<>

Alternatives to burning waste at the controversial Tyseley incinerator past 2030 can't be paid for "by the poorest", the council leader said.

City council leader Ian Ward told councillors today (May 29) that a report was being produced into the alternatives to keeping the Tyseley Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) running until at least 2034.

The council is currently considering bids from companies to take over the running of the facility until 2034 with the possibility of a further five years to 2039.

The decision to pursue a contract has been criticised by councillors and environmental groups who believe it goes against the “climate emergency” which aims to see the city become carbon neutral by 2030.

Campaigners have called the facility Birmingham’s biggest source of C02, and said the city should move to digesting food for biogas and increase recycling to remove the need for the incinerator.

Cllr Ward appeared before the council’s co-ordinating overview and scrutiny committee and answered questions from councillors.

Cllr Liz Clements (Lab) said: “I continue to have major concerns [about the procurement of the waste contract] and whether the course or action we are pursuing is actually consistent with the climate emergency declaration.

“Obviously we are focusing on the Covid-critical business but there are other things going on at the same time in the council and we need to make sure as a scrutiny function we keep our eye on those.”

Cllr Roger Harmer asked: “The contract which looks like it’s going forward with the incinerator takes us to 2034, four years after 2030 - which is the target we all agreed to with passing the climate emergency motion.

“There’s a very important point about - in this period - committing to things, tying ourselves to things that go way, way beyond the needs of the immediate emergency and potentially have an incinerator working beyond the end of the target we have set ourselves to be carbon neutral.”

Cllr Ward said a report was being drafted to look at waste options and the costs of those options and the report would be shared with the economy and skills overview and scrutiny committee.

Cllr Ward said: “We are well aware there is an issue here and what we have got to do is come to a sensible judgement about it.

"I've asked for a paper to be produced on the various options and the costs that are involved with those various options.

“We have set a target, that’s quite correct, but let me remind Roger and everybody else that what we actually agreed was we would aim for 2030 without further impoverishing already deprived communities - and that’s still going to be the test for me.

“I’m not prepared to see this paid for by the poorest in this city. The truth is it’s those who are affluent in the community who are going to have to bear more of the costs of dealing with climate change and building a greener future.

“We will bring this paper forward, it will set out the various options - and there are costs to these options as I’ve been saying.

“We will then have to make a sensible decision about how we go forward.”