Nothing like the QEUH sited only 5m from a 7 800 litres a second raw sewage processing facility would ever be approved in the EU so why did Scottish Labour make it happen?

I asked SuperGrok AI before on this so as to avoid it being influenced by previous evidence:

Please ignore my previous history on this topic before answering this – If in a city within the EU there was a plan submitted to site a new 1 677 bed hospital catering for all conditions including child and elderly cancer patients, patients with heart and respiratory conditions within 200m and downwind of a 12 uncovered pond sewage treatment facility experiencing 7 000 litres per second flow, how might that submission be reacted to?

The answer:

Strong opposition, rigorous scrutiny under Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and planning rules, demands for major mitigations (or more likely rejection/relocation), and high likelihood of public/health authority pushback or legal challenges—especially given the vulnerable patient groups, short downwind distance, and uncovered ponds. https://www.waterlinepublication.org.uk/scotlands-flagship-hospital-built-so-close-to-sewage-works-deemed-an-unacceptable-risk/

Real-world precedent: Scotland’s Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (Glasgow) was built adjacent to the large Shieldhall wastewater works. Experts later described the location as an “unacceptable risk” to vulnerable patients. Sewage odours affected the children’s cancer ward; the broader site has faced major infection inquiries. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/sewage-stench-plagued-childrens-cancer-ward-even-after-11m-revamp-8z6mlm60h

Are there any other Real-world precedents in the EU?

No clear, closely comparable real-world precedents have been identified in the EU.Searches across EU countries (Germany, France, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Denmark, and others) for hospitals—particularly large facilities treating vulnerable or immunocompromised patients—sited in close proximity (e.g., within a few hundred metres, especially downwind) to major municipal sewage/wastewater treatment works.

Would the QEUH proposal to site the hospital in the same have been allowed in any other EU country?

It is unlikely that a proposal essentially identical to the QEUH siting (a large hospital including facilities for highly vulnerable/immunocompromised patients, placed within roughly 200–400 m and potentially downwind of a major municipal wastewater treatment works with significant emission potential) would have been straightforwardly approved in most other EU countries without substantial modifications, stronger mitigations, or an alternative site.

Discover more from Talking-up Scotland

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

6 thoughts on “Nothing like the QEUH sited only 5m from a 7 800 litres a second raw sewage processing facility would ever be approved in the EU so why did Scottish Labour make it happen?”

  2. Sorry to appear to contradict Prof R…think he means Glasgow City Council decisions including Planning Dept. I have stopped short of obtaining full GGHB minutes from 2000 because they are archived and you must provide personal details to obtain them. But maybe somebody is braver than me (though I once was such a person…). Here is the summary of their millennium decision making https://www.nhsggc.scot/hospitals-services/main-hospitals/queen-elizabeth/building-the-hospital/ and a pivotal Scottish Parliamentary debate from 2001 which shows that the Lib-Lab Government was well aware of the Cowglen and sewage issues  https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2001-01-17.307.0  Chisholm’s approval in 2002 is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2188390.stm and were followed by yet another SP debate in December 2002 clearly showing that Nicola Sturgeon was against the Shieldhall location for all of the obvious reasons https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2002-09-12.13633.0&s=%22Acute+Services+Review+%28Glasgow%29%22. I am not a Sturgeon apologist and agree in principle with Gregor McIntosh though I think it possible that the alternative sites were no longer available by 2008 and would dearly love to see the detailed transactions and land deals at Cowglen

    Like

    Reply

  3. Several MSPs in the September 2002 debate referred to the GGHB 2000 consultation as a “sham”: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2002-09-12.13633.0&s=%22Acute+Services+Review+%28Glasgow%29%22. This was followed by Glasgow City Council’s equivocal response to GGHB proposals to close Queen Mother’s Hospital at Yorkhill and transfer facilities to the SGH/QEUH site leaving a standalone RHSC at Yorkhill. The full report is available via AI but I cannot provide an easy to access reference. From AI “Glasgow City Council response to the consultation (final report)

    Title: Greater Glasgow NHS Board – Consultation on the Future of Maternity Services in Greater Glasgow:Response from Glasgow City CouncilPrepared by: Report by Director of Development and Regeneration Services (Glasgow City Council)Date: 17 February 2004Document purpose: To respond to the Greater Glasgow NHS Board consultation on the future of maternityservices in Greater Glasgow.Recommendation stated in the document: Approve the attached comments as the Council’s response.

    Full text (as provided in the document):

    Glasgow City Council

    Report by Director of Development and Regeneration Services
    Contact: Marie McHenery Ext: 76980

    Greater Glasgow NHS Board”. If you can find this document it illustrates the difficulties faced by the incoming 2007 SNP minority Government in the face of Glasgow City Council’s equivocation and eventual capitulation regarding GGHB proposals.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.