Council must demand incinerator figures
WITH reference to the letter about the incinerator by Tim Howes, assistant director for democracy and governance, Plymouth City Council (The Herald, Monday, September 17, to a degree I can agree with the comment about detailed financial information not being in the public domain and the reasons why.
But it is ludicrous that those paid to represent the people of Plymouth cannot even see that information now and could not when voting on granting planning permission. How can we believe the incinerator was best value for money and that there were no other options that were financially viable?
It's about time someone in our council tackled this issue plus why an incinerator was chosen and why that particular site. Whatever your views on incineration, it has to be the most immoral and inhumane place to site it. One answer lies in the planning documents where it states "the primary purpose of the proposal is to produce power from a steam turbine linked with an incinerator". Didn't you all think the primary purpose was to solve Plymouth's waste problem? Fooled again.
Mr Howes says revealing this financial information could lead to a claim for damages from those who suffer as a result (obviously he refers to MVV etc). Maybe the hundreds of people who will and already are suffering as a result of this abomination should claim damages.
From Monday to Friday,
Come and enjoy our special menu at £12 per person for 3 course-meal.
Terms:
Not in conjunction with any other offers.
From Monday to Friday for lunch and dinner.
Subject to availability.
Contact: 01752 424381
Valid until: Wednesday, July 31 2013
I don't trust that the council could possibly have made the right decision without the full financial information – and isn't that what it was supposed to be about? Saving the people of Plymouth money? No, of course not – it is all about the naval base, and that is why the MoD agreed to lease the land to MVV, who will make a massive profit.
Why would it be written into the contract to specifically require the detailed financial information not to be disclosed? Why then was a clause not written into the contract to protect the people of Plymouth should planning permission have been refused? But that was never going to happen, as too many people had too much to gain – and not the people of this city, that's for sure.
Letting this disastrous decision be made without that detailed financial information is not in the financial interest of Plymouth's ratepayers. The council leader should demand to see that information and prove to us that what local residents are having to deal with already and what the rest of Plymouth will suffer from it in the future was worth it. Who is pulling the strings in this city?
L HAYDEN
St Budeaux
Comments
by LTW39
Monday, September 24 2012, 2:17AM
“it has to be near the water else how will they get the barges full of waste to it when the trucks are not enough”
by Mark2Plym
Monday, September 24 2012, 12:37AM
“The site was choosen because the Naval base gave it on the cheapest terms possible to get cheap heating. PCC unfortunately did not and still does not have the skills to understand contracts. When I asked MVV to tell me how much they paid the MOD to lease the land, they quoted - "It is commercially in confidence."”
by b_mused
Saturday, September 22 2012, 10:35PM
“It does seem that no officer or councillor in PCC know enough about this topic to defend their position let alone make such a disastrous environmental and economic decision in the first place.”
by willems
Saturday, September 22 2012, 4:31PM
“I would like to hear from PCC about this as well.In the meantime,if everyone contacts their ward councillors about this article.”