THE FIGHT GOES ON!
SATEP is committed to fighting the Eco Park incinerator in every way.
However, we are just ordinary, local residents armed only with funds raised from the community - THANK YOU.
In January, local residents decided not to pursue a Judicial Review after the Court advised that there was no case to answer. Not a surprising outcome: Surrey CC spent £££thousands of residents' money on top lawyers ensuring that the planning processes used to pass te Eco Park application was armour-plated. Surrey simply ticked all the right boxes. It doesn't make what they have done, or what they are doing, any more right or good; and certainly not green or 'Eco' in safeguarding the health of Spelthorne residents.
OUR FIGHT CONTINUES, AND IF THE WORST HAPPENS WE SHALL NEED TO FUND MONITORING EQUIPMENT TO ENSURE ANY EMISSIONS BREACHES (AND THERE WILL BE) ARE PROPERLY AND QUICKLY ADDRESSED.
DONATE via Bank Transfer, or paying in cheques
We can now accept direct payment into Nat West via
Sortcode: 01 01 23
Account Number: 1587 9380
EMERGENCY ECO PARK PLANNING MEETING FIASCO EXPOSES SURREY
Serious procedural questions are being raised around the confusion of dates, timings and several last minute personnel changes for Surrey Council's emergency Planning & Regulatory Committee meeting, 13th March, to determine 4 Eco Park planning conditions. This is on the back of serious flaws in the public consultation process, with late availability of (and in some cases) missing documents.
Surrey originally hoped to 'delegate powers' to its Officers to determine these planning conditions. However, when members of the public saw the proposed plans, which included inadequate landscaping around the huge incinerator complex and the construction management plan, they objected in their droves with legitimate concerns. Surrey needed to get these conditions rubber stamped as the original planning permission for Eco Park was due to expire. An emergency meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Committee (PR&C) was called by Surrey head, McNulty....and here is where it starts to get murky.
1. 5th March: when Surrey originally claims McNulty called this meeting, 5 working days before 13th. Surrey subsquently changes this claim to 3 March - see below for why this is an issue.
2. 6th March: PR&C agenda published on SCC website with NO accompanying reports.P&RC chair, Keith Taylor away on holiday, deputy chair Tim Hall steps up. Originally timing of meeting set for 2pm to squeak
'5 clear days' requirement before meeting.
3. In answer to public queries about missing reports and short notice of meeting, Tim Hall advises by email that Surrey's officers were due to decide the conditions 'late on 5th or early 6th March'
4. Charlton Lane Residents Association receive official notice letter from Surrey, dated 5th March, advising that 2 of the 4 conditions have already been decided! This does not sit well with Mr Hall's 'late 5th or early 6th' statement, and would assume that those missing reports must have been available well before 5th for such a decision to have been made. It also makes a mockery of Surrey's claim that McNulty called the meeting on 3rd! Mutterings of 'pre-determination' are being heard. See the letter here - and the decision notice pages 2 & 3.
5. 9th March: the 4 detailed reports finally available online, but crucially less than 5 clear days before meeting, leaving PR&C members less than 5 days to digest complex contents to be able to make informed decision.
6. An email from P&RC member, Cllr Ernest Mallet, to a local resident who wrote to him with concerns before the meeting states that the time for objections to the Eco Park was 10 years ago, when the Surrey Waste Plan was being discussd.
7. Timing of meeting changed - brought forward from 2pm to 11am.
8. 12th March: last minute changes to members attending PR&C, anyone who has previously spoken out against Eco Park development is replaced. Chair, Keith Taylor, is recalled from holiday. New members have less than 24 hours to review hundrends of pages of complex reports.
9. 13 March: meeting. PR&C agree with public concerns that SITA's definition of 'mature trees' with trunks the size of loo rolls is wrong and insists that larger, properly mature trees and increased planting is required.