SIR – I refer to Councillor Blagg’s article on January 2.

Perhaps Coun Blagg would be good enough to explain how the council will be £400 million better off by investing in the proposed EFW only (without CHP) incinerator rather than continuing as we are when the unitary waste charge is to rise by £6.6m pa to fund this scheme.

As well as contradictory this statement appears to have no basis and is misleading since ‘the continue as we are’ option (ie continue existing landfill till contract expiry 2023 then reprocure same thereafter) was not developed, financially modelled or reported to cabinet for decision making purposes. Expensive termination and recontracting the same was.

He and other councillors on the cabinet have approved commitment to this scheme, refusing independent scrutiny when it has been drawn to their attention that this solution has been taken forward in preference to other technological options in the absence of a value based comparative cost benefit options appraisal to determine which is best value.

The absence of scrutiny prevents many Worcestershire councillors and the wider public being aware of this potential lost value prior to approving sanctioning procurement.

The financial impact upon the council and its taxpayers is potentially higher council tax and/or diverting funds from other service provision. The council remains unwilling to engage in debate on this issue.

Building the incinerator will also mean that the council will be unable to improve current recycling rates of about 40 per cent for the foreseeable future and will prevent the two counties from meeting the UK and EU 2020 50 per cent targets and will fall well short of many councils, some of which already achieve 70 per cent.

Council taxpayers are entitled to an explanation though.

PAUL MITCHELL

Herefordshire