Request to Revoke Shore Road Consent

We have obtained an Opinion from a Q.C. experienced in planning matters. Having considered it we have written to PKC to ask them to revoke  the consent for an incinerator at Shore Road.

We issued a press release

 Word file: Press Statement on Revocation August 2009(28KB)

Also see the PA's front page and go to these links

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8213662.stm
 
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2009/08/21/newsstory13650752t0.asp
 
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/tayside/117383-incinerator-planning-procedure-not-followed-it-is-claimed/

 Let's look at what has happened.
 
1.   PKC failed to apply the law and identify that the original application should have been subject to EIA regulations
2.    As a result PKC did not declare this to be a major land use application and incorrectly decided this under delegated powers
3.    PKC failed to notify the Scottish Ministers when part of the land is owned by the council
4.    PKC subsequently determined this application unlawfully and placed little or no constraints on the development.
5    PKC then provided an Opinion which said it was an EIA Schedule 2 but then said in the same document that it was 90,000 tonnes which is Schedule 1
6    During 2008 Officers, in writing, led us all to believe that the REM application would be thrown out if it did not comply with the Outline Application which included the content of the supporting information.  They were legally wrong again.
7.    PKC has now renumbered this application AMM which legally DECLARES that it is now Schedule 1.  It is not merely a change of number under the new regulations.

Our fear is that if the reserved matters application is determined by PKC, and presumably rejected, Grundon will take the matter to appeal which would be decided by a Planning Reporter who may grant consent.

The conditions attached to the outline consent were “thin” and only cover layout, design and external appearance, means of access and parking.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should have been obtained for the outline application but it wasn’t and was only carried out retrospectively in 2008.  In respect of the EIA, the Opinion we obtained  indicates that it may be possible to refuse the current application "if any one or more of these impacts is judged to have an unacceptable impact on the environment which cannot be sufficiently mitigated". 

However, it is our view that this may prove difficult, as Grundon in their environmental statement have considered all EIA impacts as requested by PKC, and have put forward expert arguments for mitigation in every respect. The planning reporter will place considerable emphasis that the principle has been established by the grant of outline consent.

The application could be called in by the Scottish Ministers but would face the same issue.

It is our view that the only course of action now is for Perth & Kinross Council to revoke the outline consent.  It is the only safe route.  There are substantial and material grounds for the Council to take this action.  The granting of outline consent was grossly wrong and likely to be damaging to the wider public interest. The cost of compensation is a cost which the community of Perth may have to suffer as a consequence of the errors made by the Council, as the local planning authority, in granting outline consent.

Revocation will allow Grundon to submit a new application.  This is fair and equitable to both Grundon and the citizens of Perth .  Such an application can then be subject to a full and proper scrutiny which has not been carried out in the case of the outline application.

We are glad that others are joining this campaign. We remain very grateful to our M.P. Pete Wishart for his unstinting support.