The Council notes the proposal by AAD (South West) to establish a plant at Lee Moor to process up to 75,000 tons of brown-bin commercial waste.  The process involves autoclaving and anaerobic digestion and was the subject of an exhibition at Lee Moor on 1 and 2 (12)April.

It is understood that the gate fee is expected to be less than £80 per ton, the capital cost is some £9 million and the expected time of construction is less than 12 months from grant of planning permission.

This compares with MVV’s gate fee which is understood to be in the region of £120 per ton with a capital cost of between £100 million and £200 million and a construction period of between 2 and 3 years from grant of planning permission.  Firm figures have not been disclosed.

Apart for the financial benefits, the environmental benefits are very significant. There will be no emissions, either toxic or greenhouse.  There will be no ash. Recyclates are recovered cleanly.  The product of the digestion will be in demand for many years for land restoration at Lee Moor and it is hoped that the product will soon be suitable for agricultural use.

The Council resolves to request the South West Devon Waste Partnership to think again about its future waste disposal options, given the proposal by AAD (South West) to establish a waste processing plant at Lee Moor.

?

the anticipated income for MVV would be reduced;

?

the scheme would increase job opportunities in the construction industry, secure the naval base and eventually save the City Council £6m per year;

?

in 2008, the three local authorities had signed a legally binding agreement and the outline business case had been agreed by Defra.  The authorities would have been in breach of the joint working agreement if the scheme had not been approved and delaying approval would have resulted in the loss of pfi credits;

?

if the motion was approved, there would be dire consequences for the business partnership, with the loss of heat and energy resources and potential challenge by MVV;

?

residents were unhappy with the incinerator proposals and that the Council were urged to consider the alternative to ensure that all options had been explored;

?

the scrutiny arrangements that had taken place;

?

concerns could be debated as part of the planning process;

?

the proposal by AAD had been looked at and that the plant was not large enough to deal with the waste from the city.  There was also no certainty that the plant would proceed;

?

the financial risks to the authority and its partners caused by the delay in restarting the process and breaching the contract with MVV;

?

CouncillorMrs Pengelly had the responses to the ten most popular questions asked at the consultation events and would provide them to any councillor on request.