We have received some requests for more information regarding the grounds for Judicial Review summarised in the Pre-Action Protocol Letter.
The following is the list of areas highlighted by our Barrister that were considered suitable for Judicial Review purposes after consulting with BACI and several experts:
- The EA failed to challenge the incorrect chemistry evidence submitted by Covanta regarding the effect of water on heavy metal residues. Dissolved heavy metals would not be captured in the proposed ‘interceptors’ and would ultimately drain into Stewartby Lake
- The EA and Covanta failed to – and made no attempt to – gain meteorological data representative of conditions in Marston Vale. The EA accepted evidence from Covanta based on modelling that is not capable of taking into account Temperature Inversion events that would bring air-borne pollutants down to ground-level
- The EA accepted Covanta’s calculations of the Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emissions based on out-of-date EA guidance regarding Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) to Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) conversion rates
- The EA failed to make Covanta take into account as human receptors the footpaths used by many thousands of visitors per year in the Millennium Country Park/Forest Centre – immediately adjacent to the Rookery site
- In response to a Freedom of Information request – the EA confirmed that they had failed to request that Covanta carry out a Cost-Benefit analysis ignoring the EA’s own up to date guidance.
We are aware that these areas may not correspond to the issues that residents may find of most concern – but they have been highlighted by the Barrister as the areas that are suitable to issue proceedings under Judicial Review.
This does not mean we can not add to the grounds for Judicial Review at a later date – but the initial letter sets out these identified areas.