IT has been good to work with Andie Harper (letters, March 5), as residents and politicians fought to get Arpley tip closed.

But he and I were both there at the recent inquiry when the lawyers for tip operators FCC and for the council explained (in Latin and English) the legal principle that you can’t go to a different court to get a different result for the same case.

In other words, the previous inquiry said that there was still a need for landfill, mainly for Merseyside’s waste, for a couple of years – despite the harm caused to residents’ lives – but once Merseyside’s new waste recovery centre opened, that need would end, and the harm caused would then outweigh the company’s plans to carry on taking waste from elsewhere for many more years.

Once secretary of state Eric Pickles endorsed the inquiry report, it effectively became the law.

FCC Waste changed its application for a five-year extension to match the first inquiry decision that the tip must close by October 31, 2017 (and the chances are it will be sooner).

For the council not to accept the deal would have been judged unreasonable and probably cost the council a six-figure sum in legal costs.

So I’m at a loss to understand why people would not vote for those who’ve been most involved in getting Arpley closed just because they did not attend the latest inquiry.

Would you vote instead for people who have had no involvement at all?

CLLR STEVE PARISH
Labour, Bewsey and Whitecross ward