Revealed: What Veolia wanted to keep secret
TAXPAYERS in Notts paid nearly £22m to have their household rubbish disposed of in the last financial year.
Figures – which also show we threw away 420,000 tonnes of municipal waste last year – have come to light after a High Court battle won by eco-campaigners who wanted full details of Notts County Council's £850m PFI deal with Veolia Environment Services.
-
Campaigners wanted to know how many tonnes of waste Veolia has billed the taxpayer for in Notts.
Campaigner Shlomo Dowen, from People Against Incineration (Pain), hopes the information may yield evidence he can use at a public inquiry today into plans for an incinerator at Rainworth, also to be run by Veolia.
Mr Dowen, 47, of Forest Town, said he initially made the request because he wanted to find out how many tonnes of waste Veolia has billed the taxpayer for in Notts – and to investigate if we are overpaying.
He insists that Rainworth is the wrong site for an incinerator.
He said: "It's the wrong site and the wrong technology.
"This is a green field site that's to be restored to heath land and would be included as the Sherwood Forest Regional park.
"The proposal was put forward at a time when waste in the county was increasing year after year. But in the last eight years the quantity of waste has actually fallen rather than risen, so it's no longer needed.
"We feel more should be done to reduce our waste and to recycle the compost we waste.
"We would rather see Notts County Council invest in an anaerobic digester for kitchen waste and taking weekly collections of food waste," he added.
Figures obtained by the Evening Post about the 26-year PFI contract show last financial year it cost the Notts taxpayer:
£32.14 to deal with compost per tonne/unit.
£29.66 to deal with rubbish for landfill per tonne/unit when collected from a person's home.
£36.34 to deal with rubbish for landfill per tonne/unit when collected from a tip.
£59.75 per tonne/unit to deal with recycling collected from a person's home until December 2008. This cost then dropped to £23.07 per tonne/unit once the £14m Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) opened near Mansfield.
Veolia wanted to keep secret the financial details of its contract with Notts County Council for commercial reasons.
The council said it wanted to release the details and brought the High Court case last week. Its legal costs will be met by Veolia.
Mick Burrows, council chief executive, said: "We take our responsibility towards our tax-paying public very seriously and being honest, open and transparent is fundamental to that responsibility.
"We work with many contractors and are very sensitive to commercial interests. However, as a public body, we must ensure we comply with the law and are transparent and accountable."
Broadly speaking, the district and borough councils are responsible for collecting rubbish.
The county council is responsible for arranging for the disposal of waste. It also provides the household waste recycling centres, commonly known as tips.
The public has the right to inspect the council's accounts during one month every a year.
But Veolia took out an injunction against the council releasing the details after it emerged that Mr Dowen was set to obtain copies of the contract.
The Audit Commission and Mr Dowen submitted evidence to the High Court in London as "interested parties" and Mr Justice Cranston found in favour of making the details public.
8 Comments
by Debra, Rainworth
Tuesday, October 06 2009, 4:50PM
“David, This site has a restoration condition against it, which in part has already started. This condition renders it "Greenfield" - no question, obviously your facts are incorrect. Even Veolia have now acknowledged this fact, please checkout their literature, if you are local you will have received plenty.”
by David., Notts
Tuesday, October 06 2009, 1:49PM
“It's definitely not a greenfield site. A restoration condition is only a piece of paper, this can simply be rewritten if needs be.
Better to use the land for this than leave it open for minimotos / fly tipping etc. This is what will happen to this site if it is not brought into use. Oh, and why do dog owners leave their full scoop bags hanging on the hedgerows. Just what is the point in that?.”
by Mr. Sensible, The Real World
Tuesday, October 06 2009, 12:57PM
“Rainworth lad, I don't like the new government at County Hell, but fair is fair, and I don't think it is the Council who are proposing it.
But you are right; to import rubbish from elsewhere just to justify doing this shows that in fact they have no case.”
by rainworthlad, Rainworth
Tuesday, October 06 2009, 12:26PM
“At the start of the public enquiry, Today 10am at rainworth Village Hall, a lot of concern about the ecology of the site was discussed, and the fact that it is part of Sherwood forest and may be a SPA in the near future,it is already a SSSI, SINC and Local nature reserve, due to Nightjar and Woodlark as well as many rare butterflies and moths.Hence the planning condition set by NCC that it must be returned to woodland and heathland, and therefore "a greenfield site" which cannot be built on.
This is NOT nimbyism at all it is a simple fact, to protect our rare and protected |heathland.
Therfore NCC are contradicting themselves and propose building on their own protected countryside.
This is totally the wrong site !and Incinerators should no longer be part of our society.
Vile-olia, have said they will burn Commercial and industrial waste , and import waste from outside Nottinghamshire, if there is not enough waste produced in Nottinghamshire, and all at our expense.
Don`t know what planet dave`s on ?”
by Mr. Sensible, The Real World
Tuesday, October 06 2009, 12:05PM
“Hmm, when I first read about this, I was thinking about how this legal battle was an expensive waste of money.
But now, I am pleased that this has all come to light.
But what people need to realize is that it is partly our own fault.
Throwing away 420000 tonnes of municipal rubbish last year.
We don't need any more incineration; we need more recycling.
But perhaps if we threw away less or no municipal rubbish, Veolia wouldn't even consider this proposal.
So, whilst I am myself pleased at the victory, I say that if we didn't throw away nearly as much municipal rubbish, none of this would have happened.
People need to look at themselves here.”
by Steve, Rainworth
Tuesday, October 06 2009, 11:56AM
“Dave is WRONG The former Rufford Colliery site has a "Restoration condition" imposed at the time the colliery closed 11-12 years ago !
Which states it MUST be returned to woodland and heathland after coal sorting ceases, therefore it IS greenfield site and is currently under restoration.
Incineration is outdated technology and more modern, environmentaly friendly and far less expensive options are available which would increase recycling greatly and significantly reduce landfill at the same time....so check out your facts in future !!!!”
by m, gedling
Tuesday, October 06 2009, 11:29AM
“26 year PFI contract, its a good job that labour uses crystal balls to see into the future,
back to the question in hand , are we overpaying ?”
by Dave, Notts
Tuesday, October 06 2009, 11:28AM
“"This is a green field site ".
No it isn't, there used to be a stonking great colliery complex on it, called Rufford Pit.
People such as Shlomo Dowen & other campaigners actually cause increased costs to the taxpayer by bringing about ridiculous actions such as this. It's actually blatant nimbyism, but the campaigners are trying to use the court proceedings as a smokescreen to hide this fact.”