Shore Road Waste to Energy Plant

Outline Planning Consent has been granted for a Waste to Energy Incinerator at Shore Road

You can access the planning application on the Perth & Kinross Council website.

The Planning Application (Reserved Matters) was refused on 24th November 2009

A specially convened meeting of the Full Council on Wednesday 24 March 2010 at 2pm will consider a report on the possible revocation of the outline planning permission.

See Below

Current position

Background

Summary of PKC Officer's Mistakes

Current position

The Shore Road Incinerator has outline planning permission for a waste to energy facility at Shore Road. The Reserved Matters Application was refused on 24th November 2009.

Since then PKC has obtained Counsel's Opinion and a Report on the possible revocation of the outline planning permission has been prepared by PKC officials for Councillors.

PKC is to hold a specially convened meeting of the Full Council on Wednesday 24 March 2010 at 2pm to consider the Report..

It is a great disappointment to learn that the officers have now concluded that the case for revocation is not strong and that their recommendation to the Councillors will be to rely on defeating the appeal and using landlord's rights with revocation as a measure of the last resort.

We want to stop this incinerator being built by the surest and quickest means possible, whatever that may be. Permission for the development has already been granted 'in principle' so Grundon are half way towards their objective of having full planning consent. All that stands between them and their goal is to win an appeal against the Council's refusal of the Reserved matters Application last year. It is quite possible Grundon will lose but, statistically, 30 - 40% of all appeals are successful and we do not think the Council should stake everything against those odds. Revocation of the outline consent would wipe the slate clean and is, therefore, the surest way to bring an end to this sorry and rather lengthy saga.

The fact that the Council own half the site has been known from the outset and, if they can defeat this proposal by withholding the landlord's consent , we are surprised that they have not acted upon this by now. If they can, of course, we would be delighted.

Background

This application was submitted by Holden at Shore Road but sold on to Grundon, a large English waste company, It did not come before the PKC Development Control Committee but was granted under delegated powers. The original application made clear (by comparison with another site) the size and scale of this development.

The original planning application was 05/02318/OUT

http://193.63.61.24/WAM133/showCaseFile.do?appType=DC&appNumber=05/02318/OUT

We called a public meeting on 16th April 2009 which was attended by nearly 200 people. There was anger and concern at PKC's handling of this matter as well as great worry and concern about the plant itself. Our M.P. Pete Wishart summed up at the end of the meeting and told Grundon they should go away - reflecting the mood of the meeting.

The Reserved Matters Application should have been decided by 3rd October 2009. PKC made another application to Grundon's representative for a further deferral to 17th November 2009. Grundon could have declined to agree an extension of time and elect to appeal non-determination of the application. There were confused signals on dates ranging from late October to late November. PKC started preparing its position on 6th October which did not leave much room for us to interact but we stepped up our media campaign in newspapers, TV and radio.

The Reserved Matters application was refused at the DCC meeting on 24th November 2009.

The Reserved Matters (conditions that must be fulfilled for full planning permission) were exceedingly trivial and it is most unlikely that Grundon could fail to meet them in full. Perth & Kinross Council having refused this application must have valid grounds that will withstand scrutiny when Grundon appeal the refusal decision. BGK CC believes that there are no obvious refusal grounds that could withstand such scrutiny.

At the conclusion of this meeting it seemed that the elected members, officers and objectors were committed to revocation of the outline consent which was confirmed by a subsequent meeting with PKC officials who said they were proceeding on the assumption of recommending revocation to a meeting of the full Council.

We obtained Expert Opinion which has shown that PKC has acted outside the law in the process it used to grant outline planning. Council officials acted outside their authority and numerous mistakes were made. Notwithstanding these failings the planning permission still stands.

To be as helpful as possible we allowed PKC officials to see our Expert Opinion. They have not let us see their legal advice on which their opinion is based. We have asked through FOI to see it but our request has been turned down so we have asked for a review on that decision. Therefore, until we see this and the officials' Report we will not abandon our belief that revocation is the safest route.

PKC's failings and errors are solid grounds for revoking or cancelling the outline planning permission and only cancelling this permission will ensure that the incinerator is not built.

There are no signs that PKC is prepared to admit its failings and it does not appear to be prepared for revocation. It is possible for the government to call the application in and decide it independently. However, we can not be sure that this pro-incinerator government will refuse the application

Revoking will cost PKC money. Fighting Grundon’s appeal will cost PKC money.

We have supported public meetings and information sharing. We wrote to every Councillor explaining why this application needs to be revoked. The Planners' illegal actions and errors are solid grounds for revocation. We have met all local M.P.s and are looking to urge them to get the government to call in the application.

There has been a comparison between the development at Binn Farm and this one.

Binn Farm's stack is 70m tall and the gas has an exit temperature of 140C. Grundon's is 80m tall with a gas exit temperature of 130C. The difference in capacity between the two plants is accounted for by stack diameter, not height.
A lower stack height reduces the visual impact. The higher gas temperature enhances the dispersion and allows the stack height to be reduced. Also, the higher gas temperature will reduce the incidence of visible plumes. One would therefore expect that in the city there would be low stack and higher temperature, whereas in the countryside there would be high stack lower temperature.
This demonstrates Grundon's general lack of consideration for the community. Grundon will always prefer their option since it will give them a higher operating efficiency.

Summary of PKC Officers' Mistakes

1 They mis-read the site plan, the local plan -or both. Consequently, they were unaware, until we told them, that over half of the site is in a Business Uses zone where industry is precluded. Even in the Industrial Uses part of the site the relevant policy states that permissible uses are only acceptable “providing the use is not detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area." The proposed use could not conceivably comply with that caveat.

2 . In our view the proposal is not even an "industrial use". In planning terms this hinges on a document called "the Use Classes Order 1997" and we regard the proposal as what is known as a sui generis use meaning, simply, that it does not fit into any of the categories of use defined in that document. PKC officers are denying this because it is another mistake they don't want to admit to. Furthermore, for that reason and the reasons given in 1 above, they should have flagged this up as a "significant departure to the development plan". The fact that it is a significant departure to the DP, combined with the fact that PKC owns half of the site means that they should have referred the application to the Scottish Government - which they failed to do. That is the reason Roy Martin QC and Stephen O'Rourke Advocate concluded that the subsequent outline consent issued by the officers was "unlawful".
There are two other major incinerator developments under consideration elsewhere in Scotland at the moment - Invergordon and Peterhead. In both cases they are on proper industrial sites but the councils involved - Highland and Aberdeenshire - have ruled that the uses are, as we have claimed sui generis and significant departures to the development plan. Perhaps everybody's wrong except PKC ?

3. The Environmental Impact Regulations require that planning applications for this type of development must be accompanied by an Environmental Statement showing how possible environmental issues have been adressed. Officers processed the application without asking for one and did not even specify as a condition on the outline consent that one be submitted with the current, reserved matters application. Grundon have submitted one but it was not a legal requirement set out in their consent.

4. At the time when the outline application was submitted (2005) PKC had a scheme of delegation which empowered the planners to determine planning applications with a series of exceptions which needed to be determined by the Development Control Committee. The very first of those exceptions was if the application is " of major land use or economic significance to Perth and Kinross or adjoining authorities." The officers concluded it was none of those things and issued a consent claiming delegated powers. From submission to consent was 11 weeks which is a very short space of time for any consent to be issued. They issued the consent despite written advice from SEPA that there was inadequate information. They failed to notify Historic Scotland despite the fact that Perth Prison is a category A listed buildng and adjoins the site.

These are the main errors.

Shore Road Waste to Energy Plant

Outline Planning Consent has been granted for a Waste to Energy Incinerator at Shore Road

The Planning Application (Reserved Matters) was refused on 24th November 2009

A specially convened meeting of the Full Council on Wednesday 24 March 2010 at 2pm will consider a report on the possible revocation of the outline planning permission.

See Below

Current position

Background

Summary of PKC Officer's Mistakes

Related documents

Current position

Background

Summary of PKC Officers' Mistakes

Related documents