Login Register

Incinerator consultants paid almost £50,000 by county council

By jrmaidment  |  Posted: November 22, 2012

Comments (0)

A CONSULTANCY firm advising Gloucestershire County Council on its proposals to build an incinerator in Javelin Park has been paid nearly £50,000 in fees. 

The county council's Conservative administration defended itself against claims of 'cronyism' at a meeting on Wednesday after the bill for the consultants was revealed. 

The authority has paid £48,510 to BPP Consulting.

Conservative members told their peers that BPP Consulting was given the job of helping prepare the council's incinerator planning application because of its expert knowledge in the field. 

Related content

The county council sealed its deal with Urbaser Balfour Beatty to build the controversial incinerator in September, inking a 25-year contract with the firm. 

Read more from Gloucester Citizen

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters
  • Cllr_Ian  |  November 26 2012, 4:43PM

    Dear All Many comments have been provided you with referenced facts, real performance and costs of alternative cheaper and SAFE UK technology operating in neighbour countys. Jpatstarsmead has read the situation correctly with regards to the county council, the situation gets increasing desperate as they continue to support mass incineration against all the advise given by other councils and now the Inspectorate. Mr Bonkim if you want people to take your comments seriously you need to provide real facts and references, Bristol City Council have given us the performance of MBT in answer to public questions at full council, this cannot be fabricated in answer to public questions. You argue against the truth with no references to back up your statements, just woolly statements on other technology and the state of the world. Try to stay focused, the truth is clear, New Earth Solutions can provide a waste plant at a fraction of the cost of your mass incinerator, saving in the order of £200M and that Mr Bonkin buys alot of needed local services. Domestic waste incineration is outdated, expensive and harmful to health, the inspector has told GCC to think again. Anyone who wants the evidence, please contact me ... Cllr Ian Bickerton Tel . 01242 250 473

    |   1
  • Ysedra  |  November 26 2012, 9:11AM

    Jpatstarsmead, it seems highly unlikely that TiG are trying to prevent you from posting, especially as you've gotten away with calling leading local politicians liars without evidence on several occasions in the past. More likely that they want you to keep posting, and undermining the anti's position. If you are still worried about censorship of this issue, it won't be here, rest assured... http://tinyurl.com/c5boep2

  • Bonkim2003  |  November 26 2012, 12:09AM

    jpatstarsmead - good luck with your work on fusion. Has been going on for decades - and apart from the Hydrogen Bomb, was wondering what happened to JET. That was a long time ago.

    |   2
  • jpatstarsmead  |  November 25 2012, 10:46PM

    Bonkim, You are absolutely right about the lunacy of the way we assume our world can continue to work.... As Attenborough recently said... " Only two kinds of person believe in eternal growth... lunatics... and economists ! " I don't know what you are doing about it (other than participating in this seemingly endless exchange)... personally I am working on nuclear fusion... more likely to be of some use than all the mass incinerators we could ever build, and the cost of completing the R&D pales into insignifance against the cost of a few of Waddington's wheezes !

  • Bonkim2003  |  November 25 2012, 10:35PM

    jpatstarsmead - on a different track - at the rate mankind is consuming scarce resources, and that there are 7billion + of us and growing, and water, energy, and other natural resources depleting fast based on the 3 cecturies old economics and political system that evolved at a time when land, and natural resources seemed inexhaustible, new continents being exploited, new technologies being put use, and political systems evolving to what they are today. The system we live in is dependent upon continued expansion of the production, and consumption base, which as said is crumbling around us - yet unless we expand, there will be no tomorrow. In light of that our disagreement about waste disposal strategies or Stan Waddington's motives, or costs over the next 25/30 years, evem the visual impact of the EFW plant - disappears into insignificance. I suppose we all live in the present that we can visualize, and base predictions of the future in that light - the legacy for our Grand-children will be quite different from what we are trying to visualize. They will have quite different issues to contend with.

  • jpatstarsmead  |  November 25 2012, 10:09PM

    Yes, I suppose you do sound arrogant - but what most worries me is that you are obviously an intelligent human being, yet appear to have no care for stopping the outrageous behaviour of a few council representatives driven on by the personal crusade of one man. You may disagree, but THAT is the most dangerous thing happening here and, in our so-called "free country", it is unsettling that we the people seem powerless to do anything about it. I and the many others who are against this scheme have a very real point.. and we are right ! Within the bounds of what you consider fit for comment, you are to some extent right too... but the difference between our positions is that you seem incapable of valuing what we are about to lose… and entirely unprepared to take up cudgels to fight for it. That I find strange and rather sad. If you have grandchildren, you should be wary of the legacy which they will be left for them to deal with, long after Stan has passed on into history. (Hooray ! THe system has finally let me have my say. How interesting that it took so long to get around whatever traps were set ... !!!) JP

    |   1
  • jpatstarsmead  |  November 25 2012, 10:08PM

    Setting aside for a moment our concerns about the questionable way in which this outrage has been perpetrated by Stan and his cronies, it is true that some objections are based on emissions, but you having "no qualms that the plant will meet relevant EU and international specs" is of little relevance. There is negligible serious data available on long term effects of the toxins and other matter which this plant will dump into the atmosphere, and contractors have repeatedly claimed that "there is no proof that they are dangerous". The hard reality is that the burden of proof should be much higher... it should be provable beyond doubt that they are NOT dangerous before there is any possibility of this lunacy being allowed. On visual impact, your comment that "people learn to live with what they see after the event even if they don't like it first time" bespeaks a disregard for the beautiful countryside in which we are privileged to live... but then you are an engineer, (not a mere "arts graduate"), so perhaps cannot be expected to appreciate these things. Perhaps to you the largest building in Gloucestershire visible for many miles around and defacing the Severn valley with its image as well as its pollution simply marks progress and achievement…! I note however that you recognise the financial aspects of waste disposal in UK to be "a dog's breakfast"... On that at least we agree. Incineration certainly won't help, just as adopting MBT alone would not alter that situation, whereas a completely different and more intelligent (non-Brussels) national policy on packaging and waste recycling could possibly start towards controlling the mess we are already in. (one more to complete the piece...)

    |   2
  • jpatstarsmead  |  November 25 2012, 10:07PM

    At last… I have found a way around the thought police… ! Bonkim, At least you can see GCC is already "deep in the process and will suffer huge penalties if it goes back"... which is a key issue. We have always highlighted this as an extremely expensive way to solve the waste problem, but at every step Stan has ignored the rising crescendo of objection. Furthermore, GCC have now signed a ridiculous contract with penalty clauses which promise the contractors a handsome pay-off if the project fails in the future ... thus GCC are now entirely "in bed" with the contractors and, against public wishes, GCC have placed vast sums of public money at risk by their reckless pursuit of one out-dated approach with a faulty and dreadfully expensive business model. The next step I suppose will be when the £500 million projected cost is found (as usual with projects on this timescale) to have been under-estimated. Again, GCC will have steered their ratepayers into financial disaster, despite a chorus of public complaints long before the decision was supposed to have been taken. Getting this project called in by the Secretary of State is precisely what is needed... it is one of the things we most want to achieve ! (More to follow... )

    |   2
  • Bonkim2003  |  November 25 2012, 10:05PM

    jpatstarsmead - you have the last word. Good luck.

    |   1
  • jpatstarsmead  |  November 25 2012, 9:50PM

    Funny how I still can't add a proper response to the last piece from Bonkim.... Perhaps the system behind this comments site has been tweaked to suit dear old Stan Waddington !!!!!

    |   1

      YOUR COMMENTS AWAITING MODERATION

       
       

      MORE NEWS HEADLINES