Guideline

Council claim

Comment

2.11 output specification

The project requirements are specified in terms of service outputs rather than particular assets or solutions

Contradicted at 2.13 that the scheme will apply MBT technologies.

2.13 general characteristics

That MBT technologies are innovative.

MBT dates back to the early 1990s and may now be considered obsolete due to advances in source-segregated composting and plasma gasification of source-segregated unrecyclables.

2.2.1 planning

The scheme is consistent with the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy

The scheme ignores core commitments of the Waste Strategy.

2.2.2 sustainable development

The project promotes sustainable development and has been identified as the best option for dealing with Cambridgeshire's municipal waste. In determining this option a range of economic, environmental and social criteria were considered and evaluated.

The project actually perpetuates the throwaway society by making 'products' suitable only for disposal to air or land. The options appraisal was rigged by ignoring obvious sustainable options. 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the OBC (page 34 and 35) state that environmental, health and socio-economic assessments were NOT done.

2.2.3 diversity

The output specification ..ensures effective ..community involvement in the development, implementation and operation of waste services.

There has been no meaningful community involvement in the development of this PFI. This can only undermine public trust and future community involvement.

2.3.1 risk allocation

A preliminary allocation of all the foreseeable risks associated with the scheme has been made.

Appendix B (page 17-19) of this report identifies 36 risks which have not been considered by the Council.

2.4.1 options appraisal

A rigorous cost/benefit options appraisal for the project has been carried out.

The options appraisal was rigged by ignoring obvious sustainable options. The choice of preferred option was influenced by a secretive meeting with a local waste-burning company.

2.4.2 value for money assessment

A value for money assessment has been undertaken...

This assessment did not consider the option of continuing high rates of improvement in recycling and composting combined with future investment in emerging technologies. The OBC proposes to cut the regular annual improvement in recycling of above 6% (see figures) to 0.43% per year under the PFI, without assessment or explanation.

2.4.3 assumptions used

The underlying assumptions used in the value for money assessment are explicitly identified in the OBC.

See 5.3.2 page 48 which assumes a landfill allowance price of £100/t. Since the actual current price is £20/t this assumption causes the Council to rush the PFI process to avoid a ficticiously high LATS cost. The RDF disposal cost is set at a fraction of the true likely cost.

2.5.5 increases

The Authority has undertaken technical and financial modelling using specialist external advisors and is confident that the financial information contained in the OBC is as robust as possible.

Vast sums spent on consultants offers no protection for against politically-driven fixing of the options and the financial assumptions. See the above 2 comments on 2.4.3 and 2.5.5.

2.6.1 support

The project has the full support and commitment of the constituent Councils within the partnership.

Appendix 4 of the OBC shows that Peterborough City Council withdrew from the partnership on 6th Sept 2004, "confident that it would be more prudent to consider alternatives than to sign up for the PFI at an early stage". The remaining Councils have no choice but to go along with the PFI, according to the Invitation to Negotiate July 2005 3.9.3 page 23, "..the Authority will use its powers of direction .. to direct the WCAs where their activities may be inconsistent with the requirements and objectives of the waste PFI project".

4.3 waste minimisation

The Authority has demonstrated its commitment to waste minimisation and has identified the reduction in waste growth that it intends to deliver (see sections 2.8 and 6.2).

Sections 2.8 and 6.2 do not specify any reduction in waste growth. In fact the Council's PFI has planned for 22% higher waste volumes at 2020 compared to the predictions of their Waste Strategy.The initiatives mentioned by the Council are primarily for recycling, not minimisation. The Council's poor effort on waste minimisation is detailed in sections 3.2 to 3.9 of the Waste PFI Investigation. See also the The PFI is not designed to reduce waste growth, with "waste minimisation payments" being made to contractors regardless of their effort and effect (Figure 31 page 72 of OBC Dec 2004).

4.5 consultation

The scheme builds upon the priorities identified in the Waste Strategy that was adopted after extensive public consultation.

The scheme ignores the priorities in the Waste Strategy. The scheme ignores that only 2.5% of the public support waste burning to deal with rubbish (page 23 of Council consultation report). The scheme has stifled both the Strategy implementation and public participation. The OBC summary strategy implausibly claims that the public endorses a techno-babble solution which gives licence to the Council to do whatever they wish, "Integrated solutions that employ a range of thermal and biological treatments will be the preferred way to dispose of waste.."