WILTSHIRE Council has been ordered to pay the developers of the Westbury incinerator following its approval after a hard-fought legal battle.
Wiltshire Council say they have already spent almost £200,000 in legal fees fighting the incinerator and now an extra bill must be paid for causing unnecessary expense to the developers, Northacre Energy Renewable Energy Ltd (NREL).
NREL won the appeal case for the approval of the controversial incinerator in February of this year. The council say they are waiting for NREL to tell them how much they must pay.
Normally in a planning appeal neither side ends up paying the other; costs are only awarded if one side has cost the other unnecessary expense by behaving unreasonably in the eyes of the government planning inspector who decided the case.
The inspector decided the council do not have to pay NREL’s full legal costs for the appeal because their actions were only found to be unreasonable on two counts.
The inspector said in his report the first way the council were unreasonable was arguing the development plan, which councils use to determine which buildings are allowed and which are not, was out of date and therefore could not be used to support the incinerator.
But the inspector found no reason to consider the development plan out of date.
The second way the council behaved unreasonably was in their presentation of unrealistic and overly theoretical scenarios of how waste might otherwise be dealt with such as shipping it to a plant in Hamburg.
The council will have to pay costs for both these counts, which will be negotiated with NREL.
Wiltshire Council cabinet member for strategic planning, Nick Botterill said, “The council’s decision to refuse planning permission for an energy from waste facility in Westbury was made with consideration to the evolving circumstances of environmental, planning and climate change policy.
“There was significant opposition to this application, and the appeal process provided opportunity for these to be fully aired. We felt that it was important for the people of Westbury and the surrounding areas that we defended this issue at appeal, and that’s why we presented a statement of case to the inspector.
“Other than where external costs are generated – in this instance coming to approximately £190,000, through the use of specialist consultants or external legal representation – the costs associated with appeals are absorbed in the day-to-day running costs of the council’s planning service.”
NREL was approached for comment.
