WESTBURY Town Council will be an ‘interested party’ at the planning inquiry for the proposed waste incinerator, meaning councillors will be able to take part in the inquiry, but will not be allowed to cross examine witnesses. The government inspector’s inquiry is due to be held in November.
The decision was made following a debate at an extraordinary town council meeting on Tuesday 2nd August where it was revealed that if the council opted to be what is known as a rule 6 party, they would be able to cross examine witnesses, but at the risk of being held financially accountable for any costs. As a result, this could impact the council’s future plans to deliver services and assets in the town.
According to a planning inspectorate spokesperson, as an interested party the town council will be allowed to attend and speak at the inquiry at the inspector’s request, ask questions via the inspector, as well as making written submissions.
The final decision on whether the waste incinerator can be built in the town lies with a government inspector who will hold the inquiry. This is the result of Northacre Renewable Energy Ltd (NREL), the company behind the incinerator plans, launching an appeal. NREL said that Wiltshire Council had taken too long to make a decision. A Wiltshire Council committee met last month and voted against approving the plans – a decision which the independent planning inspector, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, will consider at the inquiry.
At the extraordinary town council meeting held earlier this month, councillors discussed which role the council should take for the inquiry.
Cllr Matt Dean said, “I am absolutely against this council being a rule 6 party – our residents want us to fight this application with everything we have, but I do not think that being a rule 6 party will make our case any stronger.
“If we become a rule 6 party this council will be liable for costs and those could be huge – if we fail, we could face a bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds. I think we should be an interested party – we will still be given the opportunity to put forward our case, but we will not be liable for costs. As it is Wiltshire Council’s planning policy to oppose this incinerator, then we can let them do the heavy lifting and bear the potential costs.”
Cllr Gordon King said, “The burning issue really, is what do the people of Westbury want us to do? Do they want us to fight this with everything we have regardless of financial risk? If we were to lose a sizable portion of our budget on legal costs, will we be able to achieve what we want to do in the town over the next 10 years?”
Cllr Mike Sutton added, “I am in two minds about this, but I can’t see any advantage to being a rule 6. I think the disadvantages of rule 6 outweighs the advantages and we could find ourselves facing a really steep bill if this doesn’t go our way, which in turn would impact other projects in the town. Let’s choose head over heart in this case.”
Cllr Francis Morland, “We will not be liable for costs if merely an appeal decision goes against us, there would have to be unreasonable conduct. If we were a rule 6 Party and the planning inspector says we have wasted inquiry time on something that has already been heard, then we would face costs for that time being wasted.”
What aspirations for Westbury should the
incinerator is built?
Cllr Jane Russ said, “On the argument that our current aspirations in the town would suffer if we went for rule 6 and the incinerator was built, I would argue what aspirations do we have for Westbury if this is built? I think the inspector would take us more seriously if we went for rule 6 as it is our commitment to say, ‘We really do not want this’.”
Cllr Mark Bailey said, “My head says we should opt for being an interested party, but my heart says rule 6. Thinking about our plans for the rotunda and the library – does any of that matter if you can’t breathe the air in the town? I feel like we must go for rule 6.”
“Not weakening
our case”
Cllr Dean added, “There is a low bar for unreasonable behaviour in planning law. Things such as putting our case to the inspector may be unreasonable if NREL can demonstrate that those matters have already been settled by the statement of common ground, we could be liable for costs.
“We are not weakening our case by being an interested party and this suggestion that we will demonstrate a lack of commitment by not being rule 6 is not the case, that’s not the way the process works. Additional weight is not put on your arguments simply because you are a rule 6 party.
“We should be protecting our financial positions of our residents and this council. But if we do lose, life must go on in Westbury. Lead with your head – not your heart.”
The final vote was four votes against being a rule 6 party and two votes for being a rule 6 party and so the town council will be an interested party at the upcoming planning inquiry. Cllr Morland, who spoke at length about the specifics of why the town council should not be a rule 6 party, did not vote on any of the recommendations.
The planning inquiry is due to take place on Tuesday 22nd November. To see how you can submit comments on the incinerator to the inquiry, please see the story on the front page.
