Fact Sheet 11: Public Opposition

As a democratically elected representative of your wards you have a duty to listen to your constituency’s opinions. Since the announcement in July of NYCC’s preferred plan and contractor for dealing with diverting waste from landfill, over 10,000 local residents have shown their opposition by signing NYWAG’s petition.

While the public agrees with NYCC of the need to find an alternative solution to landfill and the need for further recycling and use of AD, there is massive opposition to the building of an incinerator. The public’s opposition is not based on political party lines rather its genuine disbelief that the County Council would be seriously considering a solution that is expensive and burns recyclable waste which has high environmental and health risks.

Nor is it just residents around the proposed site that oppose the plans as demonstrated by the widespread geographical area of signatories and the number of town and parish councils that oppose it (i.e. Skipton, Tadcaster and Northallerton Town Councils).

The public is not convinced by the arguments from NYCC and AmeyCespa for this incinerator and you could be committing political suicide by supporting its implementation. As the attached sample of the views of the public show, there are major concerns of the cost of this PFI project, value for money, impact on recycling, environment and health risks.

There is a danger that if NYCC approve the proposed incinerator then frustrated residents will make their feelings known at the next elections. Given the depth of feelings we have witnessed, we believe this is not an idle comment. Nor is there much hope it will be forgotten by residents if approved in December as judicial reviews and the planning process will lengthen the time it will be in the public domain.

Clearly the majority view of your constituency opposes the incinerator. We therefore urge you to heed their opinion on the 15th December and vote against the proposed PFI waste motion, or at least abstain. We will be asking for a ‘division by name’ so that your constituents will know how you voted on their behalf as well as having our own observers at the meeting.

Comments are closed.