Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Redmayne Bentley Stockbrokers Logo
Sponsored by
Yorkshire’s Oldest and Award-Winning Stockbroker
Share Dealing and Investment Management Services
 
 
Saturday, 22nd November 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

People 'misled' over plea for incinerator



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 May 2008
COUNCIL chiefs have been accused of misleading residents over controversial plans to build a waste-burning incinerator on the boundary between Hull and the East Riding.
East Riding Council has written to hundreds of people who formally expressed an interest in the facility at Saltend, near Hedon, informing them the application for planning permission by waste management firm WRG had been withdrawn.

But it did not
tell them the application being withdrawn was a duplicate – part of a "twin-track" application often used by developers – and that a parallel application still stands.

Robert Bottamley, of Thorn Road, Hedon, was one of the recipients.

He said: "Recipients of this letter might be forgiven for believing that WRG had abandoned its proposal. In fact, the information is entirely misleading. WRG filed twin applications, only one of which has been withdrawn.

"The question here occurs; was this badly-worded correspondence the result of mere incompetence, or was it a deliberate attempt to mislead?" Letters to East Riding Council could be left unattended for up to four months, he said. "But who knows; perhaps the officers concerned will be moved to answer this inquiry with more urgency."

The council said it would try to avoid such confusion in the future.

Customer services director Huw Roberts said: "The letter informed residents that WRG was withdrawing a redundant planning application. It's part of our process of keeping informed all stakeholders, that is those who have expressed interest, in the application.

"In future, when redundant twin tracked applications are being withdrawn, stakeholders will be provided with further clarification by the council's planning service."

Hull and East Riding Councils – which would both use the facility – gave planning consent last year but the Environment Agency later withdrew its licence to operate the plant following the threat of legal action by opponents of the scheme following a successful legal challenge to the operation of a similar plant in Sussex.



The full article contains 325 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 May 2008 9:36 AM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Yorkshire
 
Prev
1
Next
1

Claudius,

Hedon 13/05/2008 12:21:21
"Customer services director Huw Roberts said: "The letter informed residents that WRG was withdrawing a redundant planning application. It's part of our process of keeping informed all stakeholders, that is those who have expressed interest, in the application."

I'm afraid that Mr Roberts continues to "mislead". The letter sent by the East Riding Council's planning department did NOT, as he now implies, inform residents "that WRG was withdrawing a redundant planning application" - for the simple reason that the letter does not, at any point, refer to a "redundant" application!

It also is fascinating to note that I am elevated to the status of "stakeholder" in this matter. Previously, I was dismissed in a letter submitted to this newspaper by Cllr Symon Fraser (the Local Authority's portfolio holder for the environment) as a "ranting NIMBY".
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.