Shropshire taxpayers will not have to pay for fines and costs after plans for a multi-million pound incinerator in the town were rejected, a response under the Freedom of Information Act has revealed.

A member of the public had submitted a request under the Act to Shropshire Council inquiring whether the authority would be liable for fines and penalties from applicant Veolia if the proposals for the burner at Battlefield were turned down.

Some had feared that because the incinerator was included as part of the 27-year waste contract signed in 2007 between Veolia and the former Shropshire County Council, that the authority may have to pay a fine if the plans were later turned down.

But the response from the council shows that there will be no outlay from the council.

Meanwhile the response also reveals that an incinerator would be able to generate up to 8MW of electricity, raising £3.27 million a year from the sale of energy.

The person who submitted the request through the website whatdotheyknow. com also asked whether Shropshire Council would receive money directly from the sale of energy or whether it was Veolia who would profit.

The response from the council says: “Sale of electricity will be to the power generating companies and is the responsibility of Veolia. There is a revenue share between Veolia and Shropshire Council above a predefined threshold.

“The percentage split is considered to be exempt from disclosure under exception 12 (5) (e) confidentiality of commercial or industrial information.

“We feel it would not be in the public interest to release this information because disclosure may prejudice the commercial interests of the council in our ability to negotiate favourable rates in the future.”

The controversial £60 million plans to build the incinerator were dramatically thrown out last week.

Members of Shropshire Council’s strategic planning committee voted unanimously to reject Veolia’s development following nearly four hours of heated debate.

Veolia says it is considering whether to appeal over the decision.

By Russell Roberts