Prosiect Gwyrdd - unlawful - 25 years of debt

On the day Prosiect Gwyrdd led by Russell Goodway gets the Go ahead for Prosiect Gwyrdd..

South Wales WIN says:

This will prove a very costly day for taxpayers in Cardiff and the other Councils. Max Wallis added "The bureaucrats have forced through a 25-year promise to send wastes for old technology incineration, a dismal 22% efficient in energy terms. Cllr Russell Goodway, Chairman of the Joint Committee is wrong to say they will make significant savings from this project."

Anne Greagsby said "Much of the promised wastes are recyclable materials and we expect that increasingly stricter requirements on recycling will ban burning of them. Like other Councils in England who contracted for excessive tonnages of waste, future councils in Cardiff, Newport, Caerphilly, Monmouth and the Vale of Glamorgan will have to try and escape from this huge long-term burden." 

Response from SNIC:

 "Rob Hepworth, the Bishton-based Chair of Stop Newport and Monmouthshire Incinerator Campaign (SNIC) warned that this was not the end of the story. He said 

" What more can you expect from a cabal of profiteering corporate interests and biased officials  who want to impose waste policies on SE Wales that are at least 20 years out of date ? SNIC believe the decision is illegal as well as perverse. If it is allowed,  we will pay an unacceptable price in terms of  cancer deaths, increased carbon emissions, lower recycling and higher taxes on Newport & Monmouthshire people.”

SNIC Vice Chair Haydn Cullen-Jones of Monmouth added 

“We will  be sending today’s announcement to the European Commission as we believe it constitutes,  unagreed and hence unlawful, state aid to a private, speculative waste incinerator already under construction in Cardiff.  Sadly PG have settled for the next worst solution to landfilling residual waste and guaranteed £400m of taxpayers money into the bargain.

" Monmouthshire is already close to the 2025 70% target for recycling and hence will end up paying more and more per tonne of residual waste for the next 25 years. While incineration in the guise of Energy from Waste is so heavily subsidised, it is no surprise that other more financially and environmentally viable processes have been disregarded."

Contact SNIC - Rob Hepworth  01633 413253 rghepworth@gmail.com

Future future plans for a district heating network are total fantasy as the cost would be enormous  

5% Recycling from bottom ash with no market for use as aggregate for building materials 

Silence on toxic ash - where will it go? 

Produces significant quantities of CO2.

Long-term council contracts to provide waste for incinerators will 

discourage waste reduction, reuse and recycling efforts.

Viridor signs 25-year Prosiect Gwyrdd EfW deal

THE BIG ISSUES

Prosiect Gwyrdd contract with Viridor

Dear Cllr Goodway,

We believe that you as chair of PG take ultimate responsibility for the key financial issues being properly checked prior to signing the huge contract with Viridor.

The answers on two basic financial issues appear to be outstanding  

1. State Aid – the risk of the European Commission ruling the 25% WG subsidy to be illegal has not been accessed by Accounting officers

2. No updated Value-for-Money assessment has been made, neither by the Project or by the WG review.

You should be aware that the National Audit Office has just announced it is investigating three 25-yr incinerator contracts in England www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/defras-oversight-pfi-waste-projects/;

also that Defra withdrew WIC (waste infrastructure credits) last week for the Norfolk CC’s incinerator, putting Norfolk CC in trouble over their recent 25-yr contract  www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/defra-withdraws-ps169m-norfolk-efw-funding

You may have seen that EdF yesterday specified the State Aid issue as needing a decision before they sign the Hinkley Point nuclear deal.

We question that the Project officers are capable of giving appropriate advice on these issues and suggest appropriate independent experts should be consulted, eg. the WAO who are already considering the PG contract.

From Cardiff Against the Incinerator CATI 

To Russell Goodway re Prosiect Gwyrdd contract with Viridor

Prosiect Gwyrdd contract with Viridor

Dear Cllr Goodway,

We believe that you as chair of PG take ultimate responsibility for the key financial issues being properly checked prior to signing the huge contract with Viridor.

The answers on two basic financial issues appear to be outstanding  

1. State Aid – the risk of the European Commission ruling the 25% WG subsidy to be illegal has not been accessed by Accounting officers

2. No updated Value-for-Money assessment has been made, neither by the Project or by the WG review.

You should be aware that the National Audit Office has just announced it is investigating three 25-yr incinerator contracts in England www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/defras-oversight-pfi-waste-projects/;

also that Defra withdrew WIC (waste infrastructure credits) last week for the Norfolk CC’s incinerator, putting Norfolk CC in trouble over their recent 25-yr contract  www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/defra-withdraws-ps169m-norfolk-efw-funding

You may have seen that EdF yesterday specified the State Aid issue as needing a decision before they sign the Hinkley Point nuclear deal.

We question that the Project officers are capable of giving appropriate advice on these issues and suggest appropriate independent experts should be consulted, eg. the WAO who are already considering the PG contract.

From Cardiff Against the Incinerator CATI 

Letter to Russell Goodway but no reply

Prosiect Gwyrdd contract with Viridor

Dear Cllr Goodway,

We believe that you as chair of PG take ultimate responsibility for the key financial issues being properly checked prior to signing the huge contract with Viridor.

The answers on two basic financial issues appear to be outstanding  

1. State Aid – the risk of the European Commission ruling the 25% WG subsidy to be illegal has not been accessed by Accounting officers

2. No updated Value-for-Money assessment has been made, neither by the Project or by the WG review.

You should be aware that the National Audit Office has just announced it is investigating three 25-yr incinerator contracts in England www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/defras-oversight-pfi-waste-projects/;

also that Defra withdrew WIC (waste infrastructure credits) last week for the Norfolk CC’s incinerator, putting Norfolk CC in trouble over their recent 25-yr contract  www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/councils/defra-withdraws-ps169m-norfolk-efw-funding

You may have seen that EdF yesterday specified the State Aid issue as needing a decision before they sign the Hinkley Point nuclear deal.

We question that the Project officers are capable of giving appropriate advice on these issues and suggest appropriate independent experts should be consulted, eg. the WAO who are already considering the PG contract.

From Cardiff Against the Incinerator CATI 

Cardiff Against the Incinerator Statement Oct 2013

Statement from CATI - Cardiff Against the Incinerator 

 

“Judge Curran has knocked a big hole in Cardiff Council's plan to sign a contract with Viridor;  

in finding the company acted unlawfully in starting building works last July, 
action that Cardiff Council condoned by refusing to stop it. 

We look forward to the full emergency hearing, but in the meantime are pressing the Welsh government to withhold their £105 million grant on two grounds:

... that Viridor is not a fit-and-proper person to hold a public waste contract and

... that their £105 million is illegal 'state aid' until ntieid to and approve by Brussels"

We welcome the parallel action against the Welsh government by FOE

Friends of the Earth wants rethink on Cardiff incinerator   

viridor on trial 2-day emergency hearing at Cardiff High Court in December.

High Court judge rules for CATI

We win our long delayed application for an emergency hearing!  

Judge Curran agreed that Pauline Ellaway  is a 'standard bearer' for many other members of the public who are deeply concerned about the incinerator development.

He ordered an emergency full hearing of Ms Ellaway's case at which all issues will be considered.

The Judge said “the actions of Viridor in the first place in proceeding to begin works prematurely, as they did, and of the council in protesting only after being prompted by CATI, and then effectively condoning such conduct” raise issues of “procedural propriety”.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cardiff-incinerator-high-court-opens-6114519

CATI is pleased that the Judge ruled the Hearing should cover most of our points, though not the failure to consider impacts om the Severn Estuary (Habitats Directive assessment).

Dave Prosser of CATI said: “the judge slapped down the Council's assertion that our objections were 'unarguable'. Their planning committee had the legal case before them at their meeting in February, but led by their chair Cllr Michael Michael, failed to seek proper advice before they dismissed it, deciding then to risk public money on a court case”.

Max Wallis of CATI added:

“The judge has knocked another hole in Cardiff Council's plan to sign a contract with Viridor, with the High Court judge finding the company acted unlawfully in starting building works last July, action that Cardiff Council condoned by refusing to stop it.  It's a further reason for the five Councils in Prosiect Gwyrdd to question the £600million 25-year contract to incinerate excessive tonnages of waste.”

------------------------------------------------

We expect the case will go for a 2-day emergency hearing at Cardiff High Court in December.

Cllr Michael Michael (chair of Planning cttee) exposed himself in the Echo on 3rd October, railing against legal aid funding.  See our answer on cardiffagainsttheincinerator.blogspot.com and (hopefully) in the Echo or walesonline.co.uk letters.

Max Wallis   07714163254 - on behalf of CATI

Note that we continue to meet on Mondays in the Old Illts club, Splott Bridge.

Cardiff Cllrs £1.1 billion Prosiect Gwyrdd MISTAKE

OPEN LETTER to Cardiff Cllrs for the full Council meeting Thursday 28th Feb.

Why is this matter on the busy budget agenda this Thursday and had no proper hearing at a scrutiny committee? Cardiff Labour cllrs want to sneak it through without any debate.
Details and references down the page..

Prosiect Gwyrdd/incinerator – Reject Viridor law-breakers

For Cardiff Councillors to agree a 25-30 year PG waste contract with Viridor would be a travesty.  Council Officers admit the building work out at the Trident Park Site over the last 6 Months has been unlawful. Viridor rejected their requests to stop work.

Grave Misconduct Clause

You are permitted under the Public Contract Regulations, s.23(4), “not to select” Viridor for this“grave misconduct”.  CEO Jon House does not deny this – the officers should not be concealing this and threatening a £3million penalty if you do not select Viridor.

Cost Concealed- of Carbon Tax etc.

The Carbon Tax to be introduced in the next budget will start at £10-20 per tonne, set to  increase annually. This 15-30% extra is likely to fall on the Council under 'change in law' of s.75(vii).  Costs due to legal changes to exclude plastics will be high, as they remove the incinerator's main fuel

Over-estimating Waste Projections

PG wrongly says the waste projections meet Welsh targets. They ignore the target set in July for decreasing Municipal waste per person at 1.2% pa (30% over the 25 years).  They limit recycling to 65% for 25 years, far below the expected maximal levels of 90%.

Over-Contracting for Waste in Future Years

The report wrongly says (s.19)there's  flexibility to support 80% recycling (including ash).  This requires not 56 056, but 51 100 tonnes pa (Table D).  Taking last year's waste tonnage and recycling tonnage as base and including the 1.2% pa decrease mean  contracting nearer 30 000tonnes in the later years.  Binding Cardiff to pay for 25 years with no clause for revising down the guaranteed tonnage payment is irresponsible

High court challenge to Viridor

PG wrongly claim no planning and permitting problems for Viridor.  They ignore the High Court action started against the permit.  The Trident Park site being at flood risk, and Viridor's false information on incinerator bottom ash being ‘inert’ are both issues ignored in planning.

PG has thus ignored significant legal and environmental impediments – a proper re-assessment could score Veolia higher.

‘Best Value’ for Cardiff

PG claim this contract is good or best value, but they want to keep their project. Where is the  independent assessment from your finance officer or Auditor, or warnings about rushing to approve legal obligations and £250 million commitment without Councillor scrutiny?  The serious over-estimates of future waste tonnages have been referred to the Wales Audit Officer, Huw Vaughan Thomas.  It cannot be ‘best value’ to over-contract for waste 10 and 20 years to come.  You owe it to Cardiff people to require reliable independent scrutiny.

---------- ACTION POINT ---------

Do copy sections of the above to your local Cllrs, asking them to move that the item be deferred for scrutiny 

People can e-mail from http://www.writetothem.com .. just put in their postcode to find their Cllrs, click on name and use the e-form

Prosiect Gwyrdd Report to Council on 28^th Feb. 2013.

CARBON TAX omitted.The carbon tax to be introduced in the next budget appears to mean £1.5 to £2 million per year from the start of the incineration contract and liable to increase in future years. Will Cardiff be liable for all or part of this sum under s.75:

(vii) Change in law. The PA contains provisions to deal with changes in law and who bears any consequential costs that flow.  In certain circumstances this may be the partner authorities:

76. For further legal implications on key contract provisions please see exempt Appendix C to Appendix 1.

 Why is this important Carbon tax information not included in the report and why is the public prevented from seeing it under the ‘exempt’ provisions?

What of other legal changes foreseen, eg. the EC declaring that plastics must be recycled, and banning recyclables from incinerators?  Will future Cardiff Councils have to bear the costs?

OVER-CONTRACTING

s.19 says: “should we over-perform on the Welsh Government targets beyond 2024/25 there is also sufficient flexibility in the contract to support 80% recycling, including ash recycling.”

This is untrue,

First, total residual waste is reducing (~1.7% per yr) and the Welsh target is continuing reduction at 1.2% per annum. PG and Cardiff projections take zero reduction, ignoring the 1.2 set last July (in Municipal Waste Sector Plan).

Second, the WG target for recycling beyond 2025 has not been set.  The expectation (from the Env Agency) is 80-90% recycling is feasible with current technology, so levels at the upper level need to be taken into account.

Third, the 80% figure is based on faulty arithmetic by PG - see Table D

The 71 489 tonnes is based on 35% delivered to the incinerator, 65% real recycling.

If 25% is delivered to the incinerator (ie. 75% real recycling plus 5% ash recyclilng) the total is 51100 tpa.

This is10% below the 56 056 tonnes minimum guaranteed to be delivered

If the 1.2% per year decrease is included, the incinerable waste drops well below 50 000tpa.

Fourth, Cardiff’s waste is already (2011/12) below the base figure by 4.5% (other Councils even more) and is likely to decrease further as the fortnightly black-bag collections bite.

 Obvious demand: make the contract flexible, allowing the 56 056 tpa to revised down after say 5 years and each 5 yrs after, as data on decreasing waste and higher recycling rates comes in.

VIRIDOR’s ‘Grave misconduct’

Cardiff CEO has failed to answer if Viridor’s flouting of planning law can be called “Grave misconduct” – We presume the answer is – yes. The can therefore be excluded under Public Contracts Regulations 2006 Reg 23(4)http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/5/regulation/23/made

Criteria for the rejection of economic operators.

A contracting authority may treat an economic operator as ineligible or decide not to selectan economic operator in accordance with these Regulations on one or more of the following grounds, namely that the economic operator—

(e)has committed an act of grave misconduct in the course of his business or profession;

The Press report that Viridor and Veolia bids were very close. Moreover, the Council report misleads in not mentioning the ‘grave misconduct’ and that High Court action against Viridor’s incinerator is underway. This case includes substantial environmental reasons

# that the Viridor site is subject to flood risk, which the planning officers disregarded

# that Viridor gave false information that incinerator bottom ash is ‘inert’, so cannot implement the planning permission as it stands.

Therefore demand a further report that gives the legal and environmental case for choosing Veolia

Cardiff Planning cmte Shambles over Viridor Incinerator

Cardiff Planning cmte Shambles over Viridor Incinerator

Today  13^th Feb. at 2.30pm Cardiff Council planning committee considers over 6 months late a dozen applications to approve or reject Viridor's incinerator.  

Rob Griffiths, chair of CATI, will say to the Planning Cttee:

“This is further evidence of what a complete shambles council  policy is. They have a Court action against them for failure to act over 6 months against Viridor's unlawful construction of an incinerator. The High Court legal action is to kick off in two weeks."

“Cardiff Council will have to face up to the fact sooner or later that Viridor have been quite prepared to proceed without proper authority and contrary to planning regulations… and utter contempt for the views of local residents and businesses about the economic and health detriment.."

Adventurers Quay Management Company Limited and the 226 residents who live there.have written to County Hall today expressing support for Cardiff Against the Incinerator

High Court order to Cardiff Council STOP VIRIDOR

Case to force Cardiff to Stop Viridor's Incinerator building to go to Court

The High Court judge agreed yesterday, 7th Feb. to order "expedition" of the case..

Both Cardiff Council and Viridor opposed this, seeking to delay the case for the Planning Committee scheduled for 13th February.

Said Max Wallis for CATI: "This was delaying tactics.  The officers do not propose enforcement but approval of defective applications outstanding since August. This cannot rectify Viridor's unlawful development." 

Pauline Ellaway, a Splott resident who is fronting the case for CATI said:

"We are pleased the Court has rejected Cardiff's request for further delay, when they should have acted 6 months ago" 

CATI has repeatedly asked for enforcement action since the start of work on 20 July.  The law firm Richard Buxton demanded action again in December, when the officers agreed a compromise of taking the issue to the Committee of 9th January.  They turned down the request for an immediate Stop Order, on the basis that little work was to be done over the Xmas/New year period.

The Planning committee failed to take action** on 9th February, by chairman's casting vote, despite strong pleas from Splott councillors, Huw Thomas, Luke Holland and Gretta Marshall.

Papers for the 13 Feb. Planning Committee should be available later today.  But whatever transpires at that Committee, the case will be up in Court within 2 or 3 weeks.

--

** report on cardiffagainsttheincinerator.blogspot.com