Achi news desk-
A previous ‘shocking’ screening analysis by the council admitted there was a risk of hazardous or toxic waste being produced during construction or operation or decommissioning. This came from asbestos and construction or demolition waste.
Now a judicial review backed by campaign group Wyndford Residents Union has been approved and has begun on the decision in an attempt to finally block the project.
The demolition was given advance approval by council officers as ‘permitted development’ in July last year, without ever coming before city councilors who would be able to weigh up the impact on the area and decide whether it should have planning permission.
The council, led by SNP leader Susan Aitken, says an assessment is not needed because the demolition is “not likely to have a significant impact on the environment”.
The local authority is being supported in the Court of Session case by Wheatley Homes, the nation’s largest social landlord, the developer behind the demolition plan.
The judicial review is expected to trigger a rally involving protesters at Wheatley House today (Friday), the headquarters of a social landlord in Scotland.
The Wyndford blocks were earmarked for demolition by Grŵp Wheatley who wanted to replace the existing 600 social housing units with 300 new homes. At the end of last year only around 10 per cent of the blocks were still occupied.
The housing association says the project will replace the “dated and unpopular blocks” with affordable homes for families, 255 of which will be for social rent.
Wheatley says the project will replace the “dated and unpopular blocks” with affordable homes for families, 255 of which will be for social rent.
The campaigners previously won a court battle over the council’s actions, with judge Lord Lake ruling, following a concession from the council, that “sufficient reasons” had not been “provided” in terms of the law relating to and using impact assessments in decision making.
The council said they had agreed on a joint record that his decision not to have an impact assessment was legally erroneous simply by “failing to adequately explain the basis” to him.
The record said that the council “recognizes… that there are interests [the campaigners] have been prejudiced by failure to comply with the relevant requirements and for this reason alone the decision could properly be quashed by the court”.
Campaigners had seen the ruling as a victory in their battle to stop £100m development plans brought forward by Scotland’s largest publicly funded housing association.
In the new legal battle, lawyers for the campaigners led by James Mure KC say the council applied the “wrong test” in deciding that an EIA was not required.
Mr Mure says that the council had not been given enough information to be sure that the area would be protected from the effects of the demolition without an EIA.
He said the council “could not be confident” that any mitigation measures would actually eliminate any impact on the area when carrying out a screening report which decided a thorough environmental impact assessment was not required.
The campaigners’ legal team say the correct test is that the project is likely to “have significant effects on the environment”.
A previous screening analysis admitted there was a risk of accidents during the construction or operation of the development which could have an impact on people or the environment.
This related to “explosion, spills and fires through the storage, handling and use or production of dangerous or toxic substances”.
It was found that the development would release pollutants or dangerous, poisonous or toxic substances related to the combustion of fossil fuels, construction activities and dust or odors from the handling of materials including construction equipment, sewage and waste.
The tick box analysis found that many people would be affected and that there was potential for a “significant environmental impact”. The council said this could be addressed through its prior approval process.
It was accepted that there would be a risk to human health either during the construction or operation of the development. That included air pollution from active vehicle traffic and noise issues during the demolition phase.
But the council said the risks can be contained through mitigation measures.
The campaigners’ legal advice is that this amounts to a “legal error” saying that the correct test of whether an EIA should be carried out is whether there are likely to be significant effects on the environment, not whether they can be adequately controlled.
Mr Mure has questioned why the council had not given detailed reasons for how the concerns arising from the demolition would be appropriately mitigated, necessitating an EIA.
But Alasdair Burnet KC said on behalf of the council that there was no evidence that planned mitigation measures would not work.
The residents’ union and the Scottish Tenants’ Organization (STO) believe the flats can be kept safe and retrofitted. But Wheatley says it is too difficult and expensive.
The Wyndford estate was designed by Ernest Buteux, chief technical officer of the Scottish Special Housing Association (SSHA) from 1959-78. It was believed to have been influenced by the designs of Le Corbusier – the father of modern architecture. It was built on a 55 acre site at the old Maryhill barracks, estimated to cost £4m.
The anti-demolition campaign is supported by leading Scottish architects Alan Dunlop, Kate Macintosh and Malcolm Fraser.
