Aberdeenshire councillors were warned yesterday not to “sleepwalk” into an £85million mistake by investing in an incinerator which could soon be obsolete.
But, despite some dissenting voices, the local authority decided to press on with the controversial scheme.
Members gathered in Aberdeen to discuss the region’s mounting waste crisis, even as the Press and Journal revealed the authority was considering cutting back refuse bin collections.
The focus of the debate centred on multimillion-pound proposals to create an “energy from waste” incinerator on the outskirts of Aberdeen.
The facility at East Tullos has been proposed in an effort to reduce the amount of waste which Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen City and Moray councils put into landfill; a practice which will be banned from 2025.
But during a debate on how the local authority will radically overhaul its waste policy, Democratic Independent and Green Group councillor Paul Johnston urged members to step back and consider all options.
In an amendment, the Formartine councillor said: “The council should receive a further report, outlining all options for materials recovery and re-use, including storage, re-processing and recycling, avoiding and minimising incineration and landfill.”
Mr Johnston warned that, by backing a report from Aberdeenshire’s infrastructure director Stephen Archer – which admitted the incinerator was not a “silver bullet” to solve the crisis – councillors could overlook other options.
SNP councillor Bryan Stuart cautioned that the Paris climate change deal, agreed by nearly 200 countries last year, could potentially rule out use of the energy from waste plant.
And prominent Green member Martin Ford added: “I urge you to stand back. We’ll avoid sleepwalking into something we shouldn’t do.”
However, despite the interventions, councillors voted overwhelmingly against Mr Johnston’s amendment to broaden the scope of the options.
Instead, they gave their backing to councillor Rob Merson’s motion to accept Mr Archer’s proposals which showed the incinerator was the most favourable option.
Mr Merson added he could not support the amendment because the council did not have the “luxury of time or money” in the face of a looming landfill ban.
He explained: “The recommendations represent the best way forward for now, but I do look forward to a constructive discussion.”