THE costs of designing an incinerator in Hartlebury could be paid by two councils if a private firm’s contract ends before it is built.

Worcestershire County Council and Herefordshire Council are negotiating an agreement to underwrite “reasonable costs” incurred by Mercia Waste Management (MWM), the company behind the plans.

Anti-incinerator campaigners have slammed the move and say they are angry that taxpayers’ money could be used to pay a private developer.

The councils decided it would be “unreasonable” to expect MWM to pay for putting forward the proposal if it then did not go ahead.

MWM had already paid “significant costs” when a similar proposal for an incinerator in Kidderminster fell through in 2001, Worcestershire County Council’s cabinet agreed.

The firm has a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) with both councils, set up in 1998, to manage waste for the two counties.

Under the plans, a £120 million energy-from-waste plant would be built on Hartlebury Trading Estate, on land owned by Worcestershire County Council.

A planning application has recently been made and residents have until July 2 to submit their views.

John Hobbs, Worcestershire County Council's director of environmental services, said: "While the cabinets of the two councils have authorised the covering of bringing forward the proposal to planning stage, the issue is still in its negotiation stage with Mercia.

"Any agreement for reimbursement, which would only happen if our 12-year old current contract terminated prematurely, will be incremental so that the risk can be managed and kept constantly under review.

“Mercia have agreed that they will not include the costs associated with making the planning application itself, except for the engineering and architectural costs related to the design of the facility."

Terry Harrop, chairman of Worcestershire Residents Against Landfill and Incineration (WAIL), said: “We are receiving feedback from taxpayers who believe it’s unreasonable to indemnify the costs of a private company which intends to generate substantial profits from the operation of this plant.

“They think any costs in obtaining planning permission should be borne by the applicants.

“We would be looking for an absolute guarantee that there will be no indemnity cost implications for the county in the event the application is refused.”

A spokeswoman for MWM said: “The planning proposal is MWM's undertaking and, therefore, the risk is with the company at this stage and not underwritten by Worcestershire County Council or Herefordshire Council.”