Slough Residents' Questions - 14 December 2004

 

Question 2
   

From: Mrs M Stoklosinska, Laburnum Grove, Colnbrook

The original planning consent was not properly granted as the health effects were not considered at the time and also the consultation was misleading and not extensive enough in proportion to the impact of the incinerators.

Since 1990 when the existing incinerator started its operation SMR jumped form 88 to 121. Also, the birth defects in Hillingdon were substantially increased.

The independent lawyers have been misled, for example, the officers claiming that in the vicinity of the incinerator site there are no "receptors" as they put it. However, a junior school and dwelling houses are situated about 400 metres form the incinerators' site.

Have you considered that it was ethical and reasonable to ask the Council's Officers to participate in the process of instructing the independent lawyers?

From: Councillor Richard Stokes

I believe and have repeatedly stated that the planning consent in 2000 represented a bad decision. It was a decision taken quickly and with no serious consideration of the health risks. That does not mean that the planning permission was not properly granted, as the recent advice from Lord Kingsland QC and Jamie Woolley clearly demonstrates. The report to the Planning Committee on 2nd March 2000 shows that some consultation took place and the report made some mention of the health effects of the Borough and the surrounding area. As was said at the Extraordinary Council meeting on 8th December, both case law and Government guidance requires local authorities to accept the judgement of the Environment Agency on pollution matters including judgements on health matters. Prior to planning permission being granted, the Environment Agency had already issued the relevant IPPC permit.

As yet there is no generally accepted evidence that the existing incinerator is the cause of the increase in SMT or the birth defects in Hillingdon. That is not to say that there is no health risk.

We have to accept that a bad decision is not necessarily an illegal decision, rather than criticise lawyers.

  27 June 2006