YOUR recent correspondent who wrote about the parish hall meeting over the intended incinerator at Hartlebury, sounded very angry. She had every right to be – she described the meeting exactly how it was. The 150-or-so concerned people needed answers to the many unanswered questions.

It was expected that Mr Blagg, Cabinet Member for Waste and Sustainability, who is also councillor for Bromsgrove Central, and the officer from Hereford Council attended because they were knowledgeable about this proposal.

However, this was not the case. Amongst other ‘unknowns’ – costs were ‘unknown’, total budget was ‘unknown’ and the cost for variation to the contract was ‘unknown’.

The total figure of £1 billion for this incinerator has been quoted for other similar incinerator projects. Councillor Blagg has agreed that this was ‘very likely’ during question time in February this year. So it must be presumed that he was right.

Absolutely no justification for this site being chosen could be given by these two men.

In 2002 Worcestershire County Council stated that an incinerator could not be situated in Hartlebury due to various restrictions. Such strong restrictions do not apply to the preferred site at Ravensbank, Bromsgrove. No explanation was given as to why the the original preferred site near the motorway at Junction 7 was also overlooked.

Was Hartlebury seen by the county council and its waste company as the most vulnerable and less likely to be able to mount a strong campaign? The council have certainly spent huge amounts of taxpayers’ money in order to railroad this project through.

Or could it be that they didn’t want ‘another Kidderminster’ as this council had stated and were therefore desperate?

Mr Blagg stated told The Shuttle that the figure of £120 million was based on research conducted around a year ago. This was totally incorrect.

It has been reported that morale is extremely low within various departments at the county council due to cuts in vital services in order to save money (whilst dealing with waste in the most costly way – both to the environment and the public purse.) Government advice is that waste is not sensitive information so why is there such secrecy?

It is concerning that councillors may be persuaded to finally accept this proposal not because it is the right decision but because they are fearful of extortionate termination penalties, even though incineration is not the only option in the contract.

If built (which would take three years), there would only be seven years left on the contract. An open and honest debate and full scrutiny is therefore needed on the impact to the local and wider community. A thorough financial investigation and scrutiny into the existing waste contract and business case is needed without delay.

E JONES Old Worcester Road Waresley Kidderminster