Today I wrote in the following terms to my ward councillors, copying in my MP.
mass burn incinerator for household waste
I invite your comments on how you have protected the interests of the residents of my ward and of the city in the years since 2007 in this matter.
Should the council reconsider what it is doing: What would the costs of pulling out of this contract be today? And tomorrow (assuming it is signed tomorrow)?
Have you checked whether or not the council considered options other than incineration? What evidence of careful consideration of other options are you relying on? Are you aware that the council has been consistently challenged on this since 2007, (and possibly earlier)?
Are you aware that the business cases for incineration in general and for this particular incinerator are both now being challenged as unsafe (the economy and the market having changed substantially)? Have you considered the financial impact on council tax payers should these cautions turn out to be well founded? And that if the business performs as badly as expected are you aware of the likely impact on recycling, too?
Has the contract been set up in such a way that it can attract structural or grant funding? Or has it been set up in such a way that it is ineligible?
Are you aware of the total cost of this contract? Figures of £76M and £80M have been quoted recently in the Peterborough Evening Telegraph for the capital costs alone. Is that figure current? What are the overall 30 year costs for this project? Is it acceptable that this information is still not in the public domain? Is it acceptable that innocent readers of their local paper might assume that this figure is the total cost of the project?
Are you aware that the council is deliberately choosing out of date technology and describing it as “tried and tested”? (the information on technology is still not in the public domain).
Are you aware that the council might be comparing the energy recovery of its own plant with Scandinavian examples? If so are you aware that in Scandinavia (which is used to colder weather and historically much more aware of the importance of insulation and energy security) high performance hot water supply grids are planned in (eg for swimming pools or district heating). Peterborough has not planned a supply grid and has not explained who will buy energy and power generated by this incinerator. Have you seen an example of the output and recovery figures from either Peterborough’s as planned and have you compared that with an operational equivalent in Scandinavia and an operational equivalent in the UK (local campaigners are finding that those in the UK can’t sell their power).
Are you aware that the UK’s statutory regulatory regime for air pollution (in which the council has placed its trust) is widely regarded as unfit for purpose? The Health Protection Agency is about to undertake research into whether or not it can substantiate the assurances and claims it has been making and upon which the Environment Agency and numerous councils have historically relied. Is the council aware of the potential damage it could do to its own Environment Capital “aspiration” if, as widely expected, it can’t?
Do you know enough about air pollution and monitoring in the city? Does Peterborough monitor anything other than road traffic? Where are the monitoring stations and are they in the right places? What regime is planned for when the incinerator is operational?
Have you considered the social, health and cost impacts on the city of a mass burn incinerator in an area with very high (and rising) levels of social deprivation?
Are you aware that a new incinerator on an industrial site in Fletton is operating and is apparently making people ill, but that the council has not done anything about it, and that not one person amongst the “officers’ panel” and members present at the Sustainable Growth and Environment Capital Scrutiny Committee Call in Meeting on 29th August was equipped to advise the ward councillor who asked about this problem in his ward? I understand that the ward councillor had been told by the Environment Agency that it was a matter for the council. As a member of the public I witnessed that not a single person actually knew how to deal with this relatively small problem – nobody offered to look into it or explain who the ward councillor should talk to, if it wasn’t the Environment Agency. This is despite the presence of senior council officers and (at least) three lawyers.
Are you satisfied with the monitoring and regulation of pollution in the city?
Please can Richard Olive have answers to the questions which Peterborough Friends of the Earth has asked the council on this matter?
Can you write NONE against – or otherwise provide detail of any personal, family or party interest you have had, have or are likely to have – in any of the following:
- the council’s Energy Services Company?
- “Blue Sky”?
- this sector?
- this decision?
I look forward to hearing from you, etc.
A number of local authorities, including Peterborough co-mingle recyclables in a single collection.
Other authorities collect each recyclable item separately.
In 2008 this was demonstrated to be better value, since the end product is more likely to fetch a good price.
The Campaign for Real Recycling is challenging the asssumption so far made:
that co-mingled collections of paper, metal, plastics and glass produces a quality result.
A judicial review hearing will be held in Cardiff, starting on 14th December 2011.
Peterborough for Responsible Waste Management fights for good quality recycling.