 |
From PRIVATE EYE 1st May-14th May
|
There was also some additional coverage that I helped instigate just before the election. Private Eye carried a piece on the latest revelations in the infamous Rotton Boroughs page. Councillor Nick Mattey has been excellent in exposing this stuff. As someone who quietly cajoled Nick to come out in the way he has, I am so pleased with the results!
Jim Duffy from Sutton Greens has written an excellent letter to the CEO at Sutton Council which explains where we are at now.
Niall
Bolger
CEO
Sutton Council
Dear Sir
Introduction:
I read
with some dismay, but not with surprise, that Viridor has donated
£275,000 to the Holy Trinity C of E Church Hall in
Wallington which is used routinely as a meeting
venue by Sutton Liberal-Democrats. The figure is so
high that it draws attention to the fact that the local Lib-Dems have
also been pushing through the planning application for the
company's incinerator and it makes one wonder if this, in some way,
is a reward for the council's co-operation in this matter.
I would
be grateful if Sutton Council could set up an independent inquiry
into the whole process with a wide scope allowing investigation into
any connected areas.
In
asking for this inquiry I would submit the following points:
1. No
other local churches or charities have received anything in the order
of £275,000 from Viridor Credits, the committees allocating
monies from Viridor's land-fill tax revenue. All Saints church, the
nearest to the planned incinerator received just £15,000 despite
being considerably less well off than Holy Trinity church
hall. Apart from the church-hall, only national-level monuments such
as Canterbury Cathedral and Glastonbury Abbey have received
six-figure sums. Although there have been claims that the money is
for the church building restoration, it does in fact appear
destined to go to the adjoining well-appointed church-hall, for
a car-park, landscaping and drainage. One must question the
justification for such a huge donation to an already affluent church
hall and how it is possible to spend so much on a
car-park.
2. I
understand the £275,000 was allocated to the church hall
shortly after the three Lib-Dem councillors of the Wandle Valley ward
had run a campaign promoting the Viridor incinerator. Two of the
councillors are apparently regulars at the Church. The third one also
sat as liaison person on 'Viridor Credits' at Sutton Council, helping
advise how Viridor money should be best spent. Elaine Drage, the wife
of John Drage, one of the Wandle Valley councillors is also an elder
of the church and, like her husband, a major sponsor of Tom Brake who
has from the beginning promoted the incinerator. It is now
public knowledge that John Drage (and Elaine Drage) has had
a long term personal friendship with Colin Drummond the recently
retired chairman of Viridor but it is not clear at what
stage in the promotion of the incinerator this declaration was
made. Apparently he did not declare this conflict of interest to
the SLWP, on which he served, until after substantial contracts had
been awarded to Viridor.
3. It is
believed that Viridor may hold some sway over the Viridor Credits
Scheme. Or perhaps pressure was applied here from some other
quarter. It is perhaps here that special emphasis of the
inquiry needs to be focussed.
Points
on the broader planning process:
4.
National Lib-Dem policy is against waste incineration. Many Lib-Dem
councils have fought against such planning applications on the
grounds of health-risk to the public and that incineration would
undermine recycling. It was in this respect somewhat 'contrary'
for Sutton Lib-Dems to support the incinerator.
5. At Sutton's
second planning meeting to decide on the incinerator the Chief
Planning Officer wrongly stated that "there's a strong
economic case" for a heat supply system from the incinerator to
the Felnex estate. This statement seemed to sway the argument in
a meeting delayed due to a split vote at the initial meeting.
However a London conference of waste experts called "Where
there's muck there's money" had previously unanimously
agreed that such heat transfer systems are not economically
viable. Also it was already known that the South East London Combined
Heat and Power (SELCHP) incinerator was not supplying heat
to local residences for economic reasons, despite the
incinerator being in existence for some twenty years. Recently a
Sutton Council document has come to light, through the Sutton
Guardian, showing the heat would be more expensive than from
conventional boilers, not less expensive as had earlier been claimed,
thereby throwing further doubt on its viability.
6.
Councillor Stephen
Fenwick has said publicly that he was coerced
into changing his vote to favour the incinerator.
7.
Councillors Margaret Court and Monica Colman also changed
their votes. It is not known what pressure if any was applied to them
and all the councillors and officers involved in the planning
process.
8.
Viridor has been tardy in implementing timetabled planning
agreements in Beddington Farmlands, due for transformation to a
regional wildlife park, resulting in the loss of some rare
species. Sutton council for its part seems to have let
Viridor 'off the hook' in applying these crucial habitat agreements.
As the unimproved land consequently had less ecological value this
arguably balanced the planning application in favour of the
controversial incinerator. Eleven local bird species were
defined as rare and important in Viridor's planning applications. Two
have now disappeared from the site, four are dangerously low in
number and two were predicted to colonise but didn't. Viridor felled
trees used by rare Tree Sparrows two years ago but this was met
with impunity by Sutton Council.
Lost
birds: Redshank, Yellow Wagtail
Dangerously
low in numbers: Tree Sparrow (Beddington is only one of two
habitats in the South UK), Little Ringed Plover, Sedge Warbler, Reed
Bunting
Predicted
to colonise but didn't: Common Tern, Ringed Plover
Summary:
There
appear to be numerous inconsistencies and opportunities for a
conflict of interest which need to be questioned and I believe it
would be best if Sutton Council could undertake a thorough means
to clear up what might to outsiders seem like corruption.
There is firstly the narrow question of how the Viridor Credits
scheme could possibly justify such a large donation to an affluent
resource which is so intimately linked with the ruling political
party. Then there's a wider question of whether suspicious-seeming
planning decisions could be linked to this (and any other unknown)
donation, or pressures or coercions.
The
inquiry should be open and transparent and, in my view, should be
undertaken by a local authority not involved with the South London
Waste Plan, or otherwise by some other entirely independent agency
with respected experience in this type of investigation. I would like
to see representation from the Stop the Incinerator campaign in
setting the parameters and agreeing the executors of the
inquiry. I'm happy to help with any aspect of the investigation.
Please
acknowledge receipt of this request by return and copy all replies to
Paul Pickering from the Stop the Incinerator Campaign (above) as
I may be off-line during the half-term break.
Yours
Jim
Duffy
Tags
croydon,
greenparty
