I will not quit, waste plant inspector tells protesters
THE planning inspector appointed to decide whether a proposed waste plant in Sinfin should go ahead has resisted calls from campaigners to step down from the role.
Waste firm Resource Recovery Solutions (RRS) wants to build a "gasification" plant in Sinfin Lane to deal with the county's household waste.
After years of legal and planning wrangling, a final decision on the proposal will be made by planning inspector Alan Robinson following a 12-day public inquiry in June.
Mr Robinson chaired a meeting yesterday to set out the protocol for June's hearing and decide how evidence should be heard.
At the meeting, Friends of the Earth representative Dorothy Skrytek made a formal request that the inquiry be dismissed or that he stand down.
She said it was because Mr Robinson had decided to allow another gasification plant in Cornwall to go ahead at a separate appeal.
Ms Skrytek said: "There is a great deal of public mistrust of the whole planning process and we believe that many people are giving up regarding this."
But Mr Robinson said: "I approach all cases with an open mind.
"I have dismissed appeals against waste management proposals and I have also allowed appeals on waste management.
"I take each case on its merits. I base my decision on three things; what I hear, what I read in representations and what I see on my site visits."
He added: "I don't intend to stand down from the inquiry. I have never, ever been accused of bias and I trust that I will always maintain the reputation of the inspectorate for coming and looking at matters as objectively as possible."
Representatives for both anti-incinerator campaign group SSAIN, Friends of the Earth, Derby City Council and RRS were present at the meeting, where it was decided the inquiry would cover issues including risks to public health, the environment, traffic impact and local and national planning policy.
RRS holds a 26-year contract with Derby City Council and Derbyshire County Council to handle the county's household waste.
If passed, a central part of its plans would be the Sinfin Lane plant.
But the city council's planning committee turned on traffic and environmental grounds. RRS appealed and a public inquiry was held, at which planning inspector Ruth Mackenzie upheld the council's decision.
That decision was then quashed by a judge, who felt Mrs Mackenzie had failed to consider regional policy on waste disposal as much as local issues.
This left a final decision to be made via the second public inquiry by Mr Robinson.
8 Comments
by The home store
Tuesday, February 21 2012, 7:30PM
“so this is the same women that protested about derby bus station living on top the roof in a caravan where did that get her ????? may be she should site her new caravan on the land i might help the project get do quicker and stop spending pubilc money on stupid enquires and consultant fees ect.”
by DavidGaleUKIP
Tuesday, February 21 2012, 6:54PM
“I wonder how many people are aware that the US incinerator industry targeted the UK as a soft touch after effectively being booted out of the USA and most of the rest of Europe?
I wonder too how many people have asked the National Grid how much 'waste to energy' is delivered to the National Grid by incinerators? I have. Answer: a big fat ZERO. Not a single kilowatt has ever been delivered to the National Grid from an incinerator.
This is an industry that sponsored BOTH the Labour and Conservative party conferences, paid a minister with responsibility for waste strategy consultancy fees, and then gave her a plumb job when she left parliament, an MP whose husband just happened to be a key aid to the Health Secretary. Voila! Two birds with one stone and a waste 'strategy' diverted for the benefit of incinerator industry and the detriment of the health of the nation.
Our democratically elected councillors have been over-ruled by whom? An unelected High Court judge.
What price localism now, Mr Cameron?”
by Bath_Street
Tuesday, February 21 2012, 6:28PM
“Build it in Allenton...Allenton smells anyway :)”
by Derby_Stu
Tuesday, February 21 2012, 4:50PM
“I agree Hoosen, maybe in Nottingham, lol??”
by Hoosen_Fenger
Tuesday, February 21 2012, 4:32PM
“These things stink. I would feel very sorry for the people of Sinfin if this were to go ahead. Not only that, the stuff released into the atmosphere would travel for miles. I know it has to go somewhere, but it should be at a place where the impact would be on the fewest amount of people possible.”
by DavidGaleUKIP
Tuesday, February 21 2012, 2:59PM
“I was encouraged to receive assurances from the Inspector that THIS time it would be made clear to third party witnesses that they MUST declare commercial interests when submitting evidence. Presumably, that will include those supposedly environmentally friendly groups who have received donations from the incinerator and other related industries.
The inspector did seem to leave the door open for the Environment Agency's (EA) evidence to be questioned but too often we hear the old chesnut from politicians and bureaucrats "there is no evidence to suggest..." when in fact no research has been carried out (by the official body) to deliver the evidence.
The 'evidence' is stacking up now (though not yet funded for the EA who say there are areas 'they don't know about') that this is a bad soilution for the people of Derbyshire. As someone who is demonstrably not a tree hugger, I rely on the science and not the lobbied public relations of an industry that has and continues to pay politicians for their 'consultative input': http://tinyurl.com/83p5vwk”
by LittleoverSim
Tuesday, February 21 2012, 1:06PM
“For clarity the Cornwall decision wasnt a gasification plant it was a standard mass burn facility but both are incineration plants under the waste incineration directive. The inspector has only ruled on one other plant - that being the Cornwall case so he HASNT ruled in favour or rejected facilities in the past - only granted them as in Cornwall - a case which is currently at the high court !”
by Wafty
Tuesday, February 21 2012, 9:51AM
“surely it's better to have someone running the inquiry who understands the issues and is therefore likely to make a fair judgement - just because he has previously made a decision that FoE don't agree with doesn't make him unsuitable for this inquiry. If anything, Dotty and her pals calling for him to resign without due cause will if anything damage their case rather than help it......”