Incinerator: ‘We followed all rules’

May 1 2009 by Les Stewart, Perthshire Advertiser Friday

A SENIOR council official insisted yesterday that they had “followed the correct procedure” over the controversial planning bid for a giant incinerator in Perth.

The local authority has faced mounting condemnation after the outline application, from Grundon Waste Management, was given the green light three years ago using delegated powers.

In recent weeks, however, the council has come under fierce attack after it emerged the £100 million incinerator, centred on the Holden scrap yard in the city’s Shore Road, would have a 260-foot high chimney.

It would also be capable of burning up to 90,000 tonnes of waste a year.

It was revealed by the PA earlier this month that an experienced – but unnamed – planning officer had given the development the go-ahead on March 8, 2006.

Perth and Kinross Council depute chief executive Jim Irons said: “I wish to reassure the public that the council's planning service has followed the correct procedure in determining the original outline planning application.

“It was entirely correct that the outline application was decided under the Scheme of Delegation.”

He pointed out that the council receives over 2,000 planning applications each year – and over 95 per cent of these are decided under their detailed and agreed Scheme of Delegation.

“This is normal practice,” he stressed, “and allows the planning service to operate in a way that meets the needs of our residents and businesses.

“The outline application for this development was in line with the council's Local Plan – it was for an industrial development on industrial land.

“The application was for 'an upgrade of an existing waste recycling centre to include a waste-to-energy facility.'

“This facility was to incinerate material that could not be recycled on site and was to provide heat to the nearby prison and electricity to the grid.

“There was nothing in the outline application that made it unsuitable for a decision to be made under the Scheme of Delegation,” claimed Mr Irons.

“Also, at the outline stage, there was no opposition to the proposals. The outline application appeared on the list of planning applications as normal and was also publicly advertised.

“But the council received no formal objections. If significant objections had been received, it would have been submitted to the Development Control Committee for a decision.

“The outline planning permission made it clear that matters such as the design and appearance of the building, traffic, access, noise and environmental impact, including any potential air pollution, would be dealt with at the subsequent reserved matters stage.”

Mr Irons also defended the council’s decision not to take part in a recent public meeting organised by the local community council when the controversial proposals were debated.

He explained that the council had now received a planning application seeking consent for the details of a proposed energy from waste plant on Shore Road.

“As this application is currently being assessed by the council's planning service, it would have been inappropriate for officers to be involved in any public discussions of the proposal.

“In assessing the application, planning officers have to take account of formal objections or comments received and the developer's formal responses to any issues raised.

“The public meeting was for the developer to describe the proposals and to answer questions.

“That is why our officers did not attend that meeting. It is for the developer to answer questions on the proposals, not planning officers.”