10 March 2010

Charles Hendry has written to Councillor Matthew Lock

'.. We are the largest waste management and recycling business in the UK and we are planning to maximise recycling, composting and energy from waste. In Sussex specifically, we are constructing a number of new facilities which will open over the next two years. Beyond that time period, our use of landfill will be minimal and can be served by existing landfill sites ..'

'.. In such circumstances, it must surely make sense to recognise now that there is no future for landraise in East Sussex and that the plans should be dropped ..'

Charles Hendry Full Text of the letter - 10 March 2010

With all this opposition in mind one has to wonder why ESCC continues with their manifestly flawed policies; wasting everyones time and money pursuing unworkable proposals in the face of all logic to the contrary

Furthermore, would ESCC like to let us know just how much this whole fisaco has cost so that we can all see for ourselves just how ESCC goes about determining 'best value' for the taxpayers?

This is an important issue because there are concerns that these waste contracts with ESCC contain 'secret' clauses that could affect the outcome of the land raise proposals

Incinerator Scandal (Lib Dems) - '.. What we do know about the contract is that it guarantees Veolia a minimum stream of waste. If that stream falls below 300,000 tonnes a year (including waste not for burning), East Sussex has to pay Veolia a ‘diversion compensation payment’ – in other words, if the five districts increase their recycling levels, tax payers will end up paying more through ESCC’s compensation scheme! ..'

'.. Although the contract for the incinerator doesn’t have to be put to public consultation, the amount of detail East Sussex County Council has refused to divulge has led to deep suspicions about what is in it. This has done nothing to allay suspicions that the council has been trumped by the contractors (originally Onyx, now Veolia) who have got a better deal for themselves than the council has for the public ..'

References:

• FoE - Waste firm in court batle to keep disposal contract secret from residents

• FoE - Archived press release

'.. Veolia Environmental Services today lost its High Court bid to keep details of its £850 million waste management contract with Nottinghamshire County Council secret from local residents. This is the third time that information about the French-owned company’s activities has been forcibly made public. The judgment sets an important precedent for local authorities with immediate impacts for other councils around the country ..'

Friends of the Earth's Executive Director Andy Atkins said:

'.. The law gives the public explicit rights to see this type of information precisely so that they can hold authorities to account on major issues such as waste disposal.  Companies must realise that members of the public have a right to know how enormous sums of their money is being spent ..'

The salient points would seem to be:

• A member of the public has the right to ask for the information under the Audit Commission Act 1998. 

• That law provides members of the public with legal rights of access to all contracts, books, bills, and accounts of a public authority for a 20 working day period each year so that they can participate in the local audit process.

ESCC Freedom of Information Request - Decision Notice 14 November 2007

ESCC Integrated Waste Management Services Contract and Schedules

a. Could ESCC please disclose the terms of their existing contract with Veolia and whether this contract has had any implications whatsoever in respect of their land raise proposals?

b. Have any discussions already taken place between ESCC and any 3rd party waste contractors in respect of landraise/landfill?

This last question (b) is posed against the following background

Norman Baker - Newhaven Incinerator (Reference)

'.. it is a matter of record that the councils decided to enter into a contract with Onyx to provide an incinerator before this Public Inquiry even began. Whilst I accept that that is not currently illegal, it reinforces the view that the councils had decided what they intended to do, and no external voice would be allowed to alter that ..'