Concern over revised application for an incinerator in Perth, letter published in Perthshire Advertiser on 23 Dec 2011

(Return to main Perth Grundon page)

Financial implications for the council 
Dec 23 2011 Perthshire Advertiser Friday 

Dear Editor, – Outline planning consent, subject to conditions, was granted by Perth and Kinross Council on March 6, 2006, for the Perth incinerator development.

An application for approval of reserved matters was submitted to Perth and Kinross Council on March 4, 2009, which resulted in a most vociferous campaign involving the public and which was widely reported in the Press.

As a result the application for approval of reserved matters was refused by Perth and Kinross Council on December 16, 2009.

The Application was then appealed to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals on March 11, 2010. However the appeal was refused by the Reporter on four very specific grounds.

A new application for the approval of reserved matters was submitted to Perth and Kinross Council on May 11, 2011, which, as “the principle of this development has been established through the grant of outline planning permission”, now sought approval of these matters.

Also in their submission the applicant states that their new application is intended to satisfy the Scottish Government in resolution of the conditions, which were specifically indicated as the reasons for the earlier refusal of appeal.

The new application has reduced the dimensions of the project buildings and chimney and also provided extensive specialised technical information in respect of the proposed process, and as such my concern initially is that the revised submission may well now satisfy the concerns raised in the initial refusal from the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals.

If that were to be the case, Perth and Kinross Council would then be placed in the invidious position of the project gaining approval, despite the earlier refusal on their part.

The revised application does however raise a number of matters primarily in respect of transport details along with the overall plant process.

The main reason that the applicant has been able to reduce the scale on site of their proposals is that the Shore Road facility would only import waste prepared at an off-site facility.

The size and location for such an off-site preparation facility, which would be considerable, have not been specified to date and the traffic implications of the overall project are dependent upon this.

It is most imperative that such matters are raised as part of the planning process.

In light of the considerable public interest which surrounded the previous application I am concerned at the apparent lack of public interest and publicity arising from the recent application, although some community councils are active in the matter, especially as the date permitted for responses is very imminent.

I am concerned that if this submission is not opposed or censured then the Shore Road project may therefore proceed.

The only way for Perth and Kinross Council to finally put an end to this project is to revoke the outline planning consent, which they granted in 2006.

It may be that such actions have financial implications for the council, but these will only increase the longer it takes to revoke the consent.

Donald McKerracher,
Colenhaugh,
Stormontfield,
Perth, PH2 6DQ.