MP warns of incinerator compensation
Saturday 22nd August 2009, 6:00PM BST.
Shrewsbury MP Daniel Kawczynski today claimed Shropshire Council would be forced to pay compensation if it wanted to pull out of a deal for a controversial £60 million incinerator in the town.
The Tory MP claimed Shropshire Council would have to pay waste management firm Veolia a sum under a 27-year waste contract signed last year if they try to veto the scheme.
Mr Kawczynski said council officials had so far refused to disclose how much the cost would be, but said it was “vital” residents were aware of the figure to decide whether they would be willing to pay more council tax in order to prevent the burner going ahead.
A cross-party meeting was held at the Shirehall on Thursday between Shropshire councillors, officers and Veolia officials.
Mr Kawczynski said: “I am concerned about the incinerator and what I have gleaned from the discussions is obviously there is going to be a financial penalty if the council pull out of it because it has signed a contract with Veolia for the incinerator.
“It is vital to know what the exact financial penalty would be that we would have to pay Veolia if we were to pull out of the incinerator contract.”
Councillor Keith Barrow, Shropshire Council leader, said the meeting had provided a “useful” discussion.
He said: “We also explained more about Veolia’s obligations under their contract with the council, and about the potential practical and financial implications to the council of making changes to the contract, including landfill tax and possible Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme penalties.”
Veolia’s application for the energy from waste facility will be considered in late 2009 or early 2010.
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
the people who signed up to this contract should be sacked, PFI is never the cheapest option
Report abuse
Surely the councils got its priorities all wrong here ? This is a medieval battle site with a wonderful church near by a scheduled ancient monunment which needs protecting through the planning system, near by ditherington faxmill is rotting and they are spending money on NEW buildings, this is not what we want, OUR money should go on protecting shrewsbury’s heritage not destroying it with shiny metal factories
Report abuse
why has it gone far enough to have a compensation fee ? surely the council wasn’t trying to get this through prior to it properly consulting the people of shropshire?I dont understand
Report abuse
It’s called democracy! The voting public put trust in the council/parliament etc and they make decisions on behlaf of the electorate.
The dissenters can always put themselves up for election if they so wish and everybody else can then criticise them.
Report abuse
im not sure about this
Report abuse
this should not be allowed because the Waste Local Plan (which had been consulted on) has been ignored in this case, the specific site plan for Battlefield when it was developed from a lovely tenant farm to a waste site, specifically excludes mass burn incineration, this is the wrong technology for this site its too polluting and too close to residential area and farm land where the dioxins and furans put out by the incinerator would get into the food chain
Report abuse
I would like an answer from the council as to the size of the financial penalty.
Then I would like to see them come clean (for once) about why it is we would have to pay a penalty for the non-building of a facility which is against the local plan and has not yet gone through the planning process…
Norman, we could all put ourselves forward for election but the majority of us would like to see the repesentatives which we do elect conducting their business in an open way putting the interests of the electorate first.
Report abuse