Tomorrow Cabinet will discuss the Scrutiny Commission report on the Procurement of Waste Treatment Facilities.

The report claims "the evaluation criteria and weightings did not favour any particular technology", and that "the project team are well placed to recognise and mitigate potential risks that may arise".

Why should they discuss risk unless considering an incinerator!

There is already mass opposition to any incinerator, whether at Shepshed, Bardon or anywhere at all! Quite apart from all the overwhelming environmental arguments against incinerators how could the county council consider spending £86m to pay PFIs for a polluting monstrosity that no one needs or wants. At a time of Draconian cuts such a colossal waste of money would be criminal! There are cheaper and much more environmentally-friendly alternatives to incinerators – Mechanical Biological Treatment and Anaerobic Digesters.

We are also concerned that the public will be excluded after item 17 on the agenda. Local government is supposed to be democratic. This project has been shrouded in secrecy for three years. Are the electorate to be kept in the dark concerning what is probably the council's most expensive project ever?

The main arguments against incinerators are:

Incinerating waste means that products are used only once then destroyed. This is unsustainable on a planet with finite resources.

Incinerators undermine councils' recycling schemes by demanding long-term waste delivery. The huge capital investment needed for an incineration plant means that a guaranteed supply of waste over 20 or 30 years would be needed for a profit to be made. This in turn undermines any commitment to reduction, reuses and recycling.

Incinerators produce emissions of particulates, heavy metals and dioxins, all of which are potentially dangerous to human health.

The toxic ash remaining after incineration still has to be disposed of in landfill. This ash is now being used for construction purposes. This has been turned into Foam Concrete blocks which have exploded when cut due to the metals remaining in the ash. Workmen have been injured.

Serious concerns have been expressed that incinerator bottom ash contains dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals and dioxins which can leach into the soils and pose a threat to the water table, food produce and human health.

Incineration actually increases the emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming compared to recycling and is a very inefficient energy producer.

Incinerators offer very few jobs. The recycling industry offers enormous potential for jobs.

Incineration is a much more capital intensive and costly approach than recycling. Incinerator developers claw back their investment and make a financial gain through their long-term contracts with local authorities. This means that ultimately the local tax payer is contributing to their profits while the local environment is degraded.

Increased noise and traffic. An average sized plant will mean at least 13,000 lorry loads per year, 250 per week, so will have a heavy impact on local roads.

Penny Wakefield and Alan Gamble, Ellistown and Battleflat Action Group.