HSE takes Wolverhampton council to court over student village
Oct 15 2009 by Sarah Probert, Birmingham Post
A city council granted permission for a 750-room student village within metres of a potentially explosive gas installation – against the advice of health and safety experts, the High Court heard yesterday.
Wolverhampton City Council granted permission for the £40 million development in August 2008 and already three quarters of the work has been done, with hundreds of students in residence.
But the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) says the decision was “unlawful” without a public inquiry into safety concerns and is retrospectively fighting the permission at the High Court this week.
Lawyers for the HSE said it was not told that the council was “minded” to grant permission for the four-block development and so was deprived of its right to ask for the case to be considered by the Government, with an associated public inquiry.
Although one block is already full and another approaching capacity, the HSE wants the High Court to rule that the final uncompleted block be shelved and unfilled rooms remain empty until the liquid petroleum gas installation is decommissioned.
The gas is stored in tanks and cylinders by Carvers LPG Ltd, situated less than 100 metres away in Little’s Lane, which has had Hazardous Substances Consent for more than 15 years.
Lawyers for the council deny that it deliberately kept its consideration of the decision from the HSE and said it was entitled to come to the decision that it did on the proposals.
Opening the claim for judicial review before Mr Justice Collins in London, Philip Coppel QC said the HSE’s concern was “a real one”.
It had informed the council of its objection to the proposed development in September 2007 and, having heard nothing back, assumed that its advice had been followed and the proposal rejected.
It was not until December 2008, four months after permission was granted, that the HSE found out, through an e-mail from Carvers, that the council had gone against its advice.
“Despite the HSE’s letter of September 6, 2007, warning of the dangers to human safety, at no stage during the 11 months after that letter did Wolverhampton notify or indicate to the HSE that it was proposing to reject the advice of the HSE,” said Mr Coppel.
“Further, Wolverhampton hid from the HSE both its decision that it was minded to grant planning permission and its decision to grant planning permission.”
He continued: “Had the HSE been informed that Wolverhampton was minded to grant planning permission, the HSE would have requested that the Secretary of State call in the application for his own determination.
“If this request had been granted, the power to grant planning permission would have been taken away from Wolverhampton and vested in the Secretary of State, following a public inquiry at which safety concerns would have been fully considered.
“By not informing the HSA that it was minded to grant planning permission, Wolverhampton has frustrated that inquiry process.”
Mr Coppel is also challenging the council’s decision not to vary the planning permission when, after learning of its approval, the HSE asked that steps be taken to prevent the construction of the fourth block.
He said the danger of liquid petroleum gas installations had been illustrated by an accident in Italy in June, in which more than 20 were killed and nearby building crumbled to the ground.
The hearing continues.
