MVV APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL OF INCINERATOR

The Inquiry ran from 2 June to 25 June and is due to report in late August, early September. If you wish to read various documents associated with the Inquiry, including the Closing Statements, go to  DOWNLOADS below.

Magwatch contributed to the Inquiry  as a Rule 6 Party and was represented by counsel from Landmark Chambers, London. 

          YOU CAN READ ABOUT THE APPEAL PROCESS AND SEE THE FULL CALENDAR BELOW. 

In DOWNLOADS  below you will find:

- Magwatch's Statement of Case (Amended 9.02.26)

- Magwatch's two Proofs of Evidence, with their summaries and appendices

- The Statement of Common Ground between MVV and Magwatch

- Site Notice

-The closing statements of Magwatch, BCP and MVV.

[The state (as of 3rd April 2026) of the Magwatch fundraising account can be seen at the bottom of this page.]

 Participants

• The Planning Inspector (PINS)
• The Appellant (MVV)
• The Local Planning Authority (BCP)
• Rule 6 Parties (groups with full involvement in the appeal process)
• Interested Parties (Individuals and groups with views on the proposed development)

Representation

Community

There will be a community session at which residents will be able to speak.

‘Interested Party’

This requires a written statement (with arguments for refusal rooted in material planning considerations), provided to all sides, at a fairly early stage in the process. 

‘Rule 6 Party’

This is a more formal role for a person group who have applied for this status and who will have equal footing with MVV and BCP. They will share the same deadlines, and will be entitled to sight of BCP and MVV papers in advance. There will be an obligation to put forward at least one witness (ideally an expert), who most likely would be led through their statement by their advocate, then cross-examined by a MMV lawyer. Such representation, the most effective, would be costly and would require a significant fund-raising effort, if that is a path Magwatch wished to follow.

Some Terms

Statement of Case

The detailed arguments put forward to the PINS 1) by the appellant (MVV) as to why the refusal decision was wrong and should be overturned, 2) by the LPA (BCP) and 3) by Rule 6 parties as to why the refusal was the correct decision.

Statement of Common Ground

This is a shared document produced by the LPA and Appellant in which thy identify the areas and issues in which they are in agreement so that the Inquiry can focus on the contentious issues. It is something of a tightrope for BCP to walk: there is always the risk of giving away too much ground, thus playing into the hands of MVV.

Proof of evidence

This  is the written statement of the evidence a witness will present to the Inquiry in the Statement of Case. It is likely to contain professional opinion, with supporting facts. At the Inquiry itself witnesses will speak to their proofs and be subject to cross-examination by other parties (possibly a lawyer)  and the Inspector.

     Witnesses do not technically have to be an professional experts, but need to be capable of undergoing the same level of rigorous cross examination as an expert. 

[TO DOWNLOAD THESE NOTES, WITH THE TIMETABLE BELOW AND A LIST OF PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS, GO TO DOWNLOADS BELOW.

                                               .