MADAM - I admire your editorial optimism that the Javelin Park incinerator will be refused at appeal but I am afraid this may be misplaced.

Whilst it is universally acknowledged that the incinerator will have a detrimental impact on the landscape, the county council drafted its planning policy to say this would be acceptable if it provided a public benefit.

They argue that diverting the county's waste from landfill, thereby creating a £190 million saving to the taxpayer is the public benefit.

The calculations behind this saving should, at last, receive their first public airing at the Inquiry.

The crux of the debate should be whether the alternative technology of MBT will provide a greater public benefit.

The reasons being that the cheaper build and running costs afford a greater taxpayer saving; that with no burning involved the concerns over pollution are eliminated; that more recyclable resources are reclaimed from the waste stream; that the high calorific value of the extracted fuel will produce more green energy, and that the smaller plant required will fit inside a building that meets the existing planning restrictions.

Most importantly this facility would have no detrimental landscape impact.

But is it likely that the county will pay for a credible robust expert on MBT to put forward this case, when for the past decade they have championed incineration as the one and only solution?

This task will fall to Glosvain and its allies, who will be astounded at the ferocity with which the county council funded QC for UBB will attack MBT as untried, untested and uncosted theoretical pie in the sky.

Common sense, and the SNJ, may indicate refusal, but with so much taxpayers' resources behind it, and the ability for the county council to control both sides of the argument, the county council must be odds on favourite to get its way, and win the appeal.

Paul Berkeley Cirencester