REVEALED:
THE DOCUMENTS THAT THE COUNCIL TRIED TO STOP THE PUBLIC READING!

UPDATE: 2nd February 2010

After nearly a year of trying to obtain documents from South Shropshire District/Shropshire Council under The Freedom of Information Act we have finally received some documents that show to the world the real disregard that some unelected Council officers and their hired hands have for the residents of Bishops Castle.

To get to this stage we have had to:
A) Serve request for the documentation
B) Appeal the Council refusal to release the documentation arguing  that their reason for refusal was not valid and legally challengable
C) Upon further refusal prepare a dossier for the Information Commissioner setting out our argument for release of the documents. The Information Commissioner has upheld our argument and forced the Council to release the documents.

YOU CAN READ THE 'SECRET' DOCUMENTS BY CLICKING HERE

We believe that more documents exist and we have requested the Information Commissioner help us to establish this.

Read the document and wonder what else was kept from us prior to the Public Inquiry.

There are many indications contained in these documents that cause us to consider our next steps, some of which are:

1. There should be other documents from Jan 1 to March 10th concerning rules of engagement and terms of instruction etc for James Caird - where are they?
2. The Council's own representative stating that it is more than possible that the Inspector would find the Council had acted unreasonably' and award costs accordingly.
3. Councils lack of neutrality shown by the statement that James Caird wanted to be able to argue that the Council had done all it could to avoid costs to the appellants by not presenting a case!
4. Casual/unprofessional nature of relationship of James Caird/Council - 'is £500 a day still ok?'
5. James Caird's stance not neutral -  'I can stonewall demands for evidence on behalf of the council about the council's view and all the historical baggage'
6. Pre-judgement by James Caird on behalf of Council..'As all the evidence points towards an approval'...He wrote his letter AFTER the first three days of the Public Inquiry when BCG had still yet to give evidence!
7. Contemptuous dismissal of legitimate objectors...'No doubt this willcreate outrage amongst objectors because of the repeated comments of their brief that the Council should have been protecting their interests'
8. Contemptuous dismissal of Rule 6 parties (there was only one - the BCG) and accusation that we have dragged out the Inquiry length - We seem to remember that their paid/expert witnesses took most of the first four days. They indicate a punitive attempt to try to seek costs against us for having the impudence to want to argue the case professionally before an Inspector.
9. The Council says in its covering note saying that if in Caird's opinion (backside covering) the third parties (i.e. BCG) have led to unnecessary costs then a claim should be made against the third parties (BCG). This is an outrageous stance for the Council. If they had determined the application in the first place then a bunch of volunteers would not have spent two and a half years of their time submitting evidence etc etc to obtain the Public Inquiry! We NEVER wanted to wait two and a half years for a determination!
10. BCG is accused of 'pettyfogging' - well if trying to get to the truth about emissions and pollution potential from the proposed plant is pettyfogging then we now know that they had no intention of debating the facts concerning the potential impact on health and livelihoods of Bishops Castle residents. Perhaps by bringing up the details of the Eccleshall Biomass fiasco (see earlier updates) our 'pettyfogging' provided some inconvenient truths that they would have preferred us not to 'pettyfog' over...

UPDATE: 26th January 2010

County Councillor Peter Phillips asks for answers and clarification from Shropshire Council

Since our last update we have continued to try to ascertain the position of the Council with regard to the land that now has Planning Permission for a biomass plant but over which the developers had not secured a legal option. We are grateful to  County Councillor Phillips for his assistance with this.

On 27 October Cllr Phillips emailed County Councillor David Roberts (Portfolio holder for Economic Development) for Shropshire Council and Peter Nutting - fellow County Councillor - and asked:

"Dear David and Peter

Many thanks for your emails and conversations.  I have to repeat my former request, trusting you will be able to answer in the positive, as follows:

1.  Could you state that Shropshire Council will not sell this land for bio mass purposes;

2.  Can you state that you, in principle, would be minded to approve sale to community of this land or at least some of it for community led economic development purposes?

I look forward to your response.

Very best wishes
Peter

Cllr Peter Phillips
Shropshire Council - Bishop's Castle Division"

After no response was forthcoming he asked again on 18th November:

"Dear Peter and David

I have to call your attention to my email of 27th of October followed by a reminder a week or so later.

I have actually requested whether you could state that the Council won't sell the land with the bio mass permission on it.  Please could you give me a clear answer as to whether you are prepared to make such a statement or not.

Regards
Peter

Cllr Peter Phillips
Shropshire Council - Bishop's Castle Division"

Cllr Phillips has tabled a motion for full council discussion regarding this matter for this evening January 26th and we hope that this will lead to Council informing us of their intentions regarding this matter. The spectre of South Shropshire District Council's smoke and mirrors still lingers on in the guise of the new authority it appears....

Legal Challenge is over. 

Dialogue opened with County Council regarding Biomass Site

UPDATE: 16th October 2009 

PRESS RELEASE ISSUED TODAY:

Members of the Bishop’s Castle Group attended the Town Council meeting on Tuesday evening where an agreement was made to confirm the previous offer of £1000.00 towards a legal opinion with regards to taking the decision from the Planning Inspectorate to the Courts.

However, upon further reflection and many discussions about the next step in the process both with local residents and legal experts The Bishops Castle Group have decided that the funds required to fight the application by way of a Judicial Review which could reach £100,000 in addition to the £3000 for the Screening Opinion would not be achievable. They have instead decided to commit their efforts into trying to assist the Town in purchasing the land themselves for the benefit of the whole community, not just a number of individuals.

Chairman of the Group Karen Bavastock said “I am very mindful of the implications of a judicial review and whilst I feel very strongly that this application should have been refused I am told that should we be successful in a judicial review the decision would merely revert back to the Planning Inspectorate for reconsideration – and not be quashed.  I feel that the Bishop’s Castle Group and the residents of the local area who spoke at the Public Inquiry presented a compelling case for refusal of this application. Therefore if we were to raise the funds and win the High Court challenge - our future would once again be determined by the Planning Inspectorate. Given that they have made their decision against all our evidence after the lengthy, time consuming and very expensive process of the Public Inquiry when we presented our case, it is highly likely that they would reach the same conclusion if it was sent back to them for reconsideration by the High Court. The Group therefore feels that the local communities’ energies and money should be put towards trying to purchase the land for employment and community gain controlled by the community not outside developers with no care for the community”. 

Karen went on to say “The Group have been extremely grateful to the mayor and the vast majority of town councillors for their unstinting support to the town however we feel, after taking advice and through many hours spent looking at this that we should decline the offer and move forward in what we think is a more positive use of our time”.

The Group have recently met with Officers and County Councillor David Roberts (Portfolio holder for Economic Development) from Shropshire Council, and local County Councillor Peter Phillips to discuss the implications of the planning decision. It has been confirmed that the Developers do not own an option on the land and that the land will be marketed nationally. The Council has also agreed to consider representations from Bishops Castle community in regard to purchasing the relevant land themselves.

Note: There has also been a recent report in the Times detailing that Bishop’s Castle is designated one of the 6 in the country for recycling/waste facilities which led to a lot of concern and unrest with local residents fearing that municipal incineration was intended at the biomass site.  One of the Group has pursued this with the council and received the following response from James Thompson, the Waste Prevention Officer for Shropshire Council

“I can absolutely guarentee you there is no chance of a municipal waste incineration in BC, its totally the wrong place, there is a planning application for an EfW facility in Shrewsbury which will deal with all the residual waste from the whole of Shropshire from 2013 subject to planning approval”.


Town Council supports Legal Screening of Decision
UPDATE: 15th September 2009 11:30pm

At the Bishop's Castle Town Council meeting tonight (which was packed to capacity with concerned Bishop's Castle residents), following a presentation byThe  Bishop's Castle Group on the Planning Decision and issues surrounding legal challenge, timescales to submit the challenge and the development land options, and an address by County Councillor Peter Phillips, the Town Council voted on a four part motion:

That:
  • The Town Council will donate £1000 towards the cost of a legal screening opinion as to the ability to mount a Judicial Review of the Planning Decision.
  • The Town Council will select one member to attend the meeting between Shropshire Council, Bishops Castle Group and County Councillor Phillips (this Friday) as a Town Council representative. The meeting has been organised to discuss the Council position with regard to the land on the Business Park which has been given planning permission but has no option on it in place.
  • The Town Council will pursue with Shropshire Council the possibility of acquiring the land itself for development  by the community.
  • The Town Council will write to the new Leader of Shropshire Council, as advised by County Councillor Phillips, urging him to consider a 'public interest' request that on behalf of his constituents in Bishop's Castle who areoverwhelmingly opposed to the proposed development, that the Council does not sell the land in question for the powerplant development and that officers are instructed that the sale of the land is not to be allowed for such purpose.
The motion in all four parts was overwhelmingly approved by the Town Council with only one councillor objecting and no abstentions.

The Bishop's Castle Group would like to thank the Town Council and Residents for their continued support.

This is not over yet!
UPDATE: 08 September 2009

Having  reviewed the Planning Inspector's  Decision to grant Planning Permission for the Biomass Power Plant and Pelletiser the Bishops Castle Group believe that the decision is perverse, inconsistent and open to judicial challenge.

There will be a Town Council meeting on Tuesday 15th September 2009 at 8pm in the Town Hall at which we will be giving our conclusions on the report (and there are some victories we have won with regard to planning conditions) to the Town Council and Public.

Please attend, show your support and ask questions - it might be your last chance! We hope the Developers will attend to speak and answer questions as well.

You might like to consider the way in which the rights of the residents of Bishops Castle are treated by the Inspector in his report by this one extract (note 'receptors' = houses/people):
"The appellant acknowledges that the biomass plant would be likely to result in marginal increases in ground level concentrations of air pollution at the nearest sensitive receptors, and that emissions from the process have the
potential to affect the health of local residents and people using the nearby cycle park, allotments and footpaths."

Government and Money Wins again!

4/09/09 mid-day Just in: APPROVED

Click here to Read Appeal Decision - and rage!



Update: Friday 4th September 2009

"Decision Imminent"

Update: Friday 4th September 2009

We received yesterday an email from the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate saying
"I understand the decision is due imminently"

Other news:

When is an 'option' not an option?

The developers stated in their planning application 'Description of Project' in three separate places: (our bold for emphasis)

"1. Introduction
1.1 Bishop's Castle Biomass Power Ltd (the Applicant) with an interest in
the development site on the Bishop's Castle Business Park proposes the
development of a renewable energy power plant.

2. The Development and Application

2.1 The Applicant has established a commercial interest (option) on the site
of the application (Figure 2) - the "red" for the Planning Application. The
industrial estate is owned by Advantage West Midlands, Shropshire County
Council and South Shropshire District Council.

3. Site Description

3.1 The Development Site (Figure 2 at 1:2500) is outlined in red within the
Applicant's property options."

Now the smoke and mirrors and shadow dancing of the extinct South Shropshire District Council have been cleared away we have finally had a straight and categorical answer from Shropshire Council to our question:

 Please confirm our understanding that:  "There is no formal contract or option or agreement to lease between Shropshire Council (and hence the previous public body SSDC) concerning the Bishops Castle Business Park identified land put forward by the developers for planning application for a proposed biomass power plant and pelletiser."

The answer from Andrew Stirling on behalf of the Chief Executive, Sheila Healy, of Shropshire Council (our colour for emphasis):

"I can advise you that no formal contract or option exists between Shropshire Council and the party who have submitted the current planning application for the biomass power plant". and "Notwithstanding the information you refer to from the applicants website, I have nothing to add to my previous advice to you that  the applicants have no option agreement with Shropshire Council on land at Bishops Castle Business Park."

So the Developers have applied for planning permission for land which they have stated they have an option in but the Council says they have not! Welcome to a parallel universe! Now it is perfectly legal to apply for planning permission for land in which you have no interest/option (there was a famous incident a few years ago where a resident outraged by the planning application for a large supermarket in her locality applied for planning permission for a large scale development in the large grounds of the supermarket chain's Chief Executive's country manor!). But the downside is of course that should planning permission be granted then the planning gain is with the landowner and thus the land with planning permission can be sold to any interested party not to the planning applicant to the financial gain of the landowner.

So what could this mean? Leaving aside the evident  discrepancy between the developers' planning application and the council's contrary statement regarding options, it would possibly mean that the land should it be given planning permission would then be marketed nationally by Shropshire Council as land with planning permission for a biomass powerplant and pelletiser as the planning gain would have accrued to Shropshire Council....  Curiouser and curiouser......

 
Decision further delayed...

Update: Friday  7th August 2009

We have finally received a response from the Planning Inspectorate in response to our questions regarding the delayed decision:

"The Inspector has given further thought to the detailed wording of conditions if he were to allow the appeal and grant planning permission.  Without prejudice to his decision on the appeal, he would like your views on the suggested noise condition which refers to NR30, and whether this would need to refer to a noise index, and if so whether this would be NR30 (Leq) or some other indice?

In doing so the Inspector is not inviting further submissions about matters in dispute with respect to conditions.  No further correspondence on such matters, or any new issues, will be entertained.  Any representations, agreed by all parties if possible, and setting out clearly any differences, should be submitted to me no later than 1700 on 10 August.  If the parties cannot agree this approach, then each party should submit their comments to me and to each other no later than 1700 on 10 August, and then any final submissions on the other parties' comments shall be submitted to me and the other parties no later than 1700 on 17 August.    After this date no further correspondence will be accepted."

Now the more cynical amongst us might think:

a) as the enquiry closed on April 16th why, over three months later  is the Inspector only now asking a question regarding noise that could have been debated at the Inquiry?. 

b) Despite the protestations of 'without prejudice to his decision on the appeal' if he was going to turn the appeal down why would he be now looking at minute detail of just one of the conditions.

'Smoke screen' has never seemed a more apt phrase!

Other developments:

Our Chairman and a Vice Chairman met with our MP Philip Dunne this week to update him on our complaints regarding the handling of this process by the Planning Inspectorate and Shropshire Council. Upon review he has agreed to put our complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, in a similar way to County Councillor Peter Phillips assisting with submitting a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

We also brought up with Philip Dunne the matter of the land at Crowgate. During the last two years we and then District Councillor Georgie Ellis have endeavoured to clarify whether formal options were agreed between the developers and South Shropshire District Council. This was never proved by the council. Indeed Mr Dunne confirmed that this has been brought up by him with the then Chief Executive Graham Biggs. Accordingly we are preparing a claim that if the permission is to be granted (as we believe it will) that the land - as no formal options exist with declared values and timescales and named beneficiaries - is then put out to national tender as a plot with planning permission for a biomass plant and pelletiser as this would secure the best possible price for the land and hence for the Shropshire ratepayers. 

Please note: we will endeavour to post the appeal decision on this website as soon as we have it - please keep checking. At this stage it looks as though it will be late August at the earliest.
Decision not out by date promised - The wait continues.

Update: Saturday 1st August 2009

True to form the Planning Inspectorate failed to deliver their decision by the end of July, so the wait continues....

It was interesting to note that this week the Courts ruled that  Corby Council had been negligent in the way it dismantled a steelworks, with airborne contaminants of heavy metals created during burning including dioxins being released. Campaigners said the ruling, following a 10-year legal battle, was the first in the world to find that airborne pollution could cause such birth defects. See full story here and consider the concerns of our local Doctor submitted to the Biomass Inquiry here. Then consider the cynical way in which Corby Council fought the release of documents detailing their own internal concerns for years.[ Eccleshall cover up anyone? - see reports below in earlier updates].

We have been eliciting confirmation that the Planning Inspector would release his decision to their agreed timeline of the end of July this week (which they haven't) culminating in the following email we sent on Wednesday 29th July.

As a Vice-Chair of the Bishops Castle Group, I am in receipt of correspondence between our Chair, Karen Bavastock and yourself regarding the communication of the imminent Bishops Castle Biomass Planning Appeal decision following the Public Inquiry earlier this year.

I am disappointed, but not perhaps surprised, that yet again, as with the Screening Decision, the Planning Inspectorate chooses to treat our community in such a cavalier fashion.

We were told that the Inspector would reach his decision by the end of July - having postponed from his original target date of May 26th. Therefore it would not seem unreasonable to ask of you, as Case Officer, when we could expect to learn of the decision and as to how it would be communicated. This community, which is overwhelmingly against the proposed Biomass Plant, has had this application hanging over it for over two years now and answers such as:

"I am afraid that I cannot confirm at this stage".

"The case is still with the Inspector who is currently unavailable"

"as soon as the decision is available it will be posted via the internet"

really do betray the contempt in which our rural community is obviously held by PINS - perhaps not surprisingly. as the current Government has displayed evident hostility to small rural communities during its time in power.

Can I ask you please to urgently confirm with the Inspector when we will have a decision and will it be within the end of July timescale originally quoted and if not, then why not, and when will it be?

Also I strongly object to the decision not being communicated directly to the parties who attended the Inquiry. As a rule 6 party we would have expected to have received priority communication along with the Council and the Appellants.

You state that 'it will be posted via the internet' and give a site reference that is actually several levels away from the appeal page level.

For your information the page given out should  be:
http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/casesearch.asp

When entering the Appeal reference number you will see that not only is the address and postcode still incorrect for the appeal site - despite that being subject to considerable discussion during the Inquiry (and indeed the Inspector accepted our clarification of the site details as a formal document during the Inquiry),  but that the last date shown on the case progress is 'final comments due date 21st January'. It would appear that the case details have not been updated since Christmas 2008, and therefore I am sure you can understand that we have no confidence in an appeal decision being 'posted via the internet' without an undue delay, further fostering community disquiet.

I look forward to your response.

....To which there has been none to date!

 
£1 million public money withdrawn from Biomass project. £1m spent propping up troubled biomass plant?
Coincidence? You might think that but we couldn't possibly comment.....


Update Wednesday July 15th

The Bishops Castle Group welcomes the announcement by Harriet Baldwin, prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Worcestershire that she has learned that Advantage West Midlands are withdrawing funding grant aid of nearly £1million to the proposed Biomass Power Plant by C J Day for Tenbury Wells. C J Day is the same agent behind  the Bishop's Castle Biomass plant application.

The actual sum in proposed grant aid that was to be given to C J Day and the Tenbury developers, established by Harriet Baldwin was £965,000.

Now it just so happens that the troubled plant at Eccleshall - the only other biomass plant designed by C J Day, and offered to Bishop's Castle residents as it's reference plant, recently trumpeted a £1million spend on trying to cure its pollutant emission problems (which were so bad that the Pollution Control Permit was withdrawn - but the plant still allowed to operate!).

The more cynical amongst our readers might find it a strange coincidence that one of the backers of the Eccleshall project was Advantage West Midlands, and that the two sums mentioned above are remarkably similar! And that if Eccleshall collapsed it would expose the uneconomic and unviable nature of these plants for all to see....But we wouldn't presume that this could be anything more than mere coincidence. However we will now investigate.......



"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful
and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind"
George Orwell
Update Monday July 13th 2009

Latest 1: Shropshire County Councillor Peter Phillips  shares our outrage at the behaviour of the Planning Inspectorate and has written again to MP Philip Dunne (The Bishops Castle Group thanks Mr Phillips for his support) text below:

Dear Philip

I am just writing to lend support to your endeavours on the Inspectorates behaviour.

It seems to me that apart from the actual fact of the decision having been made not by a Secretary of State but by some lowly civil servant; there is also the very serious matter that the Bishop's Castle Group was lied to when they were told it would go to the Secretary of State.  There is also the fine matter of the law as to whether the Secretary of State can waive the requirement for anything over the requirement of 5,000 sq metres to have a E.I.A.

Can I suggest that bringing this to the floor of the house in some way might add strength to your efforts and indeed promote some greater interest amongst the Inspectorate.  This might be done by a written question to the Minister; or by an adjournment debate which is available as I understand every night of the week.

Best wishes

Peter

Cllr Peter Phillips
Shropshire County Council - Bishop's Castle Division
peter.phillips@shropshire.gov.uk


LATEST 2: We have now filed a complaint with The Information Commissioner regarding Shropshire Council's refusal to divulge correspondence between their hired 'consultant' and one of their officers. The Council admits the documentation exists - we believe it could show intent that betrays the council 'neutral' position.

LATEST 3: Our ongoing battle with the Planning Inspectorate seeking to obtain clarity on the screening decision continues - as we cannot obtain the clarification requested we will probably be left with no alternative but to take our complaint to the Government Ombudsman and The Local Government Ombudsman. See our exchanges with the Planning Inspectorate here.


With regard to the planning decision itself from the Planning Inspector we believe that it will be no coincidence that the decision will be published after Parliament recesses on July 21st. Perhaps we have become slightly cynical as a result of two years of dealing with the twists and turns and smoke and mirrors of the planning system and planning legislation.



"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"
George Orwell
Update Thursday June 18th 2009

Despite the ongoing correspondence and our repeated requests commencing May 26th regarding the 'Secretary of State's' decision that although we were right in arguing that the proposed development triggered an Environmental Impact Assessment , in 'her view' - it was not material and so not necessary, WE STILL HAVE NOT SEEN THE 'DECISION' or the methodology and rationale behind the decision.

We today wrote to the Planning Inspectorate:

"I am writing with reference to your email sent on 16th June  where you state"I will copy the required EIA screening information requested as soon as is possible. At present, the case file is still with the Inspector, so I unfortunately cannot undertake this immediately" and then go on to say "The only information is a form used in the EIA screening process, which I will pass on to you as soon as the file is returned."

Following our emergency Group meeting where we discussed these recent developments I have been instructed to request from you the screening document as a matter of extreme urgency because the group want to understand the reasoning behind the decision made by PINS and this follows requests made for this documentation to you on 12th and 16th June and Sarah Banwell from your department on at least 2 occasions, namely 5th and 9th June.

I regret that we find the delaying tactic of 'the case file is still with the inspector' as completely unacceptable and would ask you to supply this EIA Screening Decision documentation (details/scope as previously requested) to us within 2 working days. If the only copy is with the inspector - which we find surprising - then we find it entirely reasonable that the Inspector copies the requested documentation and sends it to us as the interested party (rule 6)."

We received the following response:

"I am sorry that you perceive my efforts in this case as any kind of delaying tactic, as I can assure you I am undertaken everything I can to expedite this matter as quickly as possible. I cannot get the requested copies to you within 2 days. I have contacted the Inspector, and the relevant section of the file will be returned tomorrow. As soon as I receive them, I will copy and pass on to you."

So three weeks later we are still waiting for information which SHOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Specifically we want to know:

  • Who made the 'Screening Decision'?
  • If not the Secretary of State's Department then was it the Planning Inspectorate as now appears to be the case depite the earlier assertions that it had gone to The Secretary of State?
  • If so what was the specific department and rank and experience of the officials that made this inhouse screening decision on their own question..?
  • What was the rationale behind the decision?
  • Why have we been unable to ascertain this information without resorting to Freedom of Information Act requests and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 requests?
  • Why the inability to produce the 'documentation' for over three weeks and counting?

Other Developments:
  • Shropshire County Council has admitted that they have documentation on file regarding the development in repsonse to our Freedom of Information Act request between their Inquiry consultant and their Development Control Officer which we believe would show that their stance was not neutral in this application. However they refuse to release it citing an exemption in the FOIA which protects correspondence between officers of the council - our argument is that their consultant was not an officer and is thus not covered by the exemption. We have had our appeal against their refusal to release this documentation turned down and we are now filing an appeal with the Information Commissioner regarding this matter.

  • Our newly elected County Councillor for Bishops Castle Peter Phillips has also been outraged by the EIA Screening Decision fiasco and has written to our MP Phillip Dunne lending support in his requests for an explanation of what has taken place within the Planning Inspectorate regarding the Screening Decision.

  • An interesting aside The 'reference' plant for the proposed Bishops Castle Biomass Power Plant at Eccleshall (see earlier updates regarding Pollution Permit Control Withdrawal due to pollutant emissions being way over regulated limits has announced a spend of £1m on upgrading the filtration system for particulates. So that would be a 20% increase in the costs of the proposed plant for Bishops Castle which we maintain is unviable economically (without Government/taxpayer subsidies and grants)!

LATEST: Deception or Spin - You Decide.......
[and the wait still goes on.....]
Update Monday June 15th 2009

When the Planning Inspectorate put in writing to us that "..The Secretary of State has considered the application.." and "..in the opinion of the Secretary of State..."  and "Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred on her" what we learnt late on Friday 12th June and ONLY AFTER we had served Freedom of Information Act on the Planning Inspectorate (to release Hazel Blear's reason for stating that although the site area did exceed the 5000 sq m which should trigger a mandatory EIA that her Screening Decision was that she would not require it), was that THE SCREENING DECISION HAD NEVER LEFT THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE at all and had been judged BY THEMSELVES !!!!!!!!!!

The email said:

"I cannot comply with your FOI request, as there is no Information from Ms Blears or her office relating to this case.
The Planning Inspectorate exercises on behalf of the Secretary of State various functions, such as considering screening directions for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for development under appeal. The screening for the EIA requirements was therefore undertaken by this office.
I trust this clarifies the position."
 
Well in our view no it doesn't !

We sent the following email on Friday evening to The Planning Inspectorate:
 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<  
Thank you for your email of today regarding The Bishop's Castle Group formal serving of notice under FOIA and EIR 2004 regarding documentation concerning the Secretary of State's Screening Decision.
 
We are completely shocked by your response and the nature of the response - explicitly:
 
1/ On the 21st May 2009 a letter was written by PINS (Planning Inspectorate) to our Group stating
 
........"On this basis, the proposal would be schedule 2 development, and so should be referred to the secretary of state for a screening direction as the inspector is not authorised to issue such directions"
  
2/ On the 26th May we received an email from PINS in response to our response to the letter of the 21st May stating
 
...."Our letter explains that the decision will be delayed whilst Secretary of State screens application under EIA regulation."
 
 3/ On the 26th May we responded to this email stating:
 
..."I acknowledge receipt of your letter this morning with a copy of the letter sent to Jake Berriman from Mark Boulton and I would be grateful if you could supply me with a copy of the correspondence mentioned from the Secretary of State which will hopefully explain to us her decision and the logic behind it.  I am unable to access it through the website.  We are very surprised that the Secretary of State has been able to make a decision with regards to the impact of the development on the local area and felt that an EIA would address or highlight the major concerns we have with this proposal so quickly i.e. we were notified Tuesday that the plans had been sent to the Secretary of State for a screening opinion and within 24 hours of this you are able to give us the Secretary of State's opinion."
 
4/ On the 29th May we were informed by our MP Philip Dunne that:
 
 .."I have today written to the Secretary of state seeking an explanation as to her decision making process, given its unprecedented speed on this occasion.  I have also urged her to consider whether it could be reversed since a thorough EIA would go a long way to addressing the concerns of local residents."
 
5/ On the 29th May we wrote to PINS stating:
 
.."As a rule 6 party I would be grateful if we could be copied in directly on the correspondence relating to the communications with the secretary of state, specifically the rationale behind her screening decision.  I would also appreciate advice on where I can access the letter mentioned in the communication with Jake Berriman and where the public can access this on the public register. I have been asked for this by a number of people who are extremely keen to see how Ms Blears reached a decision so quickly "
 
6/ On June 1st we received an email from PINS stating:
.."Please can you indicate the date of the letter to Jake Berriman and what the letter consists of, as I do not know of such a letter."
 
7/ On June 2nd we received an email from PINS stating:
 
.."My line manager who dealt with the issues relating to EIA is currently on leave and will not be back until 16 June 2009.  Mark Boulton is the only one that could help with this query.  So therefore we will respond to your e-mail after the 16 June 2009."
 
7/ On June 5th we received an email from PINS (in response to our FOIA and EIR 2004 requests) stating:
 
.."As you have raised this with your MP this is now with our Chief Executive to respond and who will do so through that route, no later than 12 June 2009."
 
8/ Today we receive your email stating:
.."
I cannot comply with your FOI request, as there is no Information from Ms Blears or her office relating to this case.
The Planning Inspectorate exercises on behalf of the Secretary of State various functions, such as considering screening directions for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for development under appeal. The screening for the EIA requirements was therefore undertaken by this office. I trust this clarifies the position. (We will, of course, be formally replying to the points raised by your MP)" 
 
 
In essence despite the EIR predisposition to Greater Transparency by Government we have been categorically told that this screening decision assessment had been passed to the Secretary of State NOT to an in house PINS department. Only today do you inform us that you have conducted this assessment in house and that therefore the Screening Decision has not passed to the Secretary of State. 
 
To say that this does not cast PINS and the Government in good light is putting it mildly.
 
We feel that this deception as to the Secretary of State and independent assessment from PINS whether intended or not could warrant a judicial review and to that end we reserve our position on that course of action. We will also be involving our MP and the Government Ombudsman. We still await the promised communication from your Chief Executive.
We will be issuing a press statement regarding this matter early next week and would appreciate therefore your response before we issue this.
 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Today Monday 15th June 2009 we received a response to this email from PINS:

Thank you for your email of 12 June. 

I should explain that it quite usual within government departments and agencies for officials to act for Secretaries of State on certain functions. Here the Planning Inspectorate is empowered and delegated on behalf of the Secretary of State, Communities and Local Government to handle planning appeals, and procedures associated with them, including associated matters relating to Environmental Statements, EIA, and EIA screening. As such, in this appeal, we acted on behalf of the Secretary of State in coming to a view on a need for a screening direction.

I would be happy to discuss by 'phone if you'd prefer to help clarify the situation.

  • WE REPEAT - AT NO STAGE DID ANY COMMUNICATION FROM PINS SAY - WE ARE DEALING WITH THIS IN HOUSE UNDER DELEGATED POWERS. Then we would have known that PINS was acting as Judge Jury and Executioner. 

  • We are shocked by this development and what little faith we had in PINS has been shattered - in light of the above charade we now fear the worst.
  • If you feel outraged by this apparent subterfuge please contact your elected representatives.



LATEST: When is an EIA not an EIA?
and the wait still goes on.....


Update Friday May 29th 2009

We have today been told by the Planning Inspectorate that the Planning Inspector now hopes to have his decision on the application by the end of July. So the wait goes on....

Additionally we yesterday expressed our extreme concern to our MP Philip Dunne about the apparent ability of Hazel Blears to produce a Screening Decision on the EIA (see previous updates) within 24 hours and were gratified to receive a note from him today stating "I have today written to the Secretary of State seeking an explanation as to her decision making process, given its unprecedented speed on this occasion.  I have also urged her to consider whether it could be reversed since a thorough EIA would go a long way to addressing the concerns of local residents."

Update Thursday May 28th 2009

Secretary of State rules that despite the proposed biomass power plant and pelletiser scheme meeting the criteria necessary  for an EIA as specified by the 1999 Environmental Impact Regulations in her opinion it "would not be likely to have significant effect on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location". Presumably Hazel Blears (current Secretary of State) hasn't found time with all her current issues to visit Eccleshall or Bishops Castle then?

The Bishops Castle Group this morning received a letter from The Planning Inspectorate dated 27th May enclosing a copy of a letter to Jake Berriman from Mark Boulton (Planning Inspectorate) (also dated 27th May) concerning the Secretary of State's ruling on the EIA Screening Decision.

The letters raise a number of extremely concerning issues which our Group has raised as follows to the Planning Inspectorate.

1) We received The Planning Inspectorate letter (dated May 21st) concerning the Inspector being 'minded' to refer our point regarding the Schedule 2 requirement for a EIA last Friday May 22nd from which we adduced that the Inspector would be very likely to refer the application to The Secretary of State for a Screening Decision (as to whether a EIA would be required) and that is why the Planning Inspector indicated that the Inspector could not reach a decision on the application by May 26th as originally noted.

2) We then received an email from Planning Inspectorate on Tuesday May 26th confirming that no action was required by our Group but that the application HAD been passed to the Secretary of State for a Screening Decision, which was surprising given that on the Friday we had been told that the Inspector was 'minded' so to do.

3) Today we learn that a decision was made on May 27th at the latest. We fail to understand how the Secretary of State can possibly have scrutinised all the information and made a screening decision within 24 hours.

Our questions arising are:
3.1 We therefore request a copy of the letter from The Secretary of State regarding her Screening Decision.
3.2  We would like to understand why the letter was sent to Jake Berriman (ex SSDC) and not the Parties present at the Inquiry.
3.3  We would like to understand how a properly scrutinised decision was reached seemingly within 24 hours of submission.
3.4 We  would appreciate an indication of the timeline for a decision on the application by the Inspector now that Hazel Blears has ruled that a EIA is not necessary in her opinion.


Useful background information on EIA and Screening Directives can be found on the Friends of the Earth website here.

Update Wednesday May 27th 2009

The Planning Inspectorate yesterday (26th May 2009) confirmed to the Bishops Castle Group that the Planning Inspector has now requested a Screening Directive from the Secretary of State as to whether the planning application should indeed have had a full Environmental Impact Assessment as argued by The Bishops Castle Group owing to the TOTAL size of the application site being over 5000 sq metres.

Useful background information on EIA and Screening Directives can be found on the Friends of the Earth website here.

Update Friday May 22nd 2009

The Planning Inspectorate has today written to the Bishops Castle Group stating  that with difficulties still remaining concerning the definition of the site area and the associated access works as raised by The Bishops Castle Group that the target decision date of May 26th can no longer be met. He is considering the implications of whether the size of the defined site should have mandated a compulsory Environmental Impact Assessment for the application. We have asked for an indication of the estimated time of delay but we have not had a response yet......

Public Inquiry Concluded!
Decision could be announced May 26th

Appeal Reference :APP/K3225/A/08/2086011


LATEST NEWS......LATEST NEWS......LATEST NEWS.......LATEST NEWS..........LATEST NEWS.........

Update Saturday AM 18th April 2009

It's Over!

After seven days of Public Inquiry spread over three sessions the Planning Inspector formally closed the Public Inquiry at 21:00 on Thursday 16th April 2009.

On Friday 17th April the Inspector carried out site visits to locations we had requested that he visit to place in context evidence given at the Inquiry. He was accompanied by the advocate for The Bishop's Castle Group and the advocate for the Developers as well as the consultant hired by the (now extinct) SSDC.

Thursday's Inquiry session was a very lengthy day (and we are grateful to the Inspector for sitting so late to allow the Inquiry to conclude).  Four more members of the public gave statements to the Inquiry (all objecting to the proposal) and The Bishops Castle Group's final expert witness gave evidence.

There was then a very lengthy 'without prejudice' discussion on possible conditions that could be applied to the proposal - ONLY IF the inspector decides to grant the appeal -  followed by closing statements from The Bishops Castle Group and The Appellants.

We believe that we have made a very good case for rejection of this proposal and we are extremely grateful for the support of the community, Town Council, Civic Society, Allotment holders, District and County Councillors and other countless individuals, companies and groups that have supported our campaign.

It has been an exhaustive process and conducted over two years and entailing thousands of man hours of research, but we are incredibly proud of our community and the standard of submissions to the Inquiry. We know that as an amateur Group we have done our best against the hired hands of the Developers, and have fought this proposal with community support all the way to this Public Inquiry and - whatever the decision - the Inspector knows that this proposal is against the wishes of the entire community.

The community present noticed during the Inquiry that:
  • Not One Developer elected to give evidence in support of their own proposal and exercised their right to remain silent! Why?
  • The Developers agent representative - Mr Day Junior - also elected not to give evidence in support of his scheme and similarly exercised his right to remain silent! Why?
  • Not one member of the public who attended any of the seven days of the Inquiry spoke in favour of the proposal!
  • The Developers could not even produce an expert witness or individual from Ransfords, UPM Tilhill or The Poplar Tree Company (the three potential suppliers named in their application) to make a statement that could attest to the ability of the plant to run on sustainably sourced local fuel - one of their key assertions in their proposal! 
  • The Developers Solicitor-Advocate refused to allow the potential use for the adjoining land to the proposed pelletiser and biomass power plant on the Business Park - that the Developers have stated they have control over - to be discussed in the Inquiry. We wonder why they wish to remain silent on the potential use for this land?
The Inspector indicated at  the closure of the Inquiry that he aimed to have reached a decision by May 26th.

We can do no more!



Update Tuesday 14th April 2009

Government U-Turn on Rush to Burn Biomass?

A paper  released on April 14 by the Environment Agency Called Biomass - Carbon Sink or Carbon Sinner? has been released, the BBC News Online has published a report on some of the details headlined:

Biomass - 'Worse than fossil fuels'

Some of the comments include:
  • Biomass power could become one of the worst emitters of greenhouse gases, the Environment Agency (EA) has warned.
  • Ploughing up pasture to plant energy crops could produce more CO2 by 2030 than burning fossil fuels, it said.
  • The EA's study of biomass fuels also found waste wood and MDF produced the lowest emissions, while willow, poplar and oil seed rape made the highest.
  • The agency has called on the government to force biomass companies to report all greenhouse gas emissions.

Update Good Friday  AM 10th April 2009

The Public Inquiry was adjourned again at the close of yesterday's session (Day 6 in total!).

The Inquiry will resume at 09:30 in the Community College Hall on Thursday 16th April.

The resumption of the Inquiry will hear the final expert witness submission from The Bishops Castle Group, consider the matter of planning conditions which the Inspector could impose IF he were minded to grant the appeal and hear the closing statements for the Developers and The Bishops Castle Group. The Planning Inspector will consider whether the site visits we have requested can be made on Thursday 16th April or Friday 17th April during the course of the first day of the resumption.


Update Wednesday PM 8th April 2009

The second day of the resumed public Inquiry (day 5 in total) heard further evidence from  witnesses for The Bishops Castle Group.  These covered engineering concerns, particulate emissions danger to health and the design of the development and proposed buildings.

Four members of the public gave statements during the morning session and three during the afternoon session including our Town Mayor. All these statements were to Object to the proposal and concerns raised covered many issues including ecology impact, health issues, negative effect on tourism, lack of community support, the constant changing components of the application, non endorsement by the local NFU branch, ground and surface water contamination, nitrate impact, visual blight, non proven technology to name but a few areas.

The Inquiry resumes at 09:30 Thursday 9th April.


Update Wednesday AM 8th April 2009

The Public Inquiry was resumed by the Planning Inspector at 10AM yesterday in the School Hall following its adjournment in March.

The Planning Inspector was accompanied by two members of the Bishops Castle Group and two members of the Developers team the day before (Monday 6th April) on a site visit to the reference plant at Eccleshall. A site visit that we had over the last two years been promised by the Developers and then repeatedly refused.

Now we know why!

We found and were told :
  • A slag heap of ash dumped outside on open ground- so much for conditions! (Note this had been seen growing in size during the past few months and we have pictures of this - we were very surprised to say the least that it hadn't been removed in advance of the Inspector's visit, but then they do require a license to move it!  
  • Bagged (builders type bags) of potentially toxic waste ash stacked outside - these are the sealed containers that are supposed to be stored inside the premises. - so much for conditions! (Note these had been seen growing in size during the past few months and we also have pictures of this - again, we were staggered that they hadn't been removed in advance of the Inspector's visit, but then they do require a waste license to move it!)
  • That the plant only operates at about 70-75% of its designed output thus reducing the electricity generated against submitted claimed output.
  • That the total electricity generated is exported to the Grid (currently believed to be 1.8MW) and the power to run the plant is then bought back from the Grid. 
  • That the plant operates a lot of the time with the doors open - so much for negative air pressure! (Note we have pictures of this taken on our many visits by various individuals)
  • That the plant is shut down for 4/5 days every 5 to 6 weeks for routine cleaning of the boiler - it is during shut down and start up that maximum pollutants are emitted
  • It was witnessed that particulate emissions were still exceeding regulatory limits but no alarm was sounding - so much for conditions!
Worried? - Well it would appear that all our suspicions and fears about conditions have been verified - the only way to prevent the pollutions and associated problems is to REFUSE  the planning permission and this is why we have battled the application since it was first submitted in Autumn 2007.

Day 1 of the Inquiry saw the start of the presentation of the Bishops Castle Group case with evidence from our Air Quality expert, Noise expert and Engineering experts. Anyone present cannot fail to have had their worries confirmed during the evidence production.

Four members of the public gave statements - all objecting, including a member of the College Governors, who confirmed that they had run a separate evaluation exercise to the Bishops Castle Group but had reached the conclusion  that they had resolved to object to the plant on fear of pollution and its effect on health on pupils and staff.
 
 


Update Sunday 29th March 2009

At the Planning Inspector's request (see earlier updates) The BCG has met with the other parties to the Inquiry (Applicants and SSDC) to see if there were any conditions that could be jointly agreed for the Planning Inspector to consider  IF the Planning Inspector was to decide to approve the Planning Application. The BCG believes that the evidence that has been produced to date and is still to come will hopefully result in this application being refused by the Planning Inspector.

Let us reiterate:

We have enormous concern regarding conditions - including their enforceability and legality. In the crazy world of  planning legislation we can get the applicants to agree to more restrictive conditions than they had requested - but IF planning permission were to be granted then the applicants can then appeal the very same conditions as 'unreasonable' !! For instance (see earlier updates) the sister plant at Eccleshall operated under a voluntarily applied for Pollution Prevention Control Permit - but has had that permit withdrawn since March 1st for consistently breaching emissions limits BUT is still operating !!! So what value are conditions and Permits!!

Accordingly, from the 31 conditions and numerous sub conditions tabled we have to date only been able to agree that we would 'accept'  3 of the conditions. There are many which we are in disagreement with and many which we categorically will not  agree with.

Our position is that - as has been agreed by the Planning Inspector - input into proposed conditions does not confer any degree of acceptance of the conditions or planning application - as our stance is firmly one of objection, however IF the Planning Inspector was to reject our submissions and approve the planning application it would be better if we had had some input into likely conditions that would be imposed - as we have undoubtedly already increased the strictness of the conditions - and we would then have a better benchmark from which to pursue the council (which will be Shropshire County Council as SSDC will cease to exist on April 4th) for enforcement and moral argument should the developers choose to appeal the conditions as unreasonable.

Update Wednesday 25th March 2009
  • Proof of Evidence from The BCG Consultants on Noise Impact (Ian Holmes) and Air Quality Impact (Dr Mark Broomfield) generated by the proposed biomass plant added to our website alongside other forthcoming witness evidence. See Evidence section in navigation bar.
  • The Planning Inspector has indicated that having heard the BCG request  for him to visit the Eccleshall Biomass 'Reference' Plant and the Developers' request that it is not necessary for him to do so, has decided that he will visit the plant as so much reference material regarding this plant has been submitted to the Inquiry. The visit will occur at some stage during the reconvened Public Inquiry
  • The Environmental Health Officer for Staffordshire Borough Council has confirmed that the Pollution Permit for Ecleshall Biomass Power Plant was indeed revoked on March 1st as the Plant had not complied with the conditions - BUT THE PLANT IS STILL OPERATING! We quote from our update of February 25th below:
    • "Freedom of Information Act requests for information served on Staffordshire Borough Council regarding the 'reference' plant at Eccleshall for the proposed Bishops Castle Biomass Plant have revealed that a 'Notice of Revocation' of a Pollution Permit was served on the Eccleshall Plant in December 2008 as measurements of emissions from April to December 2008 had shown that it was exceeding regulatory limits by 50%!! Equally worrying is that the Eccleshall plant has been given until March 1st 2009 to attempt to rectify the situation - so it can carry on polluting until then! If the plant is  not within regulatory limits by March 1st then its Permit will be withdrawn BUT it will still be allowed to operate!! The plant owners have been told that if it operates after March 1st 2009 without its Permit - it may be open to prosecution by members of THE PUBLIC. Not the council, or government! It is the uncovering of facts such as these that The Bishops Castle Group feels demonstrates that if the proposed plant is built in Bishops Castle (same agent as for Eccleshall) no promise of 'conditions' attached to a successful planning application will result in safe and pollution free operation."  

Update Thursday 5th March 19:30

Day 3 of The Inquiry completed:
  • The Planning Inspector has adjourned the Inquiry. It recommences on Tuesday April 7th for 3 days. Venue is the Community College School Hall. (Thanks again to the Headmaster for his assistance).
  • Day 3 concluded with the final witness for the developers. When the Inquiry reconvenes the Rule 6 Party (Bishops Castle Group) will present their evidence and The Inspector will take public statements from those attendees who have indicated that they wish to do so.
  • The new session will also consider the matter of suggested conditions which would be attached to the power plant should the Inspector be minded to grant the Planning Application (but the Inspector will consider these conditions submitted and would attach his own conditions as he feels appropriate).
  • The Bishops Castle Group has agreed to meet with the Developers Solicitor-Advocate and the Council Consultant to determine what conditions can be mutually agreed prior to the Inquiry to save Inquiry time for the contentious issues.


Update Wednesday 4th March 2009    22:45

Day 2 of The Inquiry Completed:

PLEASE NOTE: The Inquiry tomorrow (March 5th) will take place in THE CHURCH not the School Hall. The Inquiry will start at 10AM

  • The Inquiry continued with the developers 'expert witnesses' being examined and cross examined.
  • There are two more 'expert witnesses' to be presented by the developers tomorrow. After which The Bishops Castle Group will present its own witnesses proof of evidence.
  • Extremely dissapointingly it became very clear today that the Inquiry would not be concluded tomorrow. The Planning Inspector has announced that the Inquiry will be adjourned tomorrow evening and resume at a future date to be agreed. The Inquiry had originally been set by the Planning Inspectorate at 4 days but Jake Berriman Head of Planning at SSDC told the Planning Inspectorate that as SSDC would not formally be taking part the Inquiry should be shortened to three days.

Tuesday March 3rd 2009

Day 1 of The Inquiry completed:
  • Hundreds of Protesters to the proposed scheme attended the opening of the Inquiry but were prevented from gaining access to the Inquiry room as it was too small (despite concerns being raised by The Bishops Castle Group - see Update 21 February 2009)
  • The Planning Inspector opened the Inquiry then adjourned it to see if alternative accomodation could be found for the Inquiry.
  • Thanks to the fantastic efforts of  the Headmaster of the Community College Mr Terry Hunt, and pupils of the Community College, The School Hall was cleared and made available to the Inquiry by Mr Hunt for Tuesday and Wednesday (SSDC is attempting to find alternative premises for Thursday).

Key Points from Day 1:
  • The Developers of the Power Plant will not be taking the stand to give evidence in support of their proposal - they are relying on hired 'expert witnesses' to fight their case.
  • The consulting engineer for the proposal - Mr C J Day has not attended Day 1 and will not be giving evidence in support of the proposal. Mr C J Day was the consulting engineer for the Bishops Castle 'reference' plant at Eccleshall.
  • An expert witness for trhe developers admitted that the manufacturers of the power plant at the Eccleshall facility have gone 'bankrupt'. He stated that the technology would have to be imported.
  • The Council (SSDC) is not attending in person but has sent a hired 'consultant' to represent them. He has taken no active part in the proceedings and has stated that he will only become involved when possible planning conditions are discussed.
  • Opening statements have been made by both sides and the Appellants 'expert witnesses' have commenced giving evidence.

So the debate is between the Developers hired 'experts' led by a solicitor-advocate and the Bishops Castle Group. A true David and Goliath scenario! 





Update: 21 February 2009

  • South Shropshire District Council  has confirmed to the Planning Inspectorate and The Bishops Castle Group that it is not attending the Public Inquiry in an official capacity and is sending a consultant to represent it instead.  The Bishops Castle Group feels that this is an abdication of their duty of care to the residents of Bishops Castle.
  • The Bishops Castle Group has raised its concerns to the Planning Inspectorate that the local venue selected for the Public Inquiry may not be large enough to cope with the amount of local public who have said they wish to attend the Inquiry.
  • Don't Forget: The Public Inquiry commences at 10AM Tuesday March 3rd in The Fletcher Rooms, Bishops Castle Community College, Bishops Castle.
  • Freedom of Information Act requests for information served on Staffordshire Borough Council regarding the 'reference' plant at Eccleshall for the proposed Bishops Castle Biomass Plant have revealed that a 'Notice of Revocation' of a Pollution Permit was served on the Eccleshall Plant in December 2008 as measurements of emissions from April to December 2008 had shown that it was exceeding regulatory limits by 50%!! Equally worrying is that the Eccleshall plant has been given until March 1st 2009 to attempt to rectify the situation - so it can carry on polluting until then! If the plant is  not within regulatory limits by March 1st then its Permit will be withdrawn BUT it will still be allowed to operate!! The plant owners have been told that if it operates after March 1st 2009 without its Permit - it may be open to prosecution by members of THE PUBLIC. Not the council, or government! It is the uncovering of facts such as these that The Bishops Castle Group feels demonstrates that if the proposed plant is built in Bishops Castle (same agent as for Eccleshall) no promise of 'conditions' attached to a successful planning application will result in safe and pollution free operation. 

PRESS RELEASE

19 January 2009

ACTION GROUP WELCOMES CONFIRMATION OF DATES AND LOCATION FOR BIOMASS PUBLIC INQUIRY

The Bishops Castle Group who are opposed to the proposed Biomass Power Plant in Bishops Castle are delighted that the date for the forthcoming Public Inquiry has been set and that the Inquiry will be held in Bishops Castle and not in Ludlow as first suggested by South Shropshire District Council.

“The Inquiry will commence at 10AM on Tuesday March 3rd in the Fletcher Room at the Community College, and is scheduled to last for three days, and we are hopeful of the Planning Inspector granting an evening session to allow people to attend who cannot give statements during the day” said Karen Bavastock, Chairman of the Bishops Castle Group. “Our Group has also been granted ‘Rule 6’ status which means that we are officially recognised as a party to the hearing and can thus submit evidence and cross examine the developers on their assertions regarding their proposal” she continued.

“We are also pleased that the Town Council are joining our Group for representation at this Inquiry and the Civic Society will be as well” said Karen, “this means that we have a very inclusive representation of our community at the Inquiry”.
12.12.2008
There was a meeting of the Development Control Comitee on Wednesday 10th December 2008 to determine whether or not the planning committee would have decided to refuse or pass the plans for a biomass plant in Bishops Castle.  The DCC decided to leave the decision to the Planning Inspectorate.  This means that the public enqiry will take place on March 3rd 2008.

21.11.08 afternoon
The Planning Inspectorate has notified us that they WILL be holding a Public Inquiry into the Biomass Power Plant Application next year ( a date of March 3rd has been suggested).
This is fantastic news and we would like to thank everybody who has made this possible. All the hundreds of individual letters of objection to SSDC and the Planning Inspector. The funds donated to our Group by individuals,  companies, groups and the Town Council for the retention of a Planning Consultant and their production of a submission to the Planning Inspectorate. The Town Council for supporting our request for a Public Inquiry. Our County and District Councillors for their support and understanding of the issues. Peter Phillips for his motion to SSDC full council requesting that they reconsider their U turn on not asking for a Public Inquiry. Heather Kidd and Georgie Ellis for speaking for the motion.
The list is endless and we are indebted to everyone who has helped and assisted us in our battles so far.
 
This is not a success for the Bishop's Castle Group - this is a success for everyone who is concerned for this proposal - thank you Bishop's Castle and the surrounding population.

More updates to follow in the coming days and weeks .......
 
The opinions expressed on this website are those of the Bishops Castle Group and we strive for accuracy in our comments - however should there be any factual errors we will gladly correct them.