Campaigner alleges Town Hall blunder

A TOWN Hall blunder has been revealed over the licensing of the giant Arpley Landfill site at Warrington, according to an environmental campaigner.
There is a three month “gap” between the time when the licence runs out at the end of October next year and when the borough council’s contract with waste disposal giants WRG runs out at the end of January 2013.
According to campaigner John Mulhall, (pictured) this means the council will have to either extend the licence – which it does not want to do – or breach the contract with WRG, exposing themselves to the risk of heavy penalties.
Mr Mulhall discovered the three month “gap” when he submitted a question about the council’s waste strategy under the Freedom of Information Act.
He said: “Someone at the Town Hall has committed a major gaffe. Five years ago I warned the leadership of the council not to enter into a contract that ran beyond the period of the licence.
“But it appears that no-one was listening.”
The council’s strategy was approved in January 2009. It committed the council to reduce waste from 25kg a week and increase household recycling to 40 per cent by 2010 – both of which it claims to have achieved.
It also sought to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 and to move away from landfill by switching to a waste from energy plant within the borough.
But because of financial constraints, the authority has now decided to refocus on sending its waste to a waste from energy plant outside the borough – possibly at Stoke-on-Trent – when the contract with WRG runs out.
WRG, in the meantime, hopes to win an extension to its licence for another 12 years.
Mr Mulhall said: “Even if WRG fails to get an extension to its licence and there is no problem over the three month gap, the council will still need to set up waste transfer stations if we are to send our waste out of the borough.
“Where are they going to be? We will probably need two – one for the north of the borough and one for the south.
“There will have to be planning applications and there will probably be objections and appeals.
“Someone has not had their eye on the ball. Why hasn’t the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee been keeping a watch on the situation.?”