Polluting particles, relocation and construction without a permit.

Editorial summary

Šobot links relocation of the old boiler house to polluting particles. He says the new plant uses pellets and has lower capacity. He cites City guidance and disputes complaints about the fuel type.

CAPITAL reports the inspector’s finding that work began and was carried out without a construction permit, with an order for removal and restoration of the original state. Šobot confirms an appeal.

The order and emissions measurements have not been directly reviewed; the appeal outcome is unconfirmed. The statement does not establish pollution levels in every preceding year, and photographs do not prove fuel composition.

For the initiative, heating, clean air and lawful construction are a shared concern. We call for publication of permits, a site plan showing distances from patient rooms and neighbouring buildings, and emissions measurements.

Claims about polluting particles and the construction permit are separate matters. Without the full order, we do not relabel a construction inspection as an environmental finding. The linked health dossier asks about consistency in a public institution’s heating choices, while retaining UKC’s response.

We attribute the claim of an order to relocate the boiler house to Šobot. Verifying what the authority actually ordered requires the full publicly available document: reducing emissions, relocation and other measures are not interchangeable.

„Zbog povećanog obima zagađujućih čestica“

English translation

“Because of increased polluting particles”