Local pressure group, Communities Opposed to New Coal at Hunterston (or CONCH) are to launch a legal challenge to plans for a new coal-fired power station at Hunterston. The judicial review of the plans is to be brought on the grounds that the Scottish Government have not consulted the public according to standards required by European law and that assessments that were carried out did not adequately examine alternatives to a coal-fired power station.

The campaigners claim that the Scottish Government have failed to comply with their obligations under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 and the European Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (Directive 2001/42).

Maggie Kelly, of CONCH and a local resident, said: "The proposed power station would have a devastating impact on our community, damaging our health, our livelihoods and destroying the local environment. It would also mean unnecessary and damaging increases in Scotland's CO2 emissions leading to further climate chaos which will affect us all: across Scotland and globally. Yet under the National Planning Framework, we have been denied the opportunity to object to this major development."

Hunterston coal fired power station was a late addition to the Scottish Government's National Planning Framework (NPF) and was first mentioned four months after the main consultation was closed. As a result the public were unaware that this major development was proposed until it was too late to comment. Once developments are named in the NPF it is almost impossible for people to object to them. People can influence details such as the design and landscaping when the application goes in, but basically the presumption is that the development will go ahead.

According to The Guardian the campaigners are to be represented by the Environmental Law Centre Scotland Limited, who appear to be hosted by Jon Kiddie's Renfrewshire Law Centre (the law centre formerly known as Paisley) and about which I know nothing else.

Still, the fight seems a good one and therefore, good luck to all concerned.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Environmental Law, European Law, Law Centres, News, Scottish Government

The Stornoway Gazette reports that Calmax Construction Company, based in Lewis, were fined a total of £10,000 for waste and pollution charges.

It seems that Calmax were demolishing a house and the rubble left over contained a substantial amount of asbestos. Rather than, I don't know, calling in some experts to get rid of this hazardous substance safely, Calmax decided to simply burn it. Their crime was only detected by the eagle eyes of "a passing officer" from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

Am I alone in thinking that the fine in this case is not set at a level likely to deter? I don't know what the going rate is for safely disposing of a houseful of asbestos, but I reckon that it's expensive enough to make an asbestosis bonfire a profitable venture at that level of fine. To my mind the directors of the company should be ordered by the court to eat anything they haven't disposed of correctly.

The image shows a close up of asbestos (when not on fire).

Labels: criminal law, Environmental Law, News

The Scottish Ministers have decided (on 3rd September) not to call in an application by Go Ape! to build an adventure playground in Pollok Park and have sent it back to Glasgow City Council. The volume of objections is not technically allowable as a reason to review the planning decision - so campaigners are now at the stage of challenging the Council's legal competence to grant a lease at all.

Campaigners argue that the Council had no legal right to approve in principle a lease for Go Ape! in Feb 2007 and the Councillors were misinformed at the Committee which did this.

A solicitor on behalf of Save Pollok Park wrote in April 2008 to the City Council, reminding them that the disposition of Pollok to the Council prohibits developments such as Go Ape! without the agreement of the National Trust for Scotland and the Maxwell family.

It has further been argued that Pollok falls within the definition of "Common Good" and that the Council has failed so far to place it on the Common Good register.

Labels: Environmental Law, Glasgow, News, Scottish Government

I'm just back from my holidays in Aviemore - and what a nice time we had. Among the highlights of the trip were the number of red squirrels we saw. Never having seen even one before, I was delighted. If you like to see some too, I'd recommend the feeding station at the Inshriach Alpine Nurseries - where they do very nice cake as well.

I've uploaded some footage from our camera to YouTube, which should appear as a 15 second clip below.

Please note, that as this helpful guide from the Highland Red Squirrel Group points out, thanks to the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 it is now an offence to "intentionally or recklessly:

• kill, injure or take (capture) a Red Squirrel;
• damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place which a Red Squirrel uses for shelter or protection; or
• disturb a Red Squirrel while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose.

While you're in the area, you may also wish to locate solicitors in the Highlands.

Labels: Environmental Law