Revocation of incinerator outline consent rejected by council

Mar 26 2010 by Alison Anderson, Perthshire Advertiser Friday

A CAMPAIGN to revoke outline consent for a controversial energy-from-waste plant failed to find sufficient supporters when it went to the vote at a special meeting of Perth and Kinross Council this week.

Instead, the majority vote of councillors (27-8) supported a joint report by leading council officers advising against revocation of Grundon Waste Management Ltd’s proposals, which could cost the local authority a substantial amount in compensation.

The gamble being taken by the council is to kill-off plans for Perth’s Shore Road by successfully defending the company’s appeal to the Scottish Government against a refusal in November of a reserved matters planning application for the EfW plant.

And in recommending the revocation option be rejected, council leader Ian Miller pointed out that the local authority held “the ultimate ace card” by owning part of the land which Grundon want to build on.

Mistakes

Councillors agreed that serious mistakes had been made in 2006 when the outline application was approved under delegated powers.

Failings on a number of planning issues were acknowledged in the new report – but it was the way forward which was debated.

Councillor Miller cited two grounds for not proceeding with consent revocation:

l A reserved matters approval would be required by the applicant – such approval would be highly unlikely, even on appeal.

l As site owners, development cannot proceed without PKC approval.

Councillor Miller continued: “In determining any application from the developer we would be entitled to use the test of 'community wellbeing' in reaching a conclusion.

“The site of the chimney stack, the size of the building, public concern and the fact that all proposed building would be partly located on the council's property would all be taken into account.

“Therefore, we can be sure the council can prevent such a development.”

Cllr Miller’s motion also called for a further report being brought back to a future meeting.

His motion was seconded by Willie Wilson, but an amendment in favour of revocation was tabled by Archie MacLellan.

Describing the proposed plant as “an obscenity” he warned: “There is no easy or certain way out of this mess, but we should choose the route most likely to succeed.

“I do not criticise or condemn Grundon. They are a commercial organisation with a duty to their shareholders. We are a public organisation with a duty to protect our residents.

“I’m quite certain people would prefer to face a financial penalty now than to have the threat of this incinerator hanging over them.”

Bridgend, Gannochy and Kinnoull Community Council chairman Brian Raine told the PA yesterday: “We are very disappointed with the result and that Councillor McLellan's amendment did not gain more support.

“We do not feel that the case for revocation is undiminished and would have been the safest and surest way to end this very lengthy and sorry saga.

“Having had four years overall and four months since the meeting of November 24, councillors should not have had to ask for another report.

“Had we not fought this development so strongly we might well be in a position where this incinerator had already been given the green light.

“We will now prepare our additional material for the Reporter and will fight the appeal as we think the route being taken by the council is a very risky one.”

Oxfordshire-based Grundon yesterday issued this statement: “The matter of revocation was one for Perth and Kinross Council.

“Grundon have already embarked on the appeal process and we intend to follow it through.”