STROUD District Council is taking on Eric Pickles in a legal challenge over his approval of Gloucestershire’s controversial £500m incinerator.

The secretary of state for the department for communities and local government gave the nod for the waste burner earlier this year to much local outrage.

A spokesman representing Stroud District Council said, on Thursday, February 12: “We have submitted papers today to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision to approve the incinerator application.”

The council is taking steps to contest the Government’s decision to grant permission for the mass burner to be built at Javelin Park near Haresfield near junction 12 of the M5.

Gloucestershire County Council’s planning committee had originally refused planning permission for the incinerator last year.

But Urbaser Balfour Beatty, the company contracted to build the incinerator, appealed their decision and the Government granted the appeal in January.

Javier Peiro, Project Director for Urbaser Balfour Beatty, said “We are disappointed to learn that Stroud District Council has decided to submit an application to challenge the secretary of state’s decision to grant permission for our application for an energy from waste facility at Javelin Park.

“The legal challenge would be against the secretary of state’s decision although Urbaser Balfour Beatty will have the opportunity to assist in defending the case. As such, we await the details of Stroud District Council’s application and we will co-operate fully with the process as required.

“The facility is designed to manage the waste from Gloucestershire’s c.600,000 residents that is left over after recycling. The Secretary of State found our proposals to be in-line with the relevant planning policy and Gloucestershire County Council’s Waste Core Strategy.

“This further delay only increases the environmental and economic cost to Gloucestershire of continuing to landfill.”

Stroud District Council’s spokesman assured the public that the cost of the challenge should not exceed £25,000.

He said: “The challenge is based upon the inspector’s interpretation of Gloucestershire’s waste core strategy, specifically landscape issues.

"At the inquiry held last year the district councils, county council and those previously involved in the drafting of the WCS were all surprised by the way that the inspector applied the elements of the strategy which were designed to protect the landscape.

“Our aim is to have those elements applied correctly, in the way that they were intended, and to limit any adverse landscape and subsequent economic impact and maintain the beauty and the economy of the county.”

In response to the news of the legal challenge brought by SDC, Cllr Ray Theodoulou, deputy leader of Gloucestershire County Council said: "Any judicial review would have to be about the way the Secretary of State reached his decision, not about the merits of the scheme itself.

“We understand that one of the reasons the decision was delayed was because the department for communities and local government were keen to ensure it was robust, and not at significant risk of legal challenge.

“Even were a judicial review to succeed, its effect would only be to make the secretary of state take the decision again - it would not necessarily change the outcome of that decision."

Further afield in Norfolk planning documents released on Wednesday, February 11 revealed that Eric Pickles was advised to rule in favour of plans to build a now-aborted energy from waste plant in King’s Lynn.

The decision to scrap the contract exposed Norfolk County Council to about £33.7 million in cancellation fees.

Stroud District Council’s spokesman said: “The decision taken by Norfolk to end its plans for an incinerator was based on a reassessment of whether the proposal still represented value for money. It was with this in mind that the group leaders at Stroud District Council, wrote to the leader of the county council offering to pay for a review.

"Despite sizeable costs which have to be paid in Norfolk for walking away from their incinerator contract, the case obviously stacked up. Ultimately the costs of exiting the UBB contract need to be compared to the cost against other disposal options rather than comparing them only to the worst case scenario of the costs of land filling untreated waste.”