A PROCESS used to select the likely location of a controversial waste incinerator was branded farcical last night after councillors admitted they knew the identities of firms behind the bids.

Names were blanked out and locations hidden from councillors in a bid to keep the voting fair at a meeting on the key decision on Monday afternoon.

The idea was that they would be able to make up their minds on the business case for each site.

The county council insisted the procedure was “absolutely watertight”, but campaigners branded the system a farce.

At Monday’s County Hall meeting, cabinet members selected Viridor’s proposal at Ardley as its preferred tender for the £100million incinerator instead of the Waste Recycle Group’s planned facility at Sutton Courtenay.

But council leader Keith Mitchell said that, despite efforts to keep the locations anonymous, members had figured it out for themselves.

Mr Mitchell told the meeting: “Members of this cabinet read the papers very carefully. Most, if not all of us, identified the bidders from the information given.”

Campaigners against both proposals said the blind method had been a waste of time and money.

Jonathan O'Neill, chairman of the Ardley Against the Incinerator group, said: “Keith Mitchell admitted that councillors worked it out. It was like a school‘show and tell’.”

Callum Mackenzie, member of the Sutton Courtenay Against the Incinerator group, said: “It’s been a waste of taxpayers’ money and totally undemocratic.”

Charles Shouler, cabinet member for finance and property, said: “Like many, I was concerned about the process. I’ve lost the argument within the cabinet so I’m here to vote on the financial grounds.”

Paul Smith, county council spokesman, said: “Cabinet members were given agenda papers detailing each bid without attaching a location.

“Some members believed they could decipher which bid which was which in terms of location, although this was not confirmed to them by officers. Cabinet members wished to make this clear to residents.

“However, the decision was taken purely by weighing the merits of each bid against the technical, environmental and financial criteria, not on location."