The resolution in question is lengthy and extensive and so I will address it point by point.

(a) That the contents of the Concluding Advice be noted.

The contents of the Advice were noted and all those who had requested information on the Advice were provided with such information.

(b) That the Council will not request the Planning Committee to consider revoking the planning permission in light of the current specialist and expert legal advice as set out in Appendix 1 to the report to Council.

Legal advice on the incinerator was obtained from two sources in order to ensure that specialist advice was available on two key areas. A barrister specialising in planning law was consulted and a lawyer specialising in environmental matters, including incineration, was also consulted.

The legal advice received from both these sources was identical in principle and clearly indicated that the Council could not revoke planning permission without placing itself at risk of bankruptcy as a result of compensation claims from the developer. The Council’s Chief Financial Officer has powers to intervene to prevent such a situation and in this case he had indicated that he would use these powers. There was therefore no meaningful action that Council could take to revoke planning permission.

(c) That officers prepare a letter for submission to the Environment Agency, asking it to test the Grundon scheme against the current emission and air quality requirements of the latest EU and UK legislation to ensure that the IPPC permit remains valid as outlined in paragraph 10 of the Concluding Advice.

A letter was sent to the Environment Agency on 15th February 2005 and a response was received on 28th February. The EA response confirmed that the IPPC permit remains valid.

(d) That SAIN and the Green Party be invited to make individual and/or collective approaches to the Environment Agency and to submit any evidence that they have to that Agency.

SAIN and the Green Party were contacted the week after the Council meeting and informed of all the Council's resolutions on this issue.

Questions on issues relating to the Environment Agency were also raised at the Big Green Day Out, and these have been referred on to the Agency. We are currently awaiting their response.

(e) That a meeting be arranged between the Leader of the Council, the Commissioner for Public Protection and the Assistant Director (Customer and Environmental Services) with Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, to discuss the implications of his recent decisions in relation to incineration.

Ken Livingstone was unavailable to meet with Council representatives personally, but a meeting was held on 8th June with John Duffy, the Mayor of London’s advisor on the Environment, at which the Mayor’s policies on incineration and waste were discussed.

(f) That a meeting be arranged between the Leader of the Council, the Commissioner for Public Protection and the Assistant Director (Customer and Environmental Services) with Grundon to engage in constructive discussions about waste disposal policies.

A meeting was held with Grundon on 11th March 2005 to discuss waste disposal policies and improvements to the proposed facilities. Grundon indicated that they were not prepared to cancel plans to build the incinerator because of the money that had already been invested in the project, but that they were prepared to make improvements in incinerator design.

(g) That this Council laments the conduct of the then Labour controlled Council when in 1999 and 2000 it could have, and should have, placed the interests of the general public including the residents of the Borough and those of adjoining local authorities first instead of pursuing the political agenda and interests of the Labour Party.

The current administration inherited the decision to build the incinerator from the previous Labour administration, and we would not ourselves have chosen this course of action. It is unfortunate that the campaign to oppose the incinerator did not begin until after the decision to construct it was made and the design finalised.

(h) That this Council acknowledges a brief mention in the Slough Citizen newspaper in 1999 of so-called “energy from waste” without any reference to incineration and the omission of the full and vast extent of burning 54 tonnes of rubbish every hour of the day and night in addition to burning 1.25 tonnes of clinical waste every hour of the day and night was both inadequate as a public consultation and a disservice to the residents of Slough.

It is regrettable that consultation on the incinerator was inadequate and reflected the priorities of the previous Labour administration.

(i) That an Open Day be held which the public can attend in order to debate the matter of the Colnbrook incinerators.

An Open Day and workshop was held as part of the Big Green Day Out 2 on 28th May 2005, providing residents with the opportunity to express their concerns and ask questions about the incinerator. Written answers to majority of the questions have been prepared and further answers will be available once responses have been received from the Environment Agency and Primary Care Trust.

In summary, although I am not satisfied with the original decision to allow construction of the incinerator, I am confident that the resolution passed at the Extraordinary Council meeting on 8th December 2004 committed the Council to the best available course of action that was subsequently possible. Opponents of the incinerator are pursuing an inappropriate course in continuing to urge the Council to take action to stop its construction as there is nothing further that the Council can do in this respect, and I would encourage them to seek more fruitful routes for their campaign.