Incinerator cost could rocket to £1bn says MEP (From Hereford Times)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting HT NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Find by date
Other ways to search
Also look for
Never miss anything again. Sign up for our RSS news feeds and Newsletters.
Incinerator cost could rocket to £1bn says MEP
CONTROVERSIAL approval for a £120 million incinerator in Worcestershire has been slammed by a West Midlands MEP – who is claiming the costs could spiral to £1 billion.
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME: An artist’s impression of the new incinerator planned for Hartlebury.
Mike Nattras said he was “amazed” taxpayers would have to fund the facility at Hartlebury, near Worcester, and believes people are being kept “in the dark” about the final bill.
The huge incinerator, which will burn 200,000 tonnes of rubbish a year from Worcestershire and Herefordshire, was given final approval by the Government last month.
Mr Nattras, a UKIP MEP, said: “Everyone involved in this ill-conceived project is simply gambling as its cost is not known. Waste, as it is in short supply, will need to be imported from other locations to make this scheme financially viable. There is already an oversupply of incinerators all over Europe and in the UK as with the increase in recycling , less domestic waste is being generated.
“I am amazed that taxpayers in Worcestershire are expected to fund this major project. The costs have not been revealed by the contractor and may well exceed the original estimate of £120 million, possibly reaching the astronomical figure of £1 billion due to expensive Private Finance Initiative (PFI) funding – and all this without a single credible business plan.”
The suggestion has come about because several other authorities have forked out more than £1 billion for incinerators under PFI deals, while Coventry City Council scrapped one in 2010 after the initial estimates doubled from £500m. Mr Nattras also said the long-term health risks were unknown, despite the Health Protection Agency saying it believed they posed no “significant” problems. The facility will be run by Mercia Waste Management. County Hall has repeated its backing for the scheme, and is rejecting any suggestions the costs will spiral.
Councillor Anthony Blagg, the cabinet member responsible for waste, said: “The estimation of £120 million was based on research around a year ago, but it’s still an accurate one.
“I was asked this question during a cabinet meeting as an incinerator built in Kent had ended up costing £1 billion, but that was because there was a lot of machinery which needed replacing over time, so the long terms costs were very expensive.”
The plant will power 20,000 homes and heat scores of nearby businesses. Work could start at the end of the year and it will be operational by late 2015 at the earliest.
Comments (6)
22/08/12
logicalN says...
Could it be that he can't come up with any evidence that is relevant to the Hartlebury situation but sees a chance to get his name in print?
As he can't blame the EU , why is he even interested?
22/08/12
Stephen Brown says...
And the process is not over, the public inquiry ignored several pieces of vital submissions including health, habitat and environmental. Something the WAIL group are considering pursuing via judicial review. This whole thing is politically driven and has the sticky fingers of vested interests all over it.
If people are happy to see up to £1billion of their money up in smoke then so be it, but I for one think the whole idea is a scandal as is the waste of money involved when there are better alternatives.
If it can still be stopped that will be in all of our best interests.
Mr Nattrass however might be better using his energies chasing up the European Audit and Procurement officials to investigate this dodgy deal.
22/08/12
logicalN says...
Why should this part of the county not take reaponsibility for a share of the waste it helps to generate?
A similar pressure group prevented the building of an incinerator on an established industrial site in Kidderminster, putting up a counter proposal that the waste should be shipped by canal and river into another county, nice people to have as neighbours!
What is the predicted cumulative cost of handling the same amount of waste over the period that the £1b is projected?
It is easy to predict when no one challenges the predictions , but let's see some evidence
22/08/12
peetajon says...
The County Council were utterly incompetent in agreeing a PFI contract which they then failed to achieve their side of the arrangement - and have acted like headless chickens ever since.
They are not good at evidence when it does not suit their purpose - they had evidence that the refuse handling plant at Norton would waste £millions of our taxes each year but the Council ignored this, the Councillors ignored this, the audit committee ignored this....
If the Norton fiasco is anything to go by, the Council will have no idea at all how much the long term cost will be. Who knows if £1b is right or wrong?
22/08/12
Stephen Brown says...
The better alternatives are separate food waste collections, more composting, anaerobic digestion. In effect reducing the amount of biodegradable materials going to landfill to avoid the penalties. Not to mention recycling and re-using so reduced landfill targets can be met. I would go further, I would have a plant separating the rubbish still thrown into black bags like Bristol has so that landfill is reduced further so there is no need to burn stuff like plastics which can be identified, recycled and re-used or even sold for profit
Actually it's all stuff that could save us money, even make money as recyclate values increase - and not increase the bill for local taxpayers - but the nature of the contract WCC has with Mercia Waste and an incinerator will prevent all of that because it's more about what's profitable for the company.
Our council has a duty of care and should exercise due diligence in its activities but they have failed to do that. The council should provide evidence as to why the incinerator is better, how it 'helps' the environment and is cost effective, they have failed to do that. They have also failed to look at the alternatives because they lack the know-how and intelligence it seems and are buying into a contract they already have and are taking the easy option. Said easy option that allows people not to take responsibility for their rubbish (take note logicalN) and continue to throw it all in black bags then have it burned. Out of sight out of mind, someone elses problem.
Not very progressive I must say and it matters not where this incinerator would be built, it is neither clean, green or safe to have it anywhere in the county and i don't want it anywhere in the county. So yes, alternatives are better if the council were 'minded' to do it, but they ain't and that's the rub. And dare I say it is not our responsibility to ensure due diligence happens so that the council meets its responsibilities, it's the councils.That's why we elect them.
My due diligence will be not voting for any idiot on the council who thinks an incinerator is a good idea.
22/08/12
logicalN says...
If you seriously consider anaerobic digestion to be viable , it would be better to subsidise an under sink disposal unit in every house and use the existing anaerobic plant available on sewage treatment plant.Otherwise the process will not work without substantial presorting of waste , no difference there from incineration except that anaerobic digestion is very sensitive to toxic materials which mayu not be as obvious as the material that would cause problems in incineration
Buit you obviously have a closed mind when it comes to incineration despite its safe use worldwide so I'm wasting my time