Your Worcester
Send your pics, videos and tip-offs to 80360, starting your message WN NEWS followed by a space. Or email us here »
When 50p is the price of a principle
9:34am Monday 9th April 2007
Comments (2)WHAT price a principle? This is the question that Norton residents must ask themselves in the run-up to this Thursday's crucial parish council meeting at which the vexed issue of the recycling plant will once again be debated.
The nub of the matter is this. The council needs residents to indicate whether or not they are prepared to continue the battle against plans for the centre in the village's Woodbury Lane. If that is the case, then it will cost hard cash - a doubling of the existing £26 precept for a Band D property to be precise.
In plain terms, it adds up to an extra 50p a week for householders to put their money where their mouths reside. However, the matter will not necessarily end there, for if the county approves the plans, a protracted legal tussle could well ensue.
This newspaper has no problem with citizens who defend their own corners of this green and pleasant land. Indeed, we feel that the much over-used term nimbyism' is a cliche that over-simpliflies the very real concerns of ordinary people when faced with the conflicting interests of large and powerful organisations.
Nevertheless, sites like the one proposed by Mercia Waste Management have to go somethere. Across Britain, green issues and the threat of climate change are now at the top of the political agenda. Such sentiments could well combine to form an unstoppable tide that ultimately overwhelms opponents.
But at the moment, we're talking about small change. How long this stays the case depends on the fortitude of Norton villagers.
Your Say YourWorcester News
Chris Morag, Concerned Littleworth resident/business says...
11:45am today Tue 10 Apr 07
The people we elected appear gagged and the people we pay to look after our interests are more concerned with saving face and looking after big business. They call it democracy but blind adherence to EU directives and profit making now appear more important than our standard of life, safety, health and welfare.
If the council are in a mess it is of their own making - they have had since 1998 to sort the contract.
If there is no health risk - where is the proof - DEFRA state whilst there is no reason to think there will be health effects on people living near to MRF's they cannot completely rule it out.
Cost saving - transporting waste to sites in the North instead of Kent will be just as expensive.
Avoiding fines for diversion from landfill applies to biodegradable waste - not tins, glass and plastic.
This is not recycling - it is waste sorting.
Mixed waste is contaminated waste and often cannot be recycled anyway - so it is shipped abroad.
If we are to control pollution and have an affect on climate change we should be handling the waste ourselves - not sending it abroad for somebody else to re-process.
It is not our job to find alternative sites but where are these 17 hectares that have been set aside for waste handling.
Surely a site exists away from a nursing home, a dangerous junction, a residential area and a hazardous installation.
There have been horrendous fires at MRF's already - for this and many other reasons, the location is unsuitable.
We need to consider the legacy for the children for the next 25 years. Norton residents do not want this unnecessary imposition 24,7 for the next 25 years.
There has been more effort put into a park and ride facility at Sixways than any consideration for the people of Norton over this waste sorting plant.
Everybody concerned should be ashamed of themselves over this shoddy affair - a flawed application from an arrogant applicant who could not be bothered to consult the community beyond the minimum.
Perhaps the Worcester News can help us with a petition or even fund raising. A little solidarity would go a long way - after all its not your backyard - and we do not want it to be anybody elses either.
It is scandulous that our only redress after asking our MP to call in the application is to raise the funds to defend ourselves, by ourselves.
The fight has not yet even begun.
In this section
- Soldier's body is flown home
- I’m feeling pretty good for 103
- Alleyways will remain open despite attacks
- Driver hurt as gas tanker overturns
- Women cricketers are ready for Ashes showdown
- Five swine flu cases at major city company
- COMMENT: Such stories are hardly in the public interest
- Latest vision of £15m cricket ground unveiled
- Face-painted by a fairy
- Firm is highly commended
Sponsored Links
LOCAL ADVERTISERS
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Chris Morag, Concerned Littleworth resident/business says...
11:45am today Tue 10 Apr 07
The people we elected appear gagged and the people we pay to look after our interests are more concerned with saving face and looking after big business. They call it democracy but blind adherence to EU directives and profit making now appear more important than our standard of life, safety, health and welfare.
If the council are in a mess it is of their own making - they have had since 1998 to sort the contract.
If there is no health risk - where is the proof - DEFRA state whilst there is no reason to think there will be health effects on people living near to MRF's they cannot completely rule it out.
Cost saving - transporting waste to sites in the North instead of Kent will be just as expensive.
Avoiding fines for diversion from landfill applies to biodegradable waste - not tins, glass and plastic.
This is not recycling - it is waste sorting.
Mixed waste is contaminated waste and often cannot be recycled anyway - so it is shipped abroad.
If we are to control pollution and have an affect on climate change we should be handling the waste ourselves - not sending it abroad for somebody else to re-process.
It is not our job to find alternative sites but where are these 17 hectares that have been set aside for waste handling.
Surely a site exists away from a nursing home, a dangerous junction, a residential area and a hazardous installation.
There have been horrendous fires at MRF's already - for this and many other reasons, the location is unsuitable.
We need to consider the legacy for the children for the next 25 years. Norton residents do not want this unnecessary imposition 24,7 for the next 25 years.
There has been more effort put into a park and ride facility at Sixways than any consideration for the people of Norton over this waste sorting plant.
Everybody concerned should be ashamed of themselves over this shoddy affair - a flawed application from an arrogant applicant who could not be bothered to consult the community beyond the minimum.
Perhaps the Worcester News can help us with a petition or even fund raising. A little solidarity would go a long way - after all its not your backyard - and we do not want it to be anybody elses either.
It is scandulous that our only redress after asking our MP to call in the application is to raise the funds to defend ourselves, by ourselves.
The fight has not yet even begun.