Monthly Archives: January 2016

New challenge for Sutton Council

Once again, thank you everyone for all your donations and contributions. Along with a payment of £5000 from the court order, relating to the judicial review, a letter was sent to the authorities. The key points of the letter are covered in this news article on Inside Croydon.

dirty water dirty air no web site

07.12.15

Dear Mr Fellows,

Further to our conversation of Tuesday, 24th November, I have successfully raised £1770 as a result of your demand. Additionally, I have been approached by an individual who has loaned me an amount sufficient to make up the shortfall in my funds to allow me to pay the £5,000 court costs now due to Sutton Council. I am prepared to make this payment, without prejudice, should any future legal challenge prove that the council, councillors or council officers acted illegally in the award of the waste contract to Viridor Limited and subsequently in the planning application approval.

In particular, but not exclusively, I refer to the non-disclosure of the £275,000 donation from Viridor Credits to Holy Trinity Church, Wallington and the coercion of Councillor Stephen Fenwick in the days before the second hearing of the planning application. If any actions by the council, councillors or council officers or information withheld before the hearings would have affected the outcome of the Judicial Review or the Court of Appeal hearing I reserve the right to reclaim your £5,000 costs plus my own costs

I ask that this £5000 that I transfer to you be used by the Beddington Village Residents Association in concurrence with Sutton council to undertake independent air monitoring once the 300,000 tonnes Viridor waste incinerator is operational. In commenting to the press regarding the demand for £5000, I note that Sutton council said that it “upholds the importance of public scrutiny.” I hope this level of scrutiny is made available to residents in Beddington, Carshalton, Wallington, Hackbridge and the wider area.

I am not prepared to pay the interest charge demanded. When I entered into the legal process it was made absolutely clear to me that there was a cap of £5,000 that could be awarded against me for costs. Not £5,000 plus interest. It is not my fault that Sutton Council have chosen to delay requesting the costs for 12 months, undoubtedly in the knowledge that the sum due was earning interest at a rate much higher than could be achieved elsewhere in the market. I reserve the right to contest the demand for interest in the courts if the council insist on this payment. From my point of view I was under the impression that I was liable for the capped £5000 only after April 28th 2015 when the attempt to send the decision to the Court of Appeal was refused by Justice Sales. From that point on, no solicitor has been under instruction. It was my expectation that I would receive a letter from Sutton requesting the payment of £5000 advising who precisely to pay, although I was also advised at the time that potentially Sutton would not request the £5000 costs.

To accentuate the point I make above, following a conversation with you now, you have advised me that I have to pay London Borough of Merton, which I never would have predicted.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Shasha Khan

UPDATE:

Sutton Council have rejected the suggestion. See here http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/news/14238300.Council_not__putting_its_money_where_its_mouth_is__over_air_quality_monitoring/

facebooktwitter

How many life years will be lost?

Mr Nicol, the ‘A’ level Physics teacher within our campaign, has sent us the following:

I have read the Health Impact Assessment again and urge others to read it.

https://www.viridor.co.uk/assets/Uploads/SouthLondonERF/Other_application_docs/Health_Impact_Assessment.pdf

It assumes the filters will work all the time, every time. The reality is when the filters fail and breach safety levels, the contract allows 4 hours of continuous dangerous emissions.

A sentence from page 53 reads:

The calculation of loss of life years through exposure of additional concentrations of PM2.5 from the ERF [incinerator] is approximately 2 hours for each person in the population considered 2,655,000, assuming that the distribution was an even one.

We are often accused of hysterical over claims that people will die as a result of the incinerator; however, the Health Impact Assessment states that there will be a modest impact of an average of 2 hours of life curtailed, when spread over 2.7 million people.  However, this represents almost 700 life years lost, and it is unlikely that this will be spread evenly over a quarter of London – the question to put to the public, is who are going to be the unlucky ones who take more than their fair share of the ‘life years lost’ ?

By Shasha Khan

facebooktwitter