A JUDICIAL review into the decision to approve a waste to energy incinerator for Keighley heard Bradford Council failed to effectively weigh up the harms and benefits of the development.

Yesterday's (Jan 15) five-hour hearing in Leeds Combined Court Centre was also told the council did not take into account advice from environmental consultants about the damage the incinerator may cause to the conservation area on Rombalds Moor.

The review was called by campaign group Aire Valley Against Incineration (AVAI), after Bradford Council passed the plans for the waste to energy burner submitted by Endless Energy Limited.

The firm wants to build the facility off the eastern end of Marley Road, next to the Aire Valley Bypass.

AVAI was represented at the first day of the two-day judicial review hearing by barrister Duncan Sinclair. The hearing was presided over by justice Timothy Kerr.

Mr Sinclair commented on the council's assessment of the impact the waste to energy burner would have on grade I listed East Riddlesden Hall.

He said council officers' argument that the development would have less than substantial harm on this historic property failed to account for the "spectrum" of impacts below this level of harm.

"There's a need to assess degree of harm to the significance of this heritage asset and the degree of harm to the setting of this asset," he said. "It's quite astounding for the defendant to say otherwise."

He said a presentation made by council officers to councillors listed the benefits of the scheme, but supplied no equivalent list of the effects the development would have on East Riddlesden Hall.

"There's no tilted balancing exercise, no weighing up and no presumption against granting planning permission," he said. "There's been an error in law."

Mr Sinclair said advisory body and consultee Natural England gave conflicting advice.

He said this organisation expressed agreement with a study conducted by experts from Environ, who found an existing high level of acidification on Rombalds Moor meant that a waste to energy plant should not be built.

However, he said Natural England, when consulted by Bradford Council on Endless Energy's planning application, concluded the incinerator was not likely to harm the environment.

"In what can only be described as one hand not knowing what the other was doing, Natural England was consistently inconsistent," he said.

"The local authority [Bradford Council] drank from the poisoned well of this advice."

He added that the incinerator's potential effect on Rombald's Moor was barely considered in the Bradford planning officer's report on the application.

John Barrett, responding on behalf of Bradford Council, said at the time of the application no serious concerns were raised to council officers about Rombald's Moor.

"What was raised at the application stage by the public and others was a rather pitiful assembly of consultation responses, not one of them made the case for a full detailed Appropriate Assessment," he said.

"They were at best anecdotal or general observations."

He argued that Natural England's advice had been consistent, pointing out its responses to the Environ report and Endless Energy's planning application had been reactions to two very different situations.

He said Bradford Council consulted with and followed the recommendations of credible, statutory organisations such as the Environment Agency and Natural England, so should not have been expected to substitute their views with its own judgement.

Mr Barrett said council officers conducted a detailed assessment of the development's effect on East Riddlesden Hall.

The judicial review will continue today (Jan 16) with submissions to be made by a barrister on behalf of Endless Energy.

Justice Kerr has said he does not expect to reach a decision today.