Monday, 7 June 2010

A note on statistics

Statistics tell us (2007) that East End Park/Cross Green is low demand and in decline. Within worst 1% of the country of area and falling. People die earlier in areas of deprivation, so what’s another incinerator in the ghetto?

Vast profits are to be made for chosen bidder on PFI contract if planning for a third incinerator goes through.

Simultaneous with the plans over the last few years to place an incinerator here, the area has been systematically degraded. Long-term residents have left in droves. Replaced with Bail hostels, asylum seekers, probation hostels, homeless families, evictees from other areas. Private landlords who are known to have breached health and safety rules, all are operating here, with, it would appear, impunity. Everyone needs to live somewhere, that is not disputed, but Leeds City Council seem reticent to give figures as to what the ratio of ‘vulnerable groups’ now placed in East End Park and Cross Green is, compared with the rest of the city.

In addition to the points made against another incinerator on ‘No to Incinerator’ leaflet, we should request: an independent assessment of the current land contamination in the sites proposed for third incinerator and surrounding residential areas. We should also look to research recently published, amongst which, Health Effects of Waste Incineration, 4th Report of British Ecological Society.

Article 8 ECHR 1.14 Article 8, which protects the individual's right to respect for his or her private and family life and home, has been interpreted by the Court of Human Rights as applying where an individual is directly and seriously affected by environmental pollution.

Submitted by Maureen Aylward

The picture today was taken from here


  1. Very true Maureen. Most of the money goes into building complicated machinery and into lining shareholders pockets. Money spent on recycling initiatives provides local jobs and the money stays within the community. Burning rubbish is like pouring local peoples money down the drain. Incineration is extremely expensive and a very poor investment for our children and grandchildren

  2. Oh dear. Where did you drag all this lot from? I was at the meeting when you asked for this information and the coucil gave you a figure there and then as well as saying they'd get you the full figure for these vulnerable groups. The Police also stated there are no bail hostels in the area.

    So it's not "very true" really is it?

    You know what, I'm against this incinerator but you could tip me to the other side!

    Let's keep the facts and not needlessly do our area down?

  3. Hello Anonymous! I was also at the meeting, and I was also at a hearing in the City Hall about emergency accommodation contracts in the area. It turns out that the Councillor wasn't exactly correct when he asserted that there were no hostels in the area. According to council documents there are 30 properties in our ward used as homeless hostels compared to much less in other areas. But the council emergency contracts involve much more than homeless: there are other contracts, like bail hostels, refugee and asylum seekers and others, and councillor Brett did say that it was unfortunatelly government policy that promoted the cheapest properties to be used, and that resulted in many- proportionally- being in our area, resulting to a greater proportion of "transient" population. And although no one objects to the housing of vulnerable groups, I feel that by placing vulnerable individuals in areas already plaged by social problems like high unemployment, drink and drugs and antisocial behaviour really hurts them even more as well as the neighbourhoods involved.

    You are making a valid poin though- I am currently researching the issue and I will be posting specifics about emergency accommodation in the area as soon as I can get them! Please keep an open mind about this- a lot of things will get better if we talk about them as neighbours.

  4. Distribution of homeless households placed in temporary accommodation as at 28th May 2009

    Souurced from - Supplementary Information – Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods)
    3rd June 2009 Call-In Meeting

    Item 7 Temporary Accommodation Briefing Note

    31 households around East End Park area.

    Glensdales LS9 8. 5%
    East Parks LS9 7. 4%
    St Hildas LS9 6. 4%
    Cross Greens LS9 5. 3%
    Temple view LS9 5. 3%

    32.9% of homeless provision is in our area

    THIS IS JUST PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS - the figure with other groups added such as Maureen states will be much higher. These are facts not fiction

  5. Er, so the figures are publicly available? So why then make such a song and dance?

    These are still not bail hostels. And what has any of this got to do with waste disposal?

    Can I suggest that this is of more signifcance in the debate

    Rather than 31 houses in East End Park.

  6. I try to see things as a whole, not just as individual items. You are a little late with the Biffa Information, it had been circulated by lunchtime and an appointment has been made to discuss the matter further with them. If EEP consisted of nice detatched houses and twee gardens, with middle class aspirational couples with children even if it was the best site for an EFW plant in the world it wouldn't be considered. Most plants are situated in very deprived areas. We beat even that - we are a super output area.

  7. I could go through this point by point but I have a life. If in this debate, and I am against the incinerator, I am being antagonised and alienated by so much nonsense what hope do we have in persuading the world and the more importantly decision makers of our arguments? If we drag unrelated “facts” into this discussion we can be neatly put into the nutters and trouble causers camp and dismissed.

    I don’t know how many people have got broadband in our area, I bet its low, but it’s not something for today.

    Keep some focus and we have more chance of being heard.

    I agree that this is a hugely cynical move by the council to try and put this in an area where they thought there would be little resistance.

    I’m a little surprised I’m told that I’m late with the Biffa information. I didn’t see the link posted by anyone else. Similarly I would have thought that another incinerator, which make four, with 2km of Cross Green would be of more alarm than 30 individual houses.

    Here is a golden opportunity to hold the council to account. Skelton Grange was one of the original four sites for the council incinerator but quietly disappeared.

    When did officers and councillors know Biffa wanted to put a commercial incinerator on this site?

    Why hasn’t this been mentioned in the discussions over the council one?

    Why wasn’t it made clear why Skelton Grange was no longer in the running for the council incinerator?

    Why isn’t this use for Skelton Grange clear in the Aire Valley Development plans?

    Or perhaps we should continue to talk about “bail” and “probation” hostels. Let’s see how far that gets us?

  8. I am surprised to hear that you are antagonised and alienated by comments you deem irrelevant to the main argument. While I totally agree that we shouold not be seen as completely negative about some of the problems we face in the area because we could easily be written off as the awkward squad, the remark about nutters and trouble causers seems simply gratuitously rude to me.
    You do make some very good points and ask some searching questions which need answering now, especially with regard to the Aire Valley and the Biffa project. However your patronising and aggressive tone, together with your snide asides directed at anyone who does not share your point of view is not helpful and serves only to detract from what were some otherwise interesting and relevant points

  9. I've no desire to start a flame war but I'll re quote what I put.

    'If we drag unrelated “facts” into this discussion we can be neatly put into the nutters and trouble causers camp and dismissed.'

    That does not say we (you) are all nutters and trouble causers. How are we seen by the council? Think about that.

    If we turn in to the virtual man on the corner shouting at pigeons that's how we'll be seen.

    Let's try and be effective and shouting about everything under the sun will not get what we want.

    How does a picture of a dog poo help us stop this plant?

    If we do our area down we are playing into the hands of those that think it's worthless and fine to put something undesirable there.

    I'm not sure which bit of what I wrote was "agressive" too?

    Given the blog is no2 incinerator rather than let's solve all east Leeds problems shouldn't that be where our focus lies?

    Have it your way if you wish, let's talk about the price of peanuts in Poland.

  10. It seems only anonymous who is posting on here has a handle on the facts and situation regarding the incinerator, not dragging every other percieved problem and slagging off the area where I presume you all live? if its that dire why don't you take yourselves somewhere else - either that or stick to the matter in hand? This inane ranting is not going to get you anywhere.....

  11. I cannot say that I disagree with your assertion that we should concentrate on a single issue on this blog at least. I accept the other problems in the area are for other forums. It is a good idea to keep focused on the incinerator issue alone here. There is certainly enough going on at the moment to keep everyone busy fighting our corner on that matter alone.

  12. Thank you Tichy. I'm gonna take a break from here for a day or two as I would like us to be united in a common cause, saying no to (two?!) incinerators. And not be like two bald blokes fighting over a comb.