SENIOR OFFICIALS on Perth and Kinross Council, including chief executive Bernadette Malone, need to be held to account over Perth’s incinerator saga, a leading campaigner insisted last night.

Earlier in the week the Dewar’s Centre was packed with more than 200 opponents of the plan to build a £100m incinerator on Perth’s Shore Road.

There was relief that members of the council’s development control committee unanimously refused Grundon’s application for the facility near the town centre, which would have featured a 262-foot chimney stack.

Also welcomed was the fact that councillors resolved to consider revoking the outline consent, which had been given in 2006.

There was an air of triumphalism in the air at the end of the meeting but the chairperson of the Bridgend, Gannochy and Kinnoull Community Council, which has led the opposition campaign, does not want those responsible for the proposal getting to this stage wriggling off the hook.

Brian Raine insisted that culpability goes right to the top.

“I think Bernadette Malone needs to look at herself and the whole team of officials who were responsible,” he said.

“I know Roland Bean was not in charge of the planning department when outline planning permission was granted but he is now in charge of a department that is not as efficient and professional as it should be. There are undoubtedly questions that need to be answered.

“Hopefully the elected members, our councillors, will raise the questions themselves about how and why this has happened.

“But if they don’t raise the questions, we certainly will.”

A few councillors have already aired their concerns about what has happened in the council’s planning department.

Labour’s Archie MacLellan said at the meeting, “The head of planning, Roland Bean, has accepted it may have been unwise to grant outline consent—well in my view it was grossly incompetent and shameful.”

Tory councillor Heather Stewart added that the public had “lost trust” in the council as a result of the granting of outline consent.

The committee’s decision may not yet be the end of the matter.

Mr Raine admitted, “The likelihood is they will appeal, unless they take the honourable way out, which I would encourage them to do. They will now have got a full picture of the strength of feeling against the incinerator.”

A fighting fund has been set up to foot the considerable bill run up by the protest group, which has paid for a raft of specialist experts, legal advice and a high profile media campaign, which has been driven by public relations firm Media House.

*The firm behind plans for the incinerator has expressed “disappointment” after the local authority threw out the application.

Grundon officials insisted they had done anything required of them in preparing their proposals and denied the plant would have emitted potentially dangerous toxic fumes.

They also said they would take time to consider their position before deciding whether or not to appeal.

“Grundon Waste Management is disappointed but not surprised at the decision by Perth and Kinross Council to reject its application to develop an energy from waste plant on Shore Road,” a spokesman said.

Bosses at the firm are clearly angry with SEPA after the environmental watchdog lodged an eleventh hour objection.

“The company voluntarily submitted an environmental impact assessment for the proposed development, although there was no legal requirement to do so,” the spokesman said.

“In October, SEPA unequivocally withdrew its previous objections to the planning application and confirmed it had ‘no objections to the location on the grounds of impacts on the environment and health.’

“Professionally the company is at a complete loss as to why, a matter of days before the application was due to be considered by the committee—and only a month after withdrawing its original objections—SEPA decided to change its position.”

Bob Nicholson, director of estates for Grundon, insisted the facility would have been good news for Perth.

“Modern, purpose designed energy from waste plants operate in towns and cities across Europe and Scandinavia,” he said.

“They do not pose a health hazard, commerce and industry continue to operate successfully and tourism flourishes.

“We are surprised by the fact that the grounds for refusal include the objections raised by SEPA in its November 12 letter, particularly as in the interim we had not been asked to submit any additional information for SEPA to consider.”

Mr Nicholson insisted a decision on Grundon’s proposal should have been deferred following SEPA’s dramatic late intervention.

With the “reserved matters” application refused, a full council meeting next month will debate the possibility of revoking the outline consent previously granted for the incinerator.

Mr Nicholson said Grundon will “consider its position” following those discussions.