Thanks again now to several readers for this link.

I see little media coverage of the shocking evidence that emerges in this.

Glasgow City Council approved the location for the new QEUH on 16 January 2008, with a 45 to 22 majority over the SNP, 9 years before the SNP became the administration in 2017. Labour had run the city council, uninterrupted, since 1996 and the Glasgow District Council since 1975

Allan Bennett is a massively published specialist scientific advisor on airborne infection risks and ventilation/biosafety matters, who wrote the above.

His publications cv is at: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3T9W4bwAAAAJ&hl=en

He begins with:

On page 4 he notes:

Is that not deeply shocking? What on earth were the Labour councillors on the planning committee and the health board thinking? Had they read nothing?

and on page 5:

What could more clearly reveal the frankly low-brow, cringing, conservative nature of the Labour Party as it ran Glasgow, unopposed, into the ground?

Despite his opening, shocking, comments, Bennett does not, in the end, wholly condemn the choice of site but many others have condemned similar choices, including presumably, 7 of the 8 mentioned above in cities in England.

Here’s the question:

When a brownfield site suggested for a very large new hospital is directly, on 70% of prevailing winds, downwind of an existing waste water treatment plant and a waste recycling facility, how important are site visit reports and evidence from the local population of unpleasant smells, in deciding to confirm the site choice rather than move it to a site identified by critics, on greenfield land not downstream of the waste plants?

Answer:

Very important—often decisive or near-decisive in a proper planning and site-selection process. Site visit reports and evidence from the local population of unpleasant smells supply the critical real-world data that theoretical factors (such as average wind direction statistics) cannot fully capture. For a very large new hospital they should carry substantial weight when weighing confirmation of a brownfield site that is downwind of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and waste recycling facility.

Why?

Hospitals are high-sensitivity receptors – Patients (including the immunocompromised, elderly, and children), staff, and visitors spend long continuous periods on site. Persistent or intermittent foul odours (hydrogen sulphide, organic volatiles, etc.) degrade amenity, increase stress, undermine perceptions of cleanliness and care quality, and can affect recovery and working conditions. Planning guidance and odour-assessment practice treat hospitals, schools, and similar uses as highly sensitive; even moderate, recurring nuisance is material.

Site visits provide objective, contemporaneous assessment. Professional walkovers, sniff tests / field olfactometry, and documentation under varying weather conditions record intensity, character, frequency, and spatial extent. In comparable cases these have confirmed discernible sewage/recycling odours at hundreds of metres, worse under warm, still, or downwind conditions.

Local population evidence supplies the frequency and severity record. Residents, existing hospital users/staff (if any), and consultation responses document how often, how intensely, and with what effects the smells occur over months or years. Complaint histories, descriptions of “constant” or “sickening” odours capable of causing nausea, and patterns linked to wind or season are highly relevant. This is not mere anecdote; it is empirical evidence of amenity impact that regulators and planners routinely rely upon.

Has there been a case like the QEUH location?

No closely analogous high-profile cases of a major new acute hospital deliberately sited in the same way as the QEUH appear to be widely documented.

The Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH) / Royal Hospital for Children campus in Glasgow stands out because it involved:

• Redevelopment of a brownfield/existing hospital site (former Southern General).
• Immediate proximity (roughly 200 m at closest points, patient wards ~300 m) to a large municipal wastewater treatment works (Shieldhall WWTP, one of Scotland’s biggest) plus a waste recycling facility.
• Documented awareness of odour issues during site selection and Environmental Statement processes.
• Site visits confirming discernible sewage/recycling odours at hundreds of metres (worse in warmer/stiller conditions).
• Odour concerns influencing design decisions (e.g., sealed building and mechanical ventilation rather than natural ventilation).
• Persistent post-opening complaints and staff/patient reports of unpleasant smells.
• Formal public inquiry scrutiny of whether the site choice was appropriate (primarily focused on infection risk, with odour as a related amenity issue).

Sources:

https://www.hospitalsinquiry.scot/sites/default/files/2025-05/Scottish%20Hospitals%20Inquiry%20-%20Hearing%20Commencing%2013%20May%202025%20-%20Bundle%2039%20-%20Impact%20and%20Infection%20Risk%20of%20QEUH%20and%20RHC%20site%20choice%20by%20Allan%20Bennett%20(External%20Version).pdf

https://environment.govt.nz/assets/Publications/good-practice-guide-odour.docx