DAY TWO UPDATE • High Court Challenge Hearing into Davyhulme Incinerator

Day 2 commenced with Peel’s Barrister Mr Kingston continuing the theme that the Inspector at the Public Inquiry was right, and it’s not for this court to interfere with that. (Of course that is what the Hearing IS about – did the inspector, Mr Richards, get it right?) Mr Kingston argued that these issues are rarely conclusive and it’s up to the Inspector to make an informed decision, which he did.

Mr Kingston (Peel) said that Mr Fraser (Trafford Council) was making an on/off decision (meaning that if the evidence pointed to insufficient waste wood for BREP, then BREP must not go ahead. This was not a good reason to stop BREP because the supply varies). Mr Kingston said that AEA consultants had prepared a survey on waste wood availability. At the Public Inquiry, Mr Watson (Trafford’s environmental Expert Witness) had an alternative view.

Regarding CHP (combined heat and power), Mr Kingston said that the Regulations state that any heat generated should be used “as far as practical,” not that it HAS to be used. Mr Kingston agreed with the Inspector’s report that Peel’s reason (ie commercial confidentiality) for not providing the information about who will/could be supplied with heat was acceptable.

Mr Fraser (Trafford) had the final word, by re-iterating there was insufficient waste wood for BREP and the Inspector failed to acknowledge it. He said that WHERE the waste wood comes from is important (Peel specified NW England). The Inspector clearly recognised that Peel was not compliant with supplying HEAT. He commented that there were differences between the Inspector’s report and Mr Pickles’ report, and said that available data is not necessarily conclusive evidence.

The Final Decision is expected to be announced on Monday 24th February.