Incinerator claims ‘not investigated’
●
AWATCHDOG has upheld two complaints against Halton Borough Council and ruled that it ‘failed’ to investigate reports from residents relating to alleged bad smells from the Runcorn energy-from-waste (EfW) incinerator.
The Local Government And Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) said it had ‘found fault’ in that the local authority had not carried out its duty to inspect claims of nuisance, but that there had been ‘no significant injustice’.
Two residents, referred to in rulings published on the LGO website as ‘Mr X’ and ‘ Ms X’, had made separate complaints to the watchdog accusing the council of not investigating smells described as like ‘rotting garbage’ and ‘rotting rubbish’ which they said emanated from the incinerator.
They said they had initially reported the alleged stench to the council, which replied that ‘it did not have any authority to undertake investigations’ and that such decisions should be made by the Environment Agency (EA).
The ombudsman found that to be false and said Halton Council should have looked into the bad odour reports, which were both made in September.
It said the council had accepted that ‘it did not investigate Mr X’s specific complaint in September’.
Had the local authority discovered any statutory nuisance or was likely to occur or recur, it would have been duty-bound to serve an abatement notice, but would have been required to seek approval from the Environment Secretary to prosecute if the EA could be eligible to prosecute the same allegation, to avoid duplication of the same prosecution.
However, the LGO concluded there had been no ‘significant injustice’ to the complainants, arguing the local authority had held other monitoring visits in October, November and December, when it found no ‘statutory nuisance’, adding that the EA had found the plant was being ‘operated within its permit’.
It reached identical conclusions for both complaints, and said Halton had agreed to review its procedure, stressing that it should ‘ensure that officers understand that the environmental permitting rules do not limit or remove the council’s duty to take reasonable steps to investigate complaints of nuisances’.
In its ruling for Ms X, the LGO said: “Although there is fault, I am not persuaded this led to a significant injustice to Ms X on this occasion.
“I say this because the council has provided evidence that it is in contact with the EA which considers the plant is operating in accordance with the EA permit.
“The council had previously taken steps to establish the extent of the permit ● conditions that apply to the plant.
“The council also confirmed that officers visited the site on a regular basis to consider whether a nuisance was being caused by the waste plant.
“When officers visited around four weeks after Ms X’s complaint, they decided there was no evidence of a statutory nuisance.”
It added: “Given the information from the EA and the visits the council undertook to monitor possible nuisances from the waste plant some time after Ms X’s complaint, I do not consider the fault I identified caused any significant injustice to Ms X.
“The council told me it had revised its procedures since the complaint.
“Nevertheless, I have recommended the council carries out a review of its processes in the light of our findings.”
When approached, Halton Council said monitoring visits had been made and no ‘significant injustice’ was found.
She said: “While the ombudsman found fault in the initial advice given to residents they also acknowledged that the council did carry out visits to monitor the site for a period after the complaints were made.
“These visits found no evidence that a statutory nuisance existed.
“As such the ombudsman recognised that the council had taken action at the time the complaints were received to investigate statutory nuisance.
“The ombudsman concluded from his investigation that while there was fault in the initial advice from the council, this did not cause any significant injustice.
“We have updated our procedure and subsequent investigations made by the council have not identified a statutory nuisance from the plant.”
The ruling comes weeks after a lawyer served plant operator Viridor with an ultimatum as he seeks compensation for 153 households who have blamed the incinerator for alleged noise, smell, steam and dust problems. Last month it was revealed that the plant had exceeded its annual permitted waste tonnage.
Halton Council has previously been stung with a hefty legal bill when it tried to stand up to the incinerator’s main energy customer Ineos ChlorVinyls, which defeated the council on appeal at public inquiry over its application to lift the limit on the amount of lorry traffic visiting the plant.
The Planning Inspectorate decided in favour of the company and ordered Halton Council to pay the billionaire-owned chemical company’s legal costs of around £1.3m.
The matter had gone to public inquiry after elected councillors had rejected an application from the firm to lift the limit on heavy goods traffic.
Halton Council’s misery over the matter did not end there, as an independent audit of the local authority’s accounts raised concern over the financial hit.