A re-post from www.corporatewatch.org.uk - about another incinerator being passed.
We're watching the incinerator extension being built, and we know its insidious health effects. We know there are waste and recycling alternatives, that the dioxins produced will be with us forever more, and that once in operation it needs feeding with waste - destroying any genuinely sustainable waste strategy.
Isn't it time we began to think about getting the thing stopped?
We're watching the incinerator extension being built, and we know its insidious health effects. We know there are waste and recycling alternatives, that the dioxins produced will be with us forever more, and that once in operation it needs feeding with waste - destroying any genuinely sustainable waste strategy.
Isn't it time we began to think about getting the thing stopped?
As the general election approaches a timely reminder comes from Slough about who really runs the country. May 2004 : councillors elected on a platform to oppose a proposed waste incinerator. December 2004: councillors decide...not to block planning permission. Democracy rules OK? Not quite.
Since June 2000, when the Borough Council gave the go-ahead to Grundon Waste Management Ltd to build a waste incinerator in the Colnbrook area of Slough, a broad-based campaign arose to unseat the then ruling Labour administration (see 'A Burning Issue', Corporate Watch news, August 2004). The newly elected dominant group of councillors, BILLD, a coalition between Liberals, Conservatives and Independents, however, has proven to be no better at withstanding pressure from Grundon than the previous administration. Although pledges to act against the incinerator formed part of most councillors' election promises, at an Extraordinary general Meeting on 8th December 2004, the majority voted to not refuse planning permission. The reason for this? Campaigners are blaming both a lack of political will, and also a web of influence in favour of the proposed chimneys. The political will seemed to vanish after receiving legal advice on the status of Grundon's application.
This legal advice, given by Lord Kingsland, Conservative Shadow Lord Chancellor, was interpreted by some of the council's officers as implying that Slough council could be liable for a claim of £200 million from Grundon if they blocked the incinerator. The corporation has claimed that it will lose £20 million in building costs already spent, and over £125 million from loss of revenue. This exaggerated figure is not backed up with reference to specific contracts. Local campaigners have emphasised that issues of compensation or corporate welfare should not outweigh the massive health risks that will be faced by millions across the South East of England if the development goes ahead.
Many of the council's permanent staff who are so worried about Grundon's claim for loss of profits are the same officers who were involved in pushing the original incinerator plan through in 2000, and legal advice to the council from James Wooley has claimed that 'it is invidious to expect officers, who may have been responsible for the scrutiny of the EfW [energy from waste – incineration] project and may have felt the project thoroughly worthwhile, to criticise their own work with the diligent eye of an antagonist.' Nevertheless, the figure of '£200 million' was pulled out by officers at every opportunity to panic councillors into a decision, including notes being passed around at the Extraordinary General Meeting in December where the decision was made not to revoke planning permission.
This development has been criticised strongly by Independent Councillor Paul Janik, who has subsequently been expelled from the BILLD group. The idea that, because of the risks of the '£200m illion' fine councillors had no choice but to accept the planned waste plant has also been refuted by long-time campaigner and ex-councillor Margaret Stoklosinski, who points out that surcharging -- whereby councillors are made financially responsible and bankrupted – has been abolished by the Local Government Act of 2000.
There are shades of 'Yes Minister', here -- in which the civil servant Sir Humphrey used his superior knowledge of procedure to manipulate his newly elected minister. New councillors are likewise faced with reams of new and conflicting information and look to the local civil servants to interpret it for them. The underlying assumptions and sympathies of the council officers are therefore as important-- or more -- important as the desires of those democratically elected.
So what does cause the lawmakers to take notice? Based on research on the passing of environmental bills through the US Congress, Jon Agnone, a UW sociology doctoral student, has claimed that, 'Contrary to conventional wisdom, working from the inside has not had much of an impact and, in general, public opinion doesn’t matter,' he said. 'Most people say they are for the environment and lawmakers say, “Yeah, yeah,” but they don’t do anything unless people start protesting. Protests amplify public opinion by directing politicians’ attention to the public’s interest.'
If Grundons eventually builds the incinerator, despite widespread and broad-based support, it will be another indication of the very real limits of electoral democracy, when faced with entrenched interests.
Since June 2000, when the Borough Council gave the go-ahead to Grundon Waste Management Ltd to build a waste incinerator in the Colnbrook area of Slough, a broad-based campaign arose to unseat the then ruling Labour administration (see 'A Burning Issue', Corporate Watch news, August 2004). The newly elected dominant group of councillors, BILLD, a coalition between Liberals, Conservatives and Independents, however, has proven to be no better at withstanding pressure from Grundon than the previous administration. Although pledges to act against the incinerator formed part of most councillors' election promises, at an Extraordinary general Meeting on 8th December 2004, the majority voted to not refuse planning permission. The reason for this? Campaigners are blaming both a lack of political will, and also a web of influence in favour of the proposed chimneys. The political will seemed to vanish after receiving legal advice on the status of Grundon's application.
This legal advice, given by Lord Kingsland, Conservative Shadow Lord Chancellor, was interpreted by some of the council's officers as implying that Slough council could be liable for a claim of £200 million from Grundon if they blocked the incinerator. The corporation has claimed that it will lose £20 million in building costs already spent, and over £125 million from loss of revenue. This exaggerated figure is not backed up with reference to specific contracts. Local campaigners have emphasised that issues of compensation or corporate welfare should not outweigh the massive health risks that will be faced by millions across the South East of England if the development goes ahead.
Many of the council's permanent staff who are so worried about Grundon's claim for loss of profits are the same officers who were involved in pushing the original incinerator plan through in 2000, and legal advice to the council from James Wooley has claimed that 'it is invidious to expect officers, who may have been responsible for the scrutiny of the EfW [energy from waste – incineration] project and may have felt the project thoroughly worthwhile, to criticise their own work with the diligent eye of an antagonist.' Nevertheless, the figure of '£200 million' was pulled out by officers at every opportunity to panic councillors into a decision, including notes being passed around at the Extraordinary General Meeting in December where the decision was made not to revoke planning permission.
This development has been criticised strongly by Independent Councillor Paul Janik, who has subsequently been expelled from the BILLD group. The idea that, because of the risks of the '£200m illion' fine councillors had no choice but to accept the planned waste plant has also been refuted by long-time campaigner and ex-councillor Margaret Stoklosinski, who points out that surcharging -- whereby councillors are made financially responsible and bankrupted – has been abolished by the Local Government Act of 2000.
There are shades of 'Yes Minister', here -- in which the civil servant Sir Humphrey used his superior knowledge of procedure to manipulate his newly elected minister. New councillors are likewise faced with reams of new and conflicting information and look to the local civil servants to interpret it for them. The underlying assumptions and sympathies of the council officers are therefore as important-- or more -- important as the desires of those democratically elected.
So what does cause the lawmakers to take notice? Based on research on the passing of environmental bills through the US Congress, Jon Agnone, a UW sociology doctoral student, has claimed that, 'Contrary to conventional wisdom, working from the inside has not had much of an impact and, in general, public opinion doesn’t matter,' he said. 'Most people say they are for the environment and lawmakers say, “Yeah, yeah,” but they don’t do anything unless people start protesting. Protests amplify public opinion by directing politicians’ attention to the public’s interest.'
If Grundons eventually builds the incinerator, despite widespread and broad-based support, it will be another indication of the very real limits of electoral democracy, when faced with entrenched interests.
e-mail:
