Cardiff Incinerator challenge by CATI in High Court

NEWS FROM HIGH COURT    17-18th Dec.

The barrister Alex Goodman' case explained why Cardiff Council’s repeated delay to enforce against Viridor’s unlawful building work and failing to require retrospective permission was unique in British law.  Then Cardiff Council’s lawyer took 80 minutes, making brash assertions, some obviously in error. Viridor's barrister came in on Cardiff's side, claiming nothing wrong with starting building 8 months before permission, despite the Council telling them it was unlawful. There followed detailed argument on case law (Whitley Principles) then judge Wyn Wuilliams reserved his decision till later in January.

Cardiff council attacked over city incinerator

www.walesonline.co.uk

Cardiff council must “quash” decisions that allowed work to construct an incinerator to begin because they were taken unlawfully, Cardiff High Court heard today (17 December).

In an action brought by Cardiff Against The Incinerator campaigner Pauline Ellaway, barrister Alex Goodman told Judge Wyn Williams the authority had flouted regulations and allowed waste management firm Viridor to build in Splott when it should not have done so.

Dubbing the council’s actions “procedurally inept” he claimed the authority’s reports and consultation process were flawed and that it failed to stop work when it should have.

Mr Goodman insisted CATI’s “submissions fell on deaf ears because work was allowed to proceed.”

“No robust action was being taken in respect of development that was continuning apace,” Mr Goodman said.

Construction of the £185m plant started in July 2012 before planning conditions had been met.

Developers must “obtain consent and then commence works,” Mr Goodman insisted. “It is a simple sequence,” he said.

CATI’s solicitors repeatedly sent letters requesting enforcement be taken.

“Throughout the claimant has taken considerable action to encourage the council to take action,” Mr Goodman said.

“The council has always acknowledged it was unlawful and that the development was at risk.”

Despite this Mr Goodman said the authority allowed work to go ahead.

Petitions Committee acts over Waste Incineration policy

The National Assembly Petitions Committee held its 3rd oral session on petitions against incineration on Tuesday 29th, taking evidence over video-link from Prof. Vyvyan Howard of Ulster Univ. and Fellow of Royal College of Pathologists.

After questioning Prof. Howard, the committee agreed to:

• Issue a report on the issue of incineration of waste, and request a Plenary debate.
• Write to the Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development to ask him to consider the weight of support for this petition when considering the committee's letter calling for the Cardiff Incinerator plans to be called in.
• Write to those who have given evidence to Committee on this subject to seek their views on the modeling used to inform decisions in relation to Incinerators".

You can find Professor Howard's evidence on the Petitions Committee webpages (Item 2 of 29 May: P-04-341 Waste and Incineration) and see him answering questions from the Committee on the Senedd TV archive – click on 29th May.

His central argument was that official estimates of 'risk' from incinerator pollutants are flawed, giving single numbers when there is a wide envelope of uncertainty. The government relies on epidemiology, which is a "very blunt instrument". The research has not been carried out – both the hazard characterisation and exposures are very uncertain.  Those who present "unparameterised" modelling express an "opinion dressed up in numbers".  He explained exposures may be 100 times higher than estimates by comparing the Viridor claim for Cardiff of 0.24% of PM2.5 expected to come from their incinerator with the 17-32% actually measured in a small Swedish town due to a modern incinerator (meeting Euro-standards). The hazard of average incinerator PM2.5 may be many times worse than a power station's because of the toxic chemicals in waste and produced in burning. The very smallest (nanoparticles) fraction of PM2.5 are a worry as little can be done to filter them out and the volumes of emissions are very large.
[PM2.5 means particles smaller than 2.5micrometres, or 2500 nanometres, which humans breathe into their lungs. 
Nanoparticles means particles in the 10-100 nanometre range]