Drivers can barely see each other as hot steam and smoke from Barry’s controversial incinerator descends on local roads in the docks area like thick fog. The Welsh Labour Government had promised there would be an Environmental Impact Assessment “by the end of November” – but no such document has yet been released 

The Welsh Labour Government has now confirmed that the First Minister Carwyn Jones gave “inaccurate” information on the highly controversial Barry Incinerator project.

The First Minister – who will be out of office in a few days from now – is said to have provided wrong information about a crucial “Environmental Impact Assessment” on the Barry Docks Incinerator – a document which is meant to assess how much damage the project will do to the environment.

The new Biomass incinerator in Barry Docks will be burning millons of imported wooden pallets

The incinerator project is vociferously opposed by the overwhelming majority of local residents in Barry – and its effluent is forecast to  pollute not only Barry but Penarth too when it starts up in earnest.

The unshaven Carwyn Jones won’t be First Minister of Wales for much longer

Carwyn Jones had originally declared – in writing to Penarth Conservative AM Andrew R T Davies that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was expected “the end of November”.

November has now come and gone by the First Minister seems to have been busy with other things – including the Carl Sargeant affair – and, despite his e promises, no announcement about the Barry incinerator  has yet been made.

As thousands of people in Barry – and in Penarth – are anxiously awaiting the information, Andrew R T Davies yesterday raised the issue in the Welsh Assembly with Leader of the House and Chief Whip Julie James.

Welsh Labour Environment Minister Hannah Blythyn still hasn’t followed-up on the statement she made 8 months ago

The Welsh Labour Government’s  inexperienced  “Minister for the Environment”  Hannah Blythyn is now said to be   proposing to take a decision on the incinerator “ as soon as possible”.

Attempting to salvage the situation and protect the First Minister , the Labour Chief Whip Ms James – said she was sure that the First Minister had provided the original (incorrect) information “in good faith” but that it had “turned out not to have been accurate”.

Andrew R T Davies says  “The situation regarding an EIA has been dragging on for almost nine months – but local people were provided with assurances by the First Minister that they should expect a decision imminently. This included an expectation that it would be announced by the end of November – but a fellow minister has now admitted this was not correct. “

Penarth AM and Conservative Assembly Leader Andrew R T Davies at an earlier meeting with Barry residents campaigning against the incinerator . The fumes from the plant will affect Penarth too

Mr Davies – who has  maintained regular contact with local residents throughout the tortuous planning process – has again met campaigners from the Docks Incinerator Action Group .

He  said  “The lack of communication within the Welsh Government and between ministers is very concerning. They are tasked with taking the decision and this will do nothing to improve confidence in the process.”

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address newsnet@sky.com. Penarth Daily News is an independent free on-line fair and balanced news service published by NewsNet Ltd covering the town of Penarth in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. All our news items are based on the information we receive or discover at the time of publication and are published on the basis that they are accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief at that time. Comments posted on the site by commentators reflect their opinions and are not necessarily shared, endorsed or supported by Penarth Daily News.
This entry was posted in Penarth Daily News. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Nick P says:

    Put all party political ideology aside and come up with a reason why he would do this???

  2. Dis gruntled says:

    First minister giving inaccurate information, really ?????????

  3. Ocobblepot says:

    Why would they allowed someone else`s potentially hazardous waste to be dumped in local waters.

    • Penarthur says:

      Mud from the Severn estuary is not waste. Assuming that’s what you’re referring to.

  4. Big Davey says:

    Surely the safest thing to do would be to put this on hold and stop incineration until it is proven this is safe.

    The first duty of government is to protect and care for its people.

    Commercial waste incineration comes along way down the list after that.

    • Harry Parfitt says:

      Doling out inaccurate information and failing to provide impact assessments are familiar themes for anyone taking an interest in Westminster politics.

      • Geraint says:

        Does that make it acceptable here then?
        I thought the idea of a separate ‘government’ was to protect the interests of ‘the people of Wales’?
        Not waste a shed load of money on more layers of incompetence.
        How can you be so cavalier about people’s health?

      • Christopher David says:

        Harry you must desist. You’re making sense again. As long as you’re not inferring that because Westminster lies it’s OK for the huffer puffers in the Bay to do the same 🙂

  5. Pete says:

    Why do we pay them for such incompetence??? Close the WAG.

  6. Lorraine says:

    I cannot understand why planning permission was given for this polluting plant in a built up area. The local M. P’s must make their opposition known. The decision to allow it was criminal

    • Penarthur says:

      There’s been one just the other side of the bay for 3 years at least. Where have you been?

  7. Cozzer says:

    By unshaven do you mean he has a beard? Then I have been unshaven since 1980. For heavens sake, he’s a man and men have beards. Get on with it.

  8. Johnp says:

    You could smell it in the air tonight all during the Traders’ late night shopping event 😦
    Welsh Labour seem hellbent on turning us into a radioactive dustbin for
    some reason.

  9. Scootergirl says:


    This needs to be sent to Carwyn Jones!!!

  10. Cheryl Dobbinson says:

    Far to many Incinerators being built many in entirely unsuitable places, far to close to people.
    Incineration is a disincentive to reuse and recycle. Incineratorso emit a vast array of noxious and dangerous concoction of pollutants and should not be sited within at least a 6 kilometre proximity to a populated area.
    And most are unable to make anything like a profitable business without hefty subsidies paid out of the taxes people pay. We are literally paying these enterprises to pollute our air.

  11. Penileaks says:

    An Environmental Impact Assessment should be produced and considered BEFORE any such industrial operation is approved.
    This incinerator and the dumping of the possibly nuclear mud from Hinckley were given the go ahead either before such an assessment was drawn up, or in the case of the mud, by an un-independent source.
    Both were rubber stamped by the WAG and one has to ask why ?
    No company in their right mind would construct an incinerator, or go to the cost of entering into contracts with specialist and vastly expensive shipping companies, unless they first had the nod from those granting the licence or permission and secondly had it all written in a contract that was legally binding on the Welsh Government to deliver.
    Watch the legal costs and compensation that we will all contribute to, rise if the EIA goes against the incinerator development, but I doubt that it will ever come to that as those involved will all wriggle their way around any legal ‘technicalities’, and the foul small and all that it brings with it will continue to fall over the areas affected for the next 30-40 years of it’s planned life.
    And we all thought this type of thing only went on in tin pot African states, Russia or China. Welcome to just as corrupt Wales.

  12. max wallis says:

    The officials made it clear last Feb (minded-to letter on 14th Feb) that EIA is required; the company built to a different plan so has to go for a new planning consent – and that retrospective application will require EIA. The politicians appeared to delay while asking officials to find a way out for the company. FoE Barry&Vale have put on pressure by raising the EIA failure with the European Commission. Let’s hope Mark Drakeford will be more inclined to play it straight and go with his officials.

  13. Christopher David says:

    Drakeford is feckless.

Comments are closed.