge. Both Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) and Highways Authority and the Highways Agency have no objection to this site in access terms. 2) Detailed work has also been carried out in relation to flood risk issues and the Environment Agency has confirmed that they have no objection to the allocation of this site. 3) Clearly sites that are allocated within Local Development Frameworks have to be demonstrated to be deliverable. There were no objections by any of the statutory consultees to the Northampton (East) site and all of NCC’s technical evidence supported by information from the landowner has demonstrated that this site is deliverable. 4) Furthermore, this document has recently been examined by an independent Inspector and his report is due to be published in the New Year. Having attended the examination we have no reason to believe that the document and the Northampton (East) site will not be found sound. 5) Table G1.2 sets out the detailed responses from Local Authorities regarding the sites that have been assessed. On page 13 of this table in Annex G the response from NCC states that the Northampton (East) site is the reference site in relation to the Northamptonshire/Milton Keynes waste PFI process. This also demonstrates that the site is deliverable, yet there is no further reference to the Northampton (East) site in the report. This seems unusual given that Covanta has been in discussions with NCC in this PFI process as acknowledged in paragraph 2.5.10 of the Need Assessment (Ref: Document 5.3) In light of the above, this site should have featured further in the Phase 4 assessment and not been discounted at Phase 3 on grounds of access. AWG therefore consider that the Northampton (East) site is deliverable and sound as an alternative site."

Colin Carpenter
"The construction of this incinerator plant will have serious impacts on the people who live and work in the Marston Vale and beyond. The most obvious will be the size and intrusion of the chimney stack and building on the landscape views and will also create a massive eyesore covering the whole of the forest of Marston Vale and a new country park, and will also affect the wildlife in the area. Many rare and interesting birds and other wildlife can be seen at the Rookery Pit South and the noise and activity of the plant will create a disturbance to the wildlife as well as extensive loss of wildlife habitat. At present the existence of the old flooded brick pits enhance the landscape and increase wildlife biodiversity. The other major concern is the amount of increased road traffic that this will create and its effect on traffic congestion. Many of the rural roads and main roads are already very busy and any increase in traffic will affect local schools, residents and businesses. It will also cause more delays and damage to road surfaces. The effect of smoke, dust and emissions will affect the health of everyone living in the Marston Vale and beyond and will increase the incidence of asthma and respiratory diseases. Central Bedfordshire Council has done well to achieve 50% recycling and composting over the last 10 years or so and everyone should concentrate on recycling as a priority. Incineration is certainly not the most sustainable option and still creates increased CO2 and other gas emissions. The construction of this incinerator will also help to increase development adjacent to the site and will ultimately create another enormous industrial estate as a result. This would create a knock on effect for further development and even more traffic. This incinerator should not be allowed to be constructed under any circumstances as it will have overall a negative impact to Bedfordshire"

Susan Marsh on behalf of Central Bedfordshire Council
"1. Introduction 1.1. The Council is responding to this application for a Development Consent Order as Local Authority, Highway Authority and land owner. As the local authority it has a wide range of functions and responsibilities. It is also the local planning authority. It is a major governmental body in this Development Consent process. This relevant representation and its participation in this application process reflects and draws on the breadth of its relevant functions and responsibilities. 1.2. Central Bedfordshire Council object to the proposed electricity generation facility as it is considered that the adverse impacts of the proposal outweigh the positive benefits and on this basis the IPC will be required by draft National Planning Statement EN-1 (NPS EN-1) to refuse the application for Development Consent. 1.3. The principle reasons for objecting to the proposal are: • that the size and bulk of the proposed facility will adversely impact on the amenity of local residents and on the highway network in the vicinity of the site and in other parts of the authority area. • the proposed facility is sized so that it needs to source waste from a much greater area than the former county area of Bedfordshire and, as such, is contrary to national and local planning policy to handle waste sustainably by using the nearest appropriate facility and to make provision for local waste disposal requirements 1.4. The matters at issue and on which the Council will wish to submit more detailed submissions are set out below. These include the design and scale of the facility, the visual impact, amenity impacts, highway and sustainability issues but there are also procedural issues and legal points to be addressed to ensure that if the proposal is approved that is it ‘fit for purpose’ and capable of being monitored during its construction and operation. 1.5. The matters at issue as set out below: 2. Traffic, Highway and access issues 2.1. The proposal states that approximately 530 HGV traffic movements will be generated a day. The Council is of the view that these will, potentially, have significant adverse impacts on the area in the immediate vicinity of the site and on the residents and environment of Central Bedfordshire particularly as there is no evaluation of how seasonal variation and peaks in economic activity could produce higher peaks of such traffic for short periods. Strategic Highway Issues 2.2. There are concerns that the HGV traffic generated will affect a much wider area than that covered by the Traffic Assessment, which is based on the HGV’s assessing the site via the A421, but there has been no assessment beyond the A421 or means set out to address increased congestion on other major highways and junctions especially where waste is to be sourced from within the proposed catchment area but distant from Bedfordshire. 2.3. Evidence is required for the proposed directional split of HGV’s and sensitivity testing should be undertaken as there are no firm contracts in place. Comprehensive information is required on the nature of the operation and development of HGV movements in particular in relation to the strategic management of these movements. 2.4. No consideration appears to have been given to HGV trips using unsuitable routes to gain access to the A421. For example, vehicles from the west may use minor routes through Cranfield, Moulsoe or Aspley Guise. Vehicles from the east on the A507 may use Lidlington to access the A421. If the routing plan is used then it is acknowledged that the routes proposed would be acceptable but there is no detail as to how the proposed routing plan would be monitored and enforced. 2.5. There is also concern that the facility will attract additional HGV traffic on to the motorway system. The M1 traverses the western side of the District and regularly seizes up due to incidents which results in an unacceptable level of HGV traffic finding alternative routes through towns and villages in the District. This will be exacerbated if the facility is built. Highway Safety 2.6. The wider implications of highway safety as a result of higher flows of goods vehicles on the wider highway network have not been adequately assessed within the IEMA Guidance assessment in conjunction with evolving Network Management Strategy. Transport Policy and Cumulative Effects 2.7. There are transport policy concerns about baseline data flow and growth factors. The application does not fully address the cumulative effects of traffic from the redevelopment of the brickworks (in Bedford Borough), the proposed landfill in Rookery South and the proposed RRF and the capacity of Green Lane to accommodate the projected traffic numbers as a result of these developments. Highway Access and standard of construction 2.8. There concerns about highway layout and standard of construction that need to be addressed including the substandard visibility at the junction of Green Lane with the A421 (this is mainly in Bedford Borough). The surface of Green Lane and the A421 should be brought up to an appropriate standard before any operations commence and currently there is no proposal for achieving this. Construction of road across the level crossing 2.9. Details of the new access to the site from Green Lane are, in principle, accepted but it is not clear how some of the dimensions used have been determined and this needs to be justified before this aspect of the access design can be agreed. Alternative routing arrangements 2.10. The use of Broadmead Lane as a diversion route if the level crossing is closed for more than 24 hours is not considered to be acceptable and an alternative needs to be found. 2.11. The emergency access seems to follow the same route as the main access so there is the potential for them both to be blocked and this needs to be addressed 2.12. The Council requests an issue specific hearing on transport and highway issues. 3. Design, Landscape and Visual Impact 3.1. The Council considers that the facility will be highly intrusive visually from the surrounding landscapes including the Greensand Ridge, highly valued for it’s scenic quality, cultural heritage and recreational routes. The visual impact will be increased because of the plume. The stack of the facility is of a greater height than the four chimneys of the former Stewartby brickworks and would intrude on panoramic views and the skyline. The proposals cannot be visually mitigated due to the size of the built form and scale of the development. 3.2. The facility will visually have an overbearing effect on the local landscape, adversely impacting on the amenity of the users of the country park, the footpath network and the wider countryside. 3.3. The facility will attract additional industrial activity resulting in reindustrialisation which will further alter and erode the semi-rural character of this part of the Vale. This is contrary to the Council’s policies for environmental regeneration and landscape enhancement but does not seem to have been assessed by the applicant. 3.4. There is concern that the ‘industrial ‘ design of the facility was decided at too early at stage in the process and the justification for taking this design route is flawed. An iconic design that local residents could admire and could become a design feature in the area might have been preferable. 3.5. The design emphasis focuses on the main built form and does not consider ancillary areas, the whole site or setting. Further work needs to be done to explore the visual connection between the proposed Nirah development and this facility. 3.6. Further consideration and clarification needs to be given to the extent and appropriateness of mitigation measures proposed, in particular landscaping including tree planting and bunding, both near the site and further afield. 3.7. The Council requests an issue specific hearing on design, landscape and visual impact. 4. Impact on historic environment and archaeology 4.1. The Council considers that the scale & massing of this proposed large industrial complex of buildings, incorporating a tall stack, has the potential for harm to the settings & character of heritage assets, including South Pillinge Farm, Ampthill Park House, Houghton House, Katherine’s Cross, Ampthill Park; Millbrook and Ampthill Conservation Areas and views from the Greensand Ridge. 4.2. The assessment of the impact on the setting of the Monuments in the Environmental Statement has been underplayed. 4.3. The Council requests an issue specific hearing on the impact on the historic environment. 5. Ecology 5.1. There is concern that the proposed facility could attract further development to Rookery Pit south and that this could adversely affect the mitigation currently proposed. 6. Noise impacts of the development on local residents and on the surrounding area. 6.1. The Council has concerns about noise both during construction and operation. 6.2. The methodology used to assess noise emphasises ‘average’ noise levels and noise limits proposed do not account for differing characteristics of noise, the existing background levels and do not appear to relate to predicted levels as set out in the Environmental Statement. 6.3. There are concerns about the potential noise impact, particularly from irregular sounds, from site plant and activities and from vehicles serving the site on health and amenity of local residents From an amenity point of view there are concerns that the long operating and delivery hours and construction hours proposed at sensitive times of the day could exacerbate the local traffic impacts and this has not been adequately considered or justified. 6.4. It appears that different plant is now being proposed from that assessed in the Environmental Statement. 6.5. The Council requests an issue specific hearing on the noise impacts of the development. 7. Air quality and odour 7.1. The Council considers that the potential effects of temperature inversions have not been adequately considered. 7.2. There are concerns about odour as no secondary mitigation is proposed and it has been scoped out of the environmental assessment with inadequate justification. There are no details as to how negative pressure will be maintained in the tipping hall particularly when the facility is busy and the doors are in regular use. Waiting vehicles may cause additional issues. 7.3. There is also concern that the safe levels of some metals such as chromium is likely to be exceeded and that particulates will also increase and whether mitigation measures put forward are sufficient. This is notwithstanding the submission of the HIA that seeks to address local concerns about potential health impacts arising from the plant. 7.4. The Council requests an issue specific hearing on air quality and odour. 8. Planning Policy conflicts Waste Planning Policy and catchment area issues 8.1. The proposed catchment area is significantly larger than the former county area of Bedfordshire and the facility is sized to take much more than ‘local’ waste. Other authorities within the catchment area put forward by Covanta will also be planning for disposal facilities to process the waste generated within their area and which will generate electricity. This would also ensure that it can go to the nearest appropriate facility (to accord with national, regional and local policy). The waste treatment and electricity generating capacity of the Covanta facility is considerably greater than that required for the Bedfordshire area and it has not been demonstrated that excess capacity is required when the capacity of other existing and proposed waste facilities both within Bedfordshire and other parts of the catchment area are taken into account. 8.2. The applicant has reserved the right to change the catchment area. It is almost inevitable that this would result in waste being sourced from even larger area than currently proposed. If this is done after the DCO is approved there will have been no assessment of the potential impacts of the enlarged catchment particularly in terms of where the waste is being sourced and the implications for the road network and whether this is sustainable. In the event that the DCO is approved the Council would seek to limit the catchment area for sourcing waste to that identified in the applicant though a ‘requirement’ or through the Heads of Terms. 8.3. The proposed facility does not comply with policy emerging through the Waste Core Strategy Preferred Options (June 2010) because, whilst the site is identified for waste management development, it is only identified for facilities to serve local need. Covanta is sized to dispose of waste sourced from a much larger area. 8.4. The proposal conflicts with other policy of the Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals and Waste Local Plan. In particular Policy W2 which seeks to reduce the quantity of imported waste over the Plan period of 2000-2015; policy W3 which states that facilities intended for the management of imported wastes by means other than landfill will not be granted permission and policy W8 which states that waste management proposals will be expected to demonstrate that they will integrate effectively with operations to recover resources from waste. This has not been demonstrated Local Planning Policy 8.5. Whilst local planning policy encourages the use of renewable energy there is concern, in this instance, that the facility will not assist in achieving the objective of fulfilling the potential of and enhancing Marston Vale. 8.6. The site is not required for employment purposes as there is 50% over allocation of employment land in the Site Allocations Development Plan Document. 8.7. The use of Green Lane as the access to the facility could prevent the completion of the proposed route of the Bedford and Milton Keynes Waterway as the proposed route as it intersects Green Lane close to the A421 and the proposed grid connection cable routes. The proposals do not take account of this project. If this is not taken into account in any design and reconstruction of Green Lane then it could prevent the canal from being completed as an alternative route for the underpass may not be possible. To construct the underpass at a later stage would require the closure of Green Lane. The accommodation and construction of the underpass could be a positive community contribution. 8.8. The Council requests an issue specific hearing on Planning Policy conflicts. 9. Socio economic impacts 9.1. The Council considers that socio economic impacts have been over estimated with regard to employment during construction and operation of the facility. Whilst it is intended that labour will be sourced locally for the construction of the facility projects such as this are of a specialist nature and there is concern as to the ability to locally source all the labour needed because of the expertise required. Similarly at the operational stage only 80 jobs will be created which is relatively few when viewed in the context of the 17,000 jobs target for the North Central Bedfordshire giving due regard to the proposed salary and skill levels proposed. 9.2. Other energy from waste facilities with which this proposal is compared are of a smaller scale and in more industrialised areas than the more rural environment of Rookery Pit. Some of the sites have yet to become fully operational and long term impacts are not completely understood. 9.3. The increased HGV traffic will reduce the attractiveness of the area for alternative employment generating investments. 9.4. Central Bedfordshire’s villages and countryside are seen as key assets by businesses. Developments that will have a significant negative visual impact on such areas cannot be seen as other than negatively affecting inward investment prospects. 9.5. There are concerns that the development would have a negative effect on the housing market and reduce the attractiveness of the area as a place to live. Moreover, it appears that the reduced electricity tariff is only intended to be available to existing residents. 9.6. The positive benefits of the facility are acknowledged but the implementation of some benefits, such as the proposed electricity subsidy and the local labour clauses, is unclear and this is crucial to the success of such benefits. 9.7. The area has been substantially regenerated following the demise of the brickmaking industry and the closure of many of the landfill sites in the area - the development of the facility which would once again bring waste in from a wide area adversely impacting on the regeneration of the area 9.8. The Council requests an issue specific hearing on the socio economic impacts. 10. Interest in Land 10.1. The Council objects to the compulsory acquisition of rights over land in its ownership as the adverse impacts of the proposal outweigh the benefits and if the facility is not approved as a result then the compulsory acquisition of the rights over the land cannot be justified. 10.2. The Council will pursue any matters relating to land identified for compulsory acquisition or for which rights are sought to facilitate the development. It is also currently unclear whether the compulsory acquisition of rights over highway land will affect other highway powers. 10.3. The Council is an affected person and requests a compulsory acquisition hearing under s.92. 10.4. The Council is an affected person and requests a compulsory acquisition hearing under s.92. 11. Draft Development Consent Order and the Requirements Development Consent Order 11.1. The Council considers that there will be a need for negotiation on the matters set out in the draft DCO. The Council currently objects to the rights proposed which give almost unlimited right to undertake further development within the Consent area both during construction and the operation of the facility. The limitations of these rights need to be agreed and set out. 11.2. Other matters set out in the draft DCO will also be reviewed and commented on. The Requirements 11.3. The Local Planning Authorities are likely to be responsible for monitoring and enforcing any requirements imposed on the development as well as any planning obligations. The requirements as currently worded do not meet the tests for planning conditions as set out in Circular 11/95 and it is essential that they do so if they are to be monitored and enforced effectively. 11.4. The Council is of the view that it would be more appropriate for the Local Planning Authority to assess and determine the submissions due to their experience in such matters as well as the need to take into account future monitoring. Redrafting of the requirements is, therefore, suggested so that if the DCO is granted subsequent submissions to discharge details are submitted to the relevant planning authority rather than to the Commission as is currently proposed. 11.5. The Council intends to put forward revised wording for the requirements to ensure that the tests are met and to ensure that requirements are discharged through the Local Planning Authority. 11.6. Additional requirements will be required to ensure that the mitigation proposed is delivered and to ensure that all relevant matters are taken account of. 11.7. Proposed wording for these requirements will be put forward. For example the Environmental Statement identifies many mitigation measures necessary to reduce the impact of the development on the ecology of the County Wildlife Site at Rookery Pit and yet these are not detailed in the proposed requirements. 11.8. The Council also intends to challenge the wording of some proposed requirements. For example the noise levels proposed are blanket levels paying no attention to the nature of the noise, the existing background levels or the maximum noise that will be emitted and having no relation to the predicted levels in the EIA. The proposed noise levels appear to be arbitrary and have no link to the levels proposed in the EIA, there is no reference to maximum levels which are used to relate the short loud noises which wake people up. The construction and delivery hours are excessive. 11.9. There does not currently seem to be any provision for right of appeal if an application to discharge a condition is refused. Whilst this may be more of a concern to the applicant it does mean that, in this situation, the only address the applicant would have is to apply to the High Court. This could be costly and time consuming for the local planning authority. This matter needs to be discussed with the IPC and the applicant through the DCO. 12. Heads of Terms 12.1. The Council considers that there are other matters that should be included in the obligation to maximise the benefits of the proposal. For example: i. resurfacing and upgrading of Green Lane to an agreed specification and standard before commencement of operations together with an ongoing obligation to repair and maintain the road, and ii. a catchment area restriction for sourcing waste to reflect the county areas put forward in the DCO application iii. HGV traffic routing plan 12.2. In the Council’s view the proposed Travel Plan needs to be revised as it does not contain an action plan or timetabled commitments. 12.3. One of the proposed benefits, the reduction in electricity tariff for local residents, is not included in the Heads of Terms and no clear mechanism has been demonstrated for its implementation. 13. Other issue specific matters 13.1. There are a number of other matters on which the Council may wish to put forward written and oral representations. These include the potential for light pollution; nature conservation issues such as translocation of newts; habitat creation and the wider issue of the county wildlife status of Rookery Pit; surface water issues; the potential flood risk; and issues arising from the HIA. 14. Procedural matters 14.1. This section addresses some procedural and timing issues which arise. The Preliminary Meeting (PM) is (inter alia) to enable invitees to make representations about how the application is to be examined (s. 88(4) Planning Act 2008 (PA2008)) and at the PM or as soon as practicable afterwards the Examining authority (Ea) is to set a timetable. The Council has no wish to take the Ea or any other party by surprise by raising these matters for the first time at the PM so is doing so now in this relevant representation. Timing for written representations. 14.2. The Council’s written representations will draw on its work in the local impact report (LIR). This way, issues raised in the LIR, which is expected to be an objective document can be addressed. The findings of the LIR are likely to reduce the need for written representations. Having the date for submission of the LIR simultaneously with or after the date for the written representations will reduce the length of written representations as there will then be no need to set out in full material later included in the LIR. It is therefore requested that the date for receipt of the written representations is not earlier than the date for the LIR. Unless this is done there may be a need for further representations, on matters raised in the LIR for which there appears to be no provision in the legal procedures. The minimum period for receipt of written representations is 21 days. However this is just a minimum and a longer period can be set. Timing for the local impact report 14.3. The IPC’s Advice Note on Local Impact Reports (March 2008) states: Local authorities should then begin to compile the LIR as soon as the application has been accepted formally by the Commission and they have been invited to submit an LIR. The LIR can cross refer to any Statement of Common Ground agreed between the applicant and the local authority .The Commission encourages parties not to duplicate evidence submitted to it. 14.4. The Council has since acceptance of the application reviewed the entire application so as to prepare its case and this relevant representation. It is expected that that work will assist in the preparation of the LIR. It is by no means the whole of the evidence gathering, assessment and reporting process. The Council has not yet received notice under s. 60(2) of the PA 2008 so has not begun any formal preparation of the LIR.. Nor at the time of writing does it have any firm or formal indication of the earliest date for the PM. The Council notes the DCLG advice at para 61 of “Planning Act 2008: guidance for the examination of applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects” that “normally the local impact report should be received by the Examining authority within a six week period following the end of the preliminary meeting. It is difficult to progress the preparation of the report in the absence of a reasonable date for its conclusion. The Council would be criticised for putting other work aside now to embark on a preparation process aimed to complete the LIR within say six weeks when (a) the Commission might at any point, before or after the PM, impose a shorter or longer timetable and (b) circumstances and policies change, which may render conclusions reached in six weeks out of date, needing to be revisited. In the context of a relatively new central government, policy change is inevitable and is rapid. And naturally the length of time allowed will affect the amount of work done. It is also difficult to estimate the time needed given the fact that this will be the first ever LIR and the scope and methodology of LIRs has yet to be established. 14.5. The Council is now giving active consideration to the approach to the LIR and hopes to be able to bring to the PM an estimate of the time needed for its preparation. 14.6. Accordingly the Council would ask for the PM to be held not earlier than Monday 17th January and no later than the end of that month and to be allowed at least six weeks (or such longer period as is justified by its representations at the PM) from the later issue of the s.60(2) notice to prepare its LIR. The statements of common ground 14.7. These are to inform the written representations and reduce the areas of disagreement. They may also assist with the LIR (see also the IPC’s advice set out above). It is requested therefore that the date for their delivery is the date for submission of the LIR. Examining the Section 106 agreement 14.8. At present there is a draft s.106 agreement in heads of terms form. The applicant anticipates that it will negotiate and agree the s.106 with the two councils and this is also the Council’s hope. This raises the issue of how to report to the IPC on the s.106 and to explain the reasoning for its provisions. They are likely to change as representations, questions from the Ea, and comments by the applicant on the Council’s written representations progress. It may also be that the parties cannot agree in which case the applicant may submit a unilateral document on which the Council should be allowed to comment. The s.106 agreement must be entered into by (broadly) all those interested in the land at the time it is completed. Thus, the Council’s title investigation needs to be carried out immediately prior to completion. Title may change between now and the eventual entry into the s.106 after exchange of evidence. If there are problems, for example a landowner refusing to enter into the s.106, the Council must have the opportunity to make representations on that. 14.9. It will be seen that there is a need for an issue-specific hearing so that the issue can be adequately examined and the Council has a fair chance to put its case. In such circumstances the Ea has the power to hold an issue-specific hearing – see s.91 PA 2008. The Council anticipates that the issue-specific hearing would conclude with a final form of the s.106 and that there would then only remain for the Council to confirm to the Ea when the agreement had been completed. 14.10. The Council accordingly requests an issue specific hearing on the s.106 Agreement. 14.11. The Council also requests guidance from the Ea on how it should respond in its written representations to the draft s.106. Is a fully developed mark up required, in the form the Council would be prepared to execute, or are comments on the principles and content of the draft required? The Council observes that to do the former would require it to obtain internal authority from the relevant portfolio holder, but that as the s.106 is likely to change before the close of the exchange of evidence the matter would have to return for approval. If the latter, what is to be the written and oral process for submitting evidence to the Ea on the final form, or any disagreements. Examining the text of the development consent order, and the Requirements 14.12. The same issues arise with the DCO. Again the applicant has helpfully indicated that it regards its terms as open to some change. Some of its terms, for example article 4, are difficult. Article 4 significantly extends the scope of the development authorised. Article 16 appears to override the s.106 agreement being negotiated. No doubt many of these are unintentional, but whilst they may be flushed out by the exchange of evidence they will be most easily examined by the inclusion of an issue-specific hearing on the DCO. 14.13. Similarly to the s.106 agreement, the Requirements will develop as evidence is exchanged. 14.14. The Council will not have a fair chance to put its case on the DCO and Requirements if it is required to do so entirely in writing, and the matter will not be adequately examined without an issue-specific hearing on the DCO and Requirements. It therefore requests an issue-specific hearing on these issues. Dealing with the possibility that the draft NPS is approved during the application process 14.15. The criteria for deciding this application are different depending on whether there is a National Policy Statement (NPS) in place. At the date of this relevant representation there is a consultation on the draft energy NPS . The consultation is due to finish on 24th January 2011 and the Select Committee which is required to consider the draft has yet to commence its process or call for any evidence. The DECC website says that there will be “continuing Parliamentary scrutiny and final ratification by Parliament”. Not until that is complete can the Secretary of State decide whether to adopt the NPS. This suggests it may be some time before the NPS is adopted, with a target timetable of sometime in 2011. 14.16. If there is no adopted NPS, the Secretary of State (SofS) decides this application under s.105. He has a wide discretion. 14.17. If the NPS is adopted, the Panel or Council (P/C) makes the decision under s.104. Section 104(3) applies to the P/C but not the SofS and requires the P/C to decide in accordance with the relevant NPS unless one of the exceptions applies. Thus, and reserving this Council’s position on the relationship between sections 104(3) and 104(2)(d), the P/C has less discretion. 14.18. This Council therefore needs first to address the application on the basis of the current “draft NPS” position. Subsequently, the “adopted NPS” position needs to be addressed. In addition, it will not be known how the NPS will change. This Council should also have the opportunity to comment on the application in the light of the final form of the NPS if it is adopted before the decision is made. 14.19. It is not clear how the Ea will deal with the following issues: • how interested persons are expected to address the alternative positions. • how the views of interested persons in the light of actual changes to the NPS if is adopted before the decision is made will be obtained. 14.20. It is important to know how the Ea and P/C will address this issue as it affects the preparation and content of the Council’s written representations. 14.21. The Council may wish to comment on the draft NPS and recently proposed changes, and the weight given to the document in the decision making process if it is not approved by the time a decision is issued on the DCO as this may affect the nature of written representations put forward on behalf of the authority. 14.22. The Council reserves its right to raise further procedural issues at later stages, including at the PM and hopes that by addressing these now a practical approach can be worked out. 15. Issue Specific Hearings 15.1. To summarise, the Council requests Issue Specific Hearings on the following: i. Transport and Highway Issues ii. Design, Landscape and Visual Impact iii. Impact on Historic Environment iv. Noise Impacts v. Air Quality and Odour vi. Planning Policy Issues vii. Socio-economic Impacts viii. Compulsory Acquisition ix. Section 106 Agreement x. The Development Consent Order and the Requirements xi. Draft National Policy Statement 15.2. The Council reserves its right to request further Issue Specific Hearings at the PM, and to make oral representations at all Issue Specific Hearings held by the Examining authority (Ea). 16. Open-floor hearing 16.1. The Council requests an open-floor hearing at which it intends to appear and make oral representations. It requests that this be after the issue-specific and compulsory acquisition hearings."

Robert Lockhart
"This project will not only blight the landscape of Mid-Bedfordshire, of which I am a resident it is of a wholly inappropriate size and scale for a relatively small county such as Bedfordshire. We, of course, have responsibility for the waste that we produce, and as a keen recycler I am very well aware of the steps that we can take to reduce our output of non-recyclable waste however the county of Bedfordshire should not be forced to act as the dustbin for more populous counties that surround us. This project is the wrong one, on the wrong scale and in the wrong location. It should be rejected."

Brian and Charlotte Hill
"My wife and I strongly oppose the application to build a Covanta waste generating at Stewartby by Bedfordshire"

Ian Blackley on behalf of Bedford Borough Council
"1. Introduction 1.1. The Council is responding to this application for a Development Consent Order as Local Authority, Highway Authority and land owner. As the local authority it has a wide range of functions and responsibilities. It is also the local planning authority. It is a major governmental body in this Development Consent process. This relevant representation and its participation in this application process reflects and draws on the breadth of its relevant functions and responsibilities. 1.2. Bedford Borough Council object to the proposed electricity generation facility as it is considered that the adverse impacts of the proposal outweigh the positive benefits and on this basis the IPC will be required by National Planning Statement EN-1 (NPS EN-1) to refuse the application for Development Consent. 1.3. The principal reasons for objecting to the proposal are: • that the size and bulk of the proposed facility will adversely impact on the amenity of local residents and on the highway network in the vicinity of the site and in other parts of the authority area, • the authority considers that the technology proposed is unacceptable in this location as the large capacity of the facility will adversely impact on local recycling targets and the ability to derive most environmental benefit from the waste feeding the facility. • the proposed facility is sized so that it needs to source waste from a much greater area than the former county area of Bedfordshire and, as such, is contrary to national and local planning policy to handle waste sustainably by using the nearest appropriate facility and to make provision for local waste disposal requirements 1.4. The matters at issue and on which the Council will wish to submit more detailed submissions are set out below. These include the design and scale of the facility, the visual impact, amenity impacts, highway and sustainability issues but there are also procedural issues and legal points to be addressed to ensure that if the proposal is approved that is it ‘fit for purpose’ and capable of being monitored during its construction and operation. 1.5. The matters at issue are set out below: 2. Traffic, Highway and access issues 2.1. The proposal states that approximately 530 HGV traffic movements will be generated a day. The Council is of the view that these will, potentially, have significant adverse impacts on the area in the immediate vicinity of the site and on the residents and environment of Bedford Borough as a whole particularly as there is no evaluation of how seasonal variation and peaks in economic activity could produce higher peaks of such traffic for short periods. Strategic Highway Issues 2.2. There are concerns that the HGV traffic generated will affect a much wider area than that covered by the Traffic Assessment, which is based on the HGV’s assessing the site via the A421, but there has been no assessment beyond the A421 or means set out to address increased congestion on other major highways and junctions especially where waste is to be sourced from within the proposed catchment area but distant from Bedfordshire. 2.3. Evidence is required for the proposed directional split of HGV’s and sensitivity testing should be undertaken as there are no firm contracts in place. Comprehensive information is required on the nature of the operation and development of HGV movements in particular in relation to the strategic management of these movements. Concern is raised in particular over the use of the B5134 into Kempston by HGV’s as shown on the HGV routing plan – these HGVs should be kept on strategic routes around Bedford rather than through Bedford. Highway Safety 2.4. The wider implications of highway safety as a result of higher flows of goods vehicles on the wider highway network notably any proposed movements through Bedford need to be picked up as part of the IEMA Guidance assessment in conjunction with evolving Network Management Strategy. Transport Policy and Cumulative Effects 2.5. There are transport policy concerns about baseline data flow and growth factors. The application does not fully address the cumulative effects of traffic from the redevelopment of the brickworks, the proposed landfill in Rookery South and the proposed facility and the capacity of Green Lane to accommodate the projected traffic numbers as a result of these developments. Highway Access and standard of construction 2.6. The highway layout and standard of construction is inadequate and needs to be addressed including the substandard visibility at the junction of Green Lane with the A421. The surface of Green Lane and the A421 should be brought up to an appropriate standard before any operations commence and currently there is no proposal for achieving this. Alternative routing arrangements 2.7. The use of Broadmead Lane as a diversion route if Green Lane is closed for more than 24 hours is not considered to be acceptable and an alternative needs to be found. 2.8. The emergency access seems to follow the same route as the main access so there is the potential for them both to be blocked and this needs to be addressed. Rail Based Transport 2.9. The feasibility of providing rail based access to the proposal has been considered and rejected by the applicant. The Council does not accept that it is premature to include rail based access infrastructure and facilities as part of the development should it proceed. Bedford and Milton Keynes Waterway 2.10. The use of Green Lane as the access to the facility could prevent the completion of the proposed route of the Bedford and Milton Keynes Waterway as the proposed route as it intersects Green Lane close to the A421 and the proposed grid connection cable routes. The proposals do not take account of this project. If this is not taken into account in any design and reconstruction of Green Lane then it could prevent the canal from being completed as an alternative route for the underpass may not be possible. To construct the underpass at a later stage would require the closure of Green Lane. The accommodation and construction of the underpass could be a positive community contribution. 2.11. The Council requests an issue specific hearing on transport and highway issues. 3. Design, Landscape and Visual Impact 3.1. The Council considers that the proposals are likely to have a high negative impact on the local landscape character and visual amenity of the area. The visual impact will be increased because of the plume. The proposal site is within a semi-rural area albeit one with an industrial past. Although the landscape is disturbed, it contains a number of sensitive features, the establishment of the Forest of Marston Vale and the village of Stewartby and its industrial character. The landscape strategy is to enhance and renew – to conserve the open character of the vale and views to the Greensand Ridge – and the proposed facility will adversely affect this. As a result the amenity of users of local facilities such as the country park and local footpaths and cycle paths will be adversely impacted upon and this has not been adequately assessed. 3.2. The Council considers that the facility will have an overbearing effect on the wider area surrounding the site and on the visual quality of the landscape because of its size and scale and this will impact on views of the four listed chimneys of the former Stewartby brickworks and on the unique character and setting of the garden village of Stewartby. The setting of the chimneys is considered to extend far more greatly than that of the village, due to their height, visibility and iconic status in the landscape and are also considered to be of national importance. They are visible from many viewpoints both within and outside the Borough. The stack of the facility will be visible from these viewpoints in juxtaposition with the chimneys and will be taller and wider than the chimneys. 3.3. There is concern that the ‘industrial ‘ design of the facility was decided at too early at stage in the process and the justification for taking this design route is flawed. An iconic design that local residents could admire and could become a design feature in the area might have been preferable. The use of colour and materials also needs further consideration. 3.4. Further consideration and clarification needs to be given to the extent and appropriateness of mitigation measures proposed, in particular landscaping including tree planting and bunding, both near the site and further afield. 3.5. The Council requests an issue specific hearing on design, landscape and visual impact. 4. Noise impacts of the development on local residents and on the surrounding area. 4.1. The methodology used to assess noise emphasises ‘average’ noise levels and the Council considers that the impact of occasional unexpected noise is not adequately addressed as a result. 4.2. There are concerns about the potential noise impact, particularly from irregular sounds, from site plant and activities and from vehicles serving the site on health and amenity of local residents From an amenity point of view there are concerns that the long operating and delivery hours and construction hours proposed at sensitive times of the day could exacerbate the local traffic impacts and this has not been adequately considered or justified. 4.3. The Council requests an issue specific hearing on the noise impacts of the development. 5. Air quality and odour 5.1. The Council considers that the potential effects of temperature inversions have not been adequately considered. 5.2. There are concerns about odour as no secondary mitigation is proposed, it has been scoped out of the environmental assessment with inadequate justification. There are no details as to how negative pressure will be maintained in the tipping hall and how queuing times for waste vehicles kept to a minimum. 5.3. There is also concern that the safe levels of some metals such as Chromium is likely to be exceeded and that particulates will also increase and whether mitigation measures put forward are sufficient. This is notwithstanding the submission of the HIA that seeks to address local concerns about potential health impacts arising from the plant. 5.4. The Council requests an issue specific hearing on air quality and odour. 6. Planning Policy conflicts Waste Planning Policy and catchment area issues 6.1. The proposed catchment area is significantly larger than the former county area of Bedfordshire and the facility is sized to take much more than ‘local’ waste. Other authorities within the catchment area put forward by Covanta will also be planning for disposal facilities to process the waste generated within their area and which will generate electricity. This would also to ensure that it can go to the nearest appropriate facility (to accord with national, regional and local policy). The waste treatment and electricity generating capacity of the Covanta facility is considerably greater than that required for the Bedfordshire area and it has not been demonstrated that excess capacity is required when the capacity of existing and proposed waste facilities both within Bedfordshire and in other parts of the catchment area are taken into account. 6.2. The applicant has reserved the right to change the catchment area. It is almost inevitable that this would result in waste being sourced from an even larger area than currently proposed. If this is done after the DCO is approved there will have been no assessment of the potential impacts of the enlarged catchment particularly in terms of where the waste is being sourced and the implications for the road network and whether this is sustainable. In the event that the DCO is approved the Council would seek to limit the catchment area for sourcing waste to that identified in the applicant though a ‘requirement’ or through the Heads of Terms. 6.3. The proposed facility does not comply with policy emerging through the Waste Core Strategy Preferred Options (June 2010) because, whilst the site is identified for waste management development, it is only identified for facilities to serve local need. Covanta is sized to dispose of waste sourced from a much larger area. 6.4. The proposal conflicts with other policy of the Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals and Waste Local Plan. In particular Policy W2 which seeks to reduce the quantity of imported waste over the Plan period of 2000-2015; policy W3 which states that facilities intended for the management of imported wastes by means other than landfill will not be granted permission and policy W8 which states that waste management proposals will be expected to demonstrate that they will integrate effectively with operations to recover resources from waste. This has not been demonstrated. Local Planning Policy 6.5. Whilst local planning policy encourages the use of renewable energy there is concern, in this instance, that the facility will not assist in achieving the objective of fulfilling the potential of and enhancing Marston Vale. 6.6. The Council requests an issue specific hearing on Planning Policy conflicts. 7. Socio economic impacts 7.1. The Council considers that the Economic Statement on the proposal paints an unbalanced picture of the economic impacts of the proposal with positive impacts exaggerated and negative impacts unfairly dismissed as conjectural, short term and transitory. Many of the positive benefits look, in the report, impressive by comparison essentially because their annual values are considered cumulatively over 35 years. 7.2. The 80 person direct employment figure is very low for a development of this scale and visual impact. The significant waste vehicle traffic generated by the development will have a significant negative impact on the environment of the area. For so few jobs this is seen as a significant negative with visual, noise and traffic congestion impacts that will negatively affect possible much more significant job growth in the area around the proposed site. 7.3. Other facilities with which this proposal is compared are significantly more industrial in character rather than is the case for the proposed site. 7.4. The facility could attract additional industrial activity which would further alter and erode the semi-rural character of this part of the vale. This does not seem to have been assessed by the applicant. 7.5. Bedford’s villages and countryside are seen as key inward investment assets by businesses. Developments that will have a significant negative visual impact on such areas cannot be seen as other than negatively affecting inward investment prospects. 7.6. There are concerns that the development would have a negative effect on the housing market and reduce the attractiveness of the area as a place to live. Moreover, it appears that the reduced electricity tariff is only intended to be made available to those already resident in the area and would not provide any inducement to those thinking of moving into the area 7.7. The area has been substantially regenerated following the demise of the brickmaking industry and the closure of many of the landfill sites in the area - the development of the facility which would once again bring waste in from a wide area adversely impacting on the regeneration of the area. 7.8. The Council requests an issue specific hearing on the socio economic impacts. 8. Interest in Land 8.1. The Council objects to the compulsory acquisition of rights over land in its ownership as the adverse impacts of the proposal outweigh the benefits and if the facility is not approved as a result then the compulsory acquisition of the rights over the land cannot be justified. 8.2. The Council will pursue any matters relating to land identified for compulsory acquisition or for which rights are sought to facilitate the development. It is also currently unclear whether the compulsory acquisition of rights over highway land will affect other highway powers. 8.3. The Council is an affected person and requests a compulsory acquisition hearing under s.92. 9. Draft Development Consent Order and the Requirements Development Consent Order 9.1. The Council considers that there will be a need for negotiation on the matters set out in the draft DCO. The Council currently objects to the rights proposed which give almost unlimited right to undertake further development within the Consent area both during construction and during the operation of the facility. The limitations of these rights need to be agreed and set out. 9.2. Other matters set out in the draft DCO will also be reviewed and commented on. The Requirements 9.3. The Local Planning Authorities are likely to be responsible for monitoring and enforcing any requirements imposed on the development as well as any planning obligations. The requirements as currently worded do not meet the tests for planning conditions as set out in Circular 11/95 and it is essential that they do so if they are to be monitored and enforced effectively. 9.4. The Council is of the view that it would be more appropriate for the Local Planning Authority to assess and determine the submissions due to their experience in such matters as well as the need to take into account future monitoring. Redrafting of the requirements is, therefore, suggested so that if the DCO is granted subsequent submissions to discharge details are submitted to the relevant planning authority rather than to the Commission as is currently proposed. 9.5. The Council intends to put forward revised wording for the requirements to ensure that the tests are met and to ensure that requirements are discharged through the Local Planning Authority. 9.6. Additional requirements will be required to ensure that the mitigation proposed is delivered and to ensure that all relevant matters are taken account of. 9.7. Proposed wording for these requirements will be put forward. 9.8. The Council also intends to challenge the wording of some proposed requirements. For example the noise levels proposed are blanket levels paying no attention to the nature of the noise, the existing background levels or the maximum noise that will be emitted and having no relation to the predicted levels in the EIA. The proposed noise levels appear to be arbitrary and have no link to the levels proposed in the EIA, there is no reference to maximum levels which are used to relate the short loud noises which wake people up. The construction and delivery hours are excessive. 9.9. There is no provision for right of appeal if an application to discharge a condition is refused. Whilst this may be more of a concern to the applicant it does mean that, in this situation, the only address the applicant would have is to apply to the High Court. This could be costly and time consuming for the local planning authority. This matter needs to be discussed with the IPC and the applicant through the DCO. 10. Heads of Terms 10.1. The Council considers that there are other matters that should be included in the obligation to maximise the benefits of the proposal. For example: • resurfacing and upgrading of Green Lane to an agreed specification and standard before commencement of operations together with an ongoing obligation to repair and maintain the road, and • a catchment area restriction for sourcing waste to reflect the county areas put forward in the DCO application. 10.2. In the Council’s view the proposed Travel Plan needs to be revised as it does not contain an action plan or timetabled commitments. 10.3. One of the proposed benefits, the reduction in electricity tariff for local residents, is not included in the Heads of Terms and no clear mechanism has been demonstrated for its implementation. 11. Other issue specific matters 11.1. There are a number of other matters on which the Council may wish to put forward written and oral representations. These include the potential for light pollution; nature conservation issues such as translocation of newts; habitat creation and the wider issue of the county wildlife status of Rookery Pit; surface water issues; the potential flood risk; the technology proposed and issues arising from the HIA. 12. Procedural matters 12.1. This section addresses some procedural and timing issues which arise. The Preliminary Meeting (PM) is (inter alia) to enable invitees to make representations about how the application is to be examined (s. 88(4) Planning Act 2008 (PA2008)) and at the PM or as soon as practicable afterwards the Examining authority (Ea) is to set a timetable. The Council has no wish to take the Ea or any other party by surprise by raising these matters for the first time at the PM so is doing so now in this relevant representation. Timing for written representations. 12.2. The Council’s written representations will draw on its work in the local impact report (LIR). This way, issues raised in the LIR, which is expected to be an objective document can be addressed. The findings of the LIR are likely to reduce the need for written representations. Having the date for submission of the LIR simultaneously with or after the date for the written representations will reduce the length of written representations as there will then be no need to set out in full material later included in the LIR. It is therefore requested that the date for receipt of the written representations is not earlier than the date for the LIR. Unless this is done there may be a need for further representations, on matters raised in the LIR for which there appears to be no provision in the legal procedures. The minimum period for receipt of written representations is 21 days. However this is just a minimum and a longer period can be set. Timing for the local impact report 12.3. The IPC’s Advice Note on Local Impact Reports (March 2008) states: Local authorities should then begin to compile the LIR as soon as the application has been accepted formally by the Commission and they have been invited to submit an LIR. The LIR can cross refer to any Statement of Common Ground agreed between the applicant and the local authority .The Commission encourages parties not to duplicate evidence submitted to it. 12.4. The Council has since acceptance of the application reviewed the entire application so as to prepare its case and this relevant representation. It is expected that that work will assist in the preparation of the LIR. It is by no means the whole of the evidence gathering, assessment and reporting process. The Council has not yet received notice under s. 60(2) of the PA 2008 so has not begun any formal preparation of the LIR.. Nor at the time of writing does it have any firm or formal indication of the earliest date for the PM. The Council notes the DCLG advice at para 61 of “Planning Act 2008: guidance for the examination of applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects” that “normally the local impact report should be received by the Examining authority within a six week period following the end of the preliminary meeting. It is difficult to progress the preparation of the report in the absence of a reasonable date for its conclusion. The Council would be criticised for putting other work aside now to embark on a preparation process aimed to complete the LIR within say six weeks when (a) the Commission might at any point, before or after the PM, impose a shorter or longer timetable and (b) circumstances and policies change, which may render conclusions reached in six weeks out of date, needing to be revisited. In the context of a relatively new central government, policy change is inevitable and is rapid. And naturally the length of time allowed will affect the amount of work done. It is also difficult to estimate the time needed given the fact that this will be the first ever LIR and the scope and methodology of LIRs has yet to be established. 12.5. The Council is now giving active consideration to the approach to the LIR and hopes to be able to bring to the PM an estimate of the time needed for its preparation. 12.6. Accordingly the Council would ask for the PM to be held not earlier than Monday 17th January and no later than the end of that month and to be allowed at least six weeks (or such longer period as is justified by its representations at the PM) from the later issue of the s.60(2) notice to prepare its LIR. The statements of common ground 12.7. These are to inform the written representations and reduce the areas of disagreement. They may also assist with the LIR (see also the IPC’s advice set out above). It is requested therefore that the date for their delivery is the date for submission of the LIR. Examining the Section 106 agreement 12.8. At present there is a draft s.106 agreement in heads of terms form. The applicant anticipates that it will negotiate and agree the s.106 with the two councils and this is also the Council’s hope. This raises the issue of how to report to the IPC on the s.106 and to explain the reasoning for its provisions. They are likely to change as representations, questions from the Ea, and comments by the applicant on the Council’s written representations progress. It may also be that the parties cannot agree in which case the applicant may submit a unilateral document on which the Council should be allowed to comment. The s.106 agreement must be entered into by (broadly) all those interested in the land at the time it is completed. Thus, the Council’s title investigation needs to be carried out immediately prior to completion. Title may change between now and the eventual entry into the s.106 after exchange of evidence. If there are problems, for example a landowner refusing to enter into the s.106, the Council must have the opportunity to make representations on that. 12.9. It will be seen that there is a need for an issue-specific hearing so that the issue can be adequately examined and the Council has a fair chance to put its case. In such circumstances the Ea has the power to hold an issue-specific hearing – see s.91 PA 2008. The Council anticipates that the issue-specific hearing would conclude with a final form of the s.106 and that there would then only remain for the Council to confirm to the Ea when the agreement had been completed. 12.10. The Council accordingly requests an issue specific hearing on the s.106 Agreement. 12.11. The Council also requests guidance from the Ea on how it should respond in its written representations to the draft s.106. Is a fully developed mark up required, in the form the Council would be prepared to execute, or are comments on the principles and content of the draft required? The Council observes that to do the former would require it to obtain internal authority from the relevant portfolio holder, but that as the s.106 is likely to change before the close of the exchange of evidence the matter would have to return for approval. If the latter, what is to be the written and oral process for submitting evidence to the Ea on the final form, or any disagreements. Examining the text of the development consent order, and the Requirements 12.12. The same issues arise with the DCO. Again the applicant has helpfully indicated that it regards its terms as open to some change. Some of its terms, for example article 4, are difficult. Article 4 significantly extends the scope of the development authorised. Article 16 appears to override the s.106 agreement being negotiated. No doubt many of these are unintentional, but whilst they may be flushed out by the exchange of evidence they will be most easily examined by the inclusion of an issue-specific hearing on the DCO. 12.13. Similarly to the s.106 agreement, the Requirements will develop as evidence is exchanged. 12.14. The Council will not have a fair chance to put its case on the DCO and Requirements if it is required to do so entirely in writing, and the matter will not be adequately examined without an issue-specific hearing on the DCO and Requirements. It therefore requests an issue-specific hearing on these issues. Dealing with the possibility that the draft NPS is approved during the application process 12.15. The criteria for deciding this application are different depending on whether there is a National Policy Statement (NPS) in place. At the date of this relevant representation there is a consultation on the draft energy NPS . The consultation is due to finish on 24th January 2011 and the Select Committee which is required to consider the draft has yet to commence its process or call for any evidence. The DECC website says that there will be “continuing Parliamentary scrutiny and final ratification by Parliament”. Not until that is complete can the Secretary of State decide whether to adopt the NPS. This suggests it may be some time before the NPS is adopted, with a target timetable of sometime in 2011. 12.16. If there is no adopted NPS, the Secretary of State (SofS) decides this application under s.105. He has a wide discretion. 12.17. If the NPS is adopted, the Panel or Council (P/C) makes the decision under s.104. Section 104(3) applies to the P/C but not the SofS and requires the P/C to decide in accordance with the relevant NPS unless one of the exceptions applies. Thus, and reserving this Council’s position on the relationship between sections 104(3) and 104(2)(d), the P/C has less discretion. 12.18. This Council therefore needs first to address the application on the basis of the current “draft NPS” position. Subsequently, the “adopted NPS” position needs to be addressed. In addition, it will not be known how the NPS will change. This Council should also have the opportunity to comment on the application in the light of the final form of the NPS if it is adopted before the decision is made. 12.19. It is not clear how the Ea will deal with the following issues: • how interested persons are expected to address the alternative positions. • how the views of interested persons in the light of actual changes to the NPS if is adopted before the decision is made will be obtained. 12.20. It is important to know how the Ea and P/C will address this issue as it affects the preparation and content of the Council’s written representations. 12.21. The Council may wish to comment on the draft NPS and recently proposed changes, and the weight given to the document in the decision making process if it is not approved by the time a decision is issued on the DCO as this may affect the nature of written representations put forward on behalf of the authority. 12.22. The Council reserves its right to raise further procedural issues at later stages, including at the PM and hopes that by addressing these now a practical approach can be worked out. 13. Issue Specific Hearings 13.1. To summarise , the Council requests Issue Specific Hearings on the following: • Transport and Highway Issues • Design, Landscape and Visual Impact • Noise Impacts • Air Quality and Odour • Planning Policy Issues • Socio-economic Impacts • Compulsory Acquisition • Section 106 Agreement • The Development Consent Order and the Requirements • Draft National Policy Statement 13.2. The Council reserves its right to request further Issue Specific Hearings at the PM, and to make oral representations at all Issue Specific Hearings held by the Examining authority (Ea). 14. Open-floor hearing 14.1. The Council requests an open-floor hearing at which it intends to appear and make oral representations. It requests that this be after the issue-specific and compulsory acquisition hearings."

Mrs Joan Wildman
"We do not want rubbish from all over polluting Bedfordshire. It will affect other counties. The pollution will spreads beyond Beds boundaries. There are other solutions. This is a highly risky toxic option."

Paul Harbottle
"1) The potential contracts referred to in and around this application do not exist at present. This application could be for a station to deal with waste from many parts of UK. If some of those contracts are signed the waste will travel across country not always using roads designed for increased HGV use. 2) The waste will be transported by road using roads which are extremely busy. A simple collision at J13 of M1 today causes problems for many miles around temporarily. Past experience with waste transport lorries feeding the Brogborough landfill site suggests there will be several occasions each year when gridlock will occur around J13, A421, Milton Keynes and the surrounding area as a result of accidents and breakdowns. 3) The amount of traffic to and from the site will have an effect on traffic queues and make it less likely the people in this area can predict journey times. It will add to general frustration with life. 4) There are two rail lines close to Rookery South. If these can not be used to import waste then Covanta have selected the wrong location for their proposed plant. 5) A plant of the proposed size has the potential to dominate the landscape as a result of its bulk and the light it will need to operate 6) I am uneasy about smoke emissions from the plant. Technology has improved since there was a problem with dioxins being emitted form a plant in Italy some years ago but technology relies on humans and they are not completely reliable."

George Cansdale
"I worked at London brick for 27 years. Lorries came from all over the country to use the landfill. The chimneys used to rot the curtains. I don’t like to see anything like that happen again. I object to this plan and only hope it doesn’t happen."

Mary Ruocco
"I am concerned that the air pollution be detrimental to my health and members of my family. I have young grandchildren that visit regularly and fell concerns for their health in particular. Also the increase in traffic would further cause air pollution through the emissions from the vehicles. I believe that the roads and highways are already in a poor state and heavy goods vehicles would cause further deteriorations. I worked at London brick for 27 years. Lorries came from all over the country to use the landfill. The chimneys used to rot the curtains. I don’t like to see anything like that happen again. I object to this plan and only hope it doesn’t happen."

Fiona Steele on behalf of Flitwick at the Crossroads Residents Action Group
"Covanta Rookery South Energy from Waste and Materials Recovery Facility Initail Representation to the Infrastructure Planning Commission from the Flitwick at the Crossroads Residents Action Group (FATCRAG) There are a number of issues which are of major concern to FATCRAG members, based on a reading of the wording of the Non-Technical Summary. These relate to: • The physical scale of the facility and its visual intrusion in relation to its surroundings, and the extent of the waste catchment area it is intended to serve • Electricity generation – what is the area of feed-in and how will the local population receive an offset to their bills • The number of heavy vehicle movements into and out of the site and entering the wider area and whether the carbon footprint incurred would actually be less than if the waste were to be shipped via rail – FATCRAG is not convinced of the arguments that ‘energy efficiencies’ would ‘considerably’ outweigh the additional transport impacts of a large facility – this needs to be spelled out. The rail option arguments are short-sighted and only pay lip service to the possibilities – economic short-termism appears to dominate with little consideration given to the longer-term • Safety issues associated with the disposal of residual ‘hazardous’ waste from the gases clean-up process – the destination site is not identified nor the routes to be taken by tankers carrying the waste • Emission levels from traffic and the plant, particularly those from traffic movements over the wider catchment area – the possibility of increased respiratory disease from additional low level traffic emissions is not convincingly addressed • The noise issue and envelope of area affected – this needs to be spelt out • Measures to ensure the safe operation of the plant are hardly addressed • Life expectancy is not sufficiently discussed – again the impression is given of an approach to achieve the maximum extraction of short-term profits at the expense of future needs • As well as possible effects on human health, the social implications are not properly considered, and the ‘return’ to the community appears to be minimal in relation to the scale of disruption in the area and potential planning blight"

Dr Arthur Bourne
"I agree with all the points made in the FATCRAG submission. However I would like to emphasise the importance of the potential health risk posed by the Covanta plant • The United Kingdom is presently experiencing an increase in respiratory diseases and in particular asthma • The major contributor of asthma is vehicle exhausts fumes • The gases (fumes) are carbon monoxide (almost all due to vehicle exhausts) and ozone which are poisonous to humans. Ozone is formed from nitrous oxide and hydrocarbon emissions from vehicle exhausts on days of high atmospheric pressure and bright sunshine. To these gases should be added the contained particulate substances • The increase of heavy vehicular traffic to and from the plant cannot but add to the load of exhaust gases – in particular during the frequent stop/go periods due to the busy traffic and especially through towns and villages that the plant’s vehicles must of necessity pass through. • The nearby Millennium Park is an important environmental asset to the region in mitigating the effects of air pollution. Situated as the plant would be would reduce the value of the is asset especially in the warm summer days when most people would be enjoying the cleaner air. Given an adverse wind direction, the vehicles emissions, especially during manoeuvres in the plant’s vehicle park, would negate this enjoyment."

Christopher Edson Sonnenstein
"I object to the Rookery Pit Waste Incerator for the following reasons:- • Emissions that could endanger health, nano particles of dangerous toxic by products cannot be prevented from escaping into the atmosphere • Covanta in the USA have been fined for repeatedly exceeding safe emissions • Such a development would be a monstrous on the Marston Vale landscape • Increase in traffic would clog up already contested roads • Bedfordshire should not be a dumping ground for other authorities waste • The emission levels quoted by Covanta may meet existing legislation but this could be more stringent in the future. Asbestos was thought safe in the past and beef was said to be safe but CJD did infect humans, remember John Gummer?"

Carlo Ruocco
"I am concerned for my children’s and my health. Traffic is already bad and this will cause more traffic. Also the pollution this going to add to the air, is a cause of concern."

Hannah Mernagh
"I am worried for the health of my children and if this incinerator plant was to go ahead. The air pollution levels are already high and this contribution from the plant is unnecessary. Also the traffic into the village is already bad and this will only contribute to traffic problems."

E.W Davidson
"Proposed Marston Vale Waste Incinerator This proposal is the worst most ill thought out scheme we have ever seen. It is a further illustration of Bedfordshire County Council’s (or whatever organisation has replaced it) obsession to make Marston Vale the sewer of the county. For more than thirty years, following the decline of the brickworks we have suffered the creation of massive stinking rubbish tips, with their regularly occurring plagues of flies. Their fleets of filthy lorries fouling the roads worth mud, creating motoring hazards because of the absence of wheel washing facilities – or the non use of them. It seems that we are now burdened with a replacement hazard with possibly greater health risks. It confirms the desperate ambitions of the authority to cram every illusory scheme into the area. These include a suggestion that there be a major rail link between Oxford and Cambridge, a leisure canal from the grand Union to the Ouse, a Centre Parcs facility, and a new environmental village, as well as the infamous Nirah scheme (on which subject I believe the promoter said that if Bedfordshire failed to back it, Harvard University of the USA was waiting in the wings. I know enough of major US universities to be certain that had Harvard any interest in this thing they would have gone ahead years ago). Additionally the planners do not seem to have paused to consider whether investors in these enterprises will wish to proceed when their proposed developments lie in the shadow (literally and metaphorically) of the above scheme. Should they withdraw, then the power part of the proposed CHP scheme fails. Specific Points Input of Waste a) Tonnes. It is planned to use road transport to feed this scheme at 600,000 tpa, this is equivalent to 30,000 x 20 tonne trucks. At 50 weeks per year this is 600 trucks per week or 86 per day (x2 as there is in and out journeys to the waste plant, total 172 per day). Can the road infrastructure handle this today and in 5/10/20 years time? The Stewartby rubbish tip successfully imported massive amounts of rubbish by rail over many years. Why can this not continue since, the proposed scheme is adjacent to Stewartby. I thought we were an “environmentally friendly” nation and surely rail is more environment friendly than road. b) Input control. What you put into anything determines what you get out. What type of waste is the scheme planned to handle and what controls will be put into placer to ensure this is not deviated from? Even small percentage deviations can have serious consequences on effluent emitted. The area waste is to be collected from must have many different industries. c) Landfill sites for the toxic waste from the plant are not specified. Surely these must be stated before building of the plant commences. Operation of the scheme General The promoters of this scheme should be aware of the “Stavely” disaster where the poor management of an analogous plant (of an extremely reputable chemical company) caused great suffering. The management should give assurances that this can not happen in Marston Vale. European standard should merely be seen as guides, not as magic assurances. What do the operators of European plants do? What are their operational criteria? Are they better than standard? In any case we need assurances that Marston Vale is risk-free to people of whom there is very little mention in the documents we have seen. Standards should be the best possible. Meeting European standards is merely taking a rain check on responsibility. These criteria must apply to both gaseous and particulate emissions. Further specific points Doc. Ref. No. 4.6 European Sites Introduction 1.0 Section 1.1.4 Air Quality Impact Assessment Stack height 100m needed. Stated chimney height is 105, (5% increase!) should improve dispersion. (?) This is questionable. A larger area may be affected it does not remove impurities only spreads them out over a wider area. It is essential to spend money on removing these impurities in the plant rather than spread them over a large area. European Sites: Which ones? Different countries will have different specifications. Eastern European plants are often not as strict on pollution and in any case do Western European plants meet or exceed the standards. Doc. Ref. No. 4.5 Natural Features Section 2 2.12 This introduces the potential for natural features to be affects in particular as a result of increased nitrogen and acid deposits. These changes assessed in the report of Natural Features and it was concluded that there will be no likely affect on protected sites. Comments: Plant is available to remove oxides of nitrogen and sulphur oxides. What is the expected concentration of pollutants. Data required on the range expected in view of the fact that there does not appear to be any data on the diversity of the waste material that is to be burnt. Concentrations of sulphur dioxides and other pollutants in the atmosphere in general vary over time with regard to specific locations (oxides of nitrogen are given off by the waste plant at Brogborough) and globally (volcano eruptions affect this). These points must be taken into consideration when estimating the overall parts per million of pollutants at Marston Vale. Vol 1 Design and Access Statement Page 56 Section 3.9.12 The project does not include the provision of a rail connection for the importation of waste material. Rail connections for waste have worked for waste sites in Bedfordshire before. It should be more environment friendly way of transportation. Section 4.4.23 This treatment starts in the furnace which is designed to ensure that combustion gases have at least 2 seconds at a minimum temperature of 850c thereby ensuring that dioxins and furans are destroyed. What are the safety margins? Waste content to be burnt must vary therefore dioxin formation etc must vary. Section 4.4.24 After combustion the gases are rapidly cooled in the boiler which minimises the risk of dioxin reformation before they are discharged to the FGT plant. What data is available from existing plants on reformation. In any cases minimisation of dioxins was not good enough. Elimination is fundamental. Section 4.4.27 Residues from the plant could be toxic. Heavy metals will be a problem as the content of the waster material delivered is not exactly known and will vary according to source “sealed road tankers go to landfill facility” the landfill sites are NOT specified. Surely these must be defined before building commences as they may be problems because no other places may take the waste. This is currently a problem in other EU countries."

Mrs Bernadette
"There is considerable waste being disposed on open sites in Bedfordshire and surrounding counties. If this waste can be USED to generate energy in an efficient manner, it would be of benefit to us all. Therefore, I fully support this application by Covanta or any other facilitator who can be monitored to provide such services with fully efficient scrubbing of all noxious gases and discharges from the incineration process. They should also be required by IPC to provide much needed employment for the local community (with no imported labour or skills)"