Campaigners plan legal challenge against Mallusk incinerator

By David Hunter

An environmental group says it plans to mount a legal challenge against a controversial waste incinerator near Mallusk. 

The plant at Hightown was granted planning permission yesterday by the Department of Infrastructure. 

That's despite thousands of letters of objection, and being declined by former Environment Minister, Mark H Durkan, in 2015.

Arc21, the firm behind the application, appealed the decision and say the project is in the public interest. 

A spokesperson said that although the site was new to Northern Ireland, it was a tried and tested method of waste disposal in other areas of Europe. 

They also said the environmental impact was within all EU regulations and would be closely monitored at all times. 

The Planning Appeals Commission agreed after a two day hearing in 2016 and recommended the plant be approved 'without delay'.

Charlie Thompson is a "No-Arc-21" campaigner who's against the £240million plant. 

He told QRadio News: "It would appear the only option open to us is to take a full judicial review.

"We had a committee meeting last night and we are now looking at taking that. As we currently understand we have a period of six months to launch this review.

"This is not an easy process, It's a very expensive process and as we're a small voluntary group we have a lot of work leading up until then to get this process done."

The plant, which is expected to be around the same size as Wembley Stadium in London, could take several years to construct. 

It will sort through 'black bin waste' from Northern Ireland before it's sent into different buildings. 

The waste will then be recycled, or incinerated so the heat can be used to make electricity.

However, a similar recycling plant is being constructed in Belfast, with campaigners saying the Mallusk site won't be sustainable.

South Antrim MLA Steve Aiken told QRadio the company may even have to import waste from other areas to keep the site running.  

Charlie Thompson estimates the review could cost tens of thousands of pounds including barrister fee's and gathering evidence.

Mr.Thompson also said the decision came 'out of the blue' and that the group would be looking to secure funding through a number of pages online..

"This was a total shock. The first we heard of it was when we started getting calls from the press asking us to do a telephone interview" he said.

"We were assured that as a group challenging the appeal, we would be kept updated. We were told there would be full openness and transparency, but this report was completed in early February and has just been sitting on a civil servants desk. 

"We heard nothing and now we've just been told like this. It's a disgrace, and it's something we certainly didn't expect to happen."