Agenda item

c. 13:30

 

The Committee has requested an interim report on the illegal waste site near Kidlington.

 

The Committee has invited Cllr Liz Leffman, the Leader of the Council, Cllr Judy Roberts, Cabinet member for Place, Environment, and Climate Change, Robin Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, Nicola Riley, Cherwell District Council’s Assistant Director: Wellbeing and Housing Services, Simon Hawkins, the Environment Agency’s Director of Operations for East and South East England, to attend as well as officers from the Council’s regulatory planning and enforcement service.

 

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

 

The Committee had requested an interim report updating the Committee on the illegal waste site at Hampton Poyle, near Kidlington. 

 

Councillor Liz Leffman, the Leader of the Council, and Councillor Judy Roberts, Cabinet member for Place, Environment, and Climate Action, attended to present the report.  They were accompanied by Robin Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, as well as Nicola Riley, Cherwell District Council’s Assistant Director: Wellbeing and Housing Services, and Michael Adcock, Deputy Chief Fire Officer, Jason Sherwood, Head of Regulatory Planning Enforcement, David Periam, Planning Development Manager, Neal Richmond, Team Leader: Enforcement, and Matthew Case, Team Leader: Applications.

 

The Chair noted that the Environment Agency was not represented owing to their interpretation of guidance on the pre-election period and hoped that that, if the Committee were to consider another report on the topic, that the Environment Agency would be represented then.

 

The Leader of the Council introduced the report and thanked residents, local members, officers and partner agencies for their work in responding to the incident. The Leader emphasised the seriousness and complexity of the illegal waste activity, its links to organised criminal behaviour, and the impact on the local community. Councillor Leffman highlighted the importance of partnership working, particularly with the Environment Agency and district councils, and advised that progress had been made in securing the site and commencing clearance, noting the national relevance of the lessons emerging from the incident.

 

Councillor Roberts supported those remarks and reflected on the technical sophistication and speed of the illegal operation. The Cabinet member acknowledged that, whilst the response once the scale of the issue was understood had been strong, there were lessons to be learned about internal escalation and member communication.  Councillor Roberts stressed the importance of improving early intelligence and governance arrangements.

 

Robin Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, shared photographs to provide visual context, explaining the site’s scale, proximity to the River Cherwell and drainage features, and the vegetation that initially concealed the activity. He described how flooding exposed the waste and increased risk, the protective measures installed to prevent pollution, the creation of a raised working compound to mitigate flooding, and the logistical challenges of removal, including overhead power cables that added to the site’s risk profile.

 

In discussion, the Committee explored the following:

Members asked how a waste site of this scale could have developed without earlier detection. Officers explained that the waste had been deposited very rapidly over a short period, rather than gradually over time, and that the site had been deliberately selected and prepared to minimise visibility. Dense vegetation, bunding and partial burial of waste were used to conceal the activity, and vehicle movements were not initially obvious given the site’s location. The full extent of the waste only became apparent later, particularly after vegetation thinned and flooding occurred.

 

The Committee queried when the County Council first became aware that the activity constituted illegal waste disposal rather than engineering or land‑use activity. Officers advised that initial intelligence in late June and early July suggested unauthorised activity, which was initially considered to be potentially engineering‑related. A joint site visit in early July, involving the County Council, Cherwell District Council, and the Environment Agency, confirmed the presence of mechanically-treated waste and the scale of the illegal operation, at which point the matter was escalated.

 

Members questioned whether the issue had been escalated quickly enough internally and to Members. Officers acknowledged that internal escalation and member awareness could have occurred earlier and accepted that clearer escalation triggers and earlier structured communication would be a learning point. It was explained that, prior to confirmation of the waste operation, the issue was being managed through normal operational processes.

 

The Committee asked why dumping appeared to continue after the Council became aware of the site. Officers explained that the majority of the waste had been deposited before the early July site visit and that any additional waste deposited afterwards was not significant in comparison. Crucially, the Council’s civil planning powers were not sufficient to stop organised criminal dumping. Effective prevention only became possible once the Environment Agency secured a court‑backed restriction order in October, which enabled the site to be physically secured and enforced by the police.

 

Members asked what powers the County Council had to intervene or stop the activity. Officers clarified that the Council’s powers were civil planning powers, including planning contravention and enforcement notices, which required careful evidence‑gathering and were subject to rights of appeal. Illegal waste disposal was a criminal offence under environmental legislation, for which the Environment Agency was the lead authority. The Council did not have powers to close the site, seize vehicles or physically restrict access prior to the Environment Agency’s intervention.

 

The Committee asked whether the Council could have physically secured the site, for example by locking gates. Officers confirmed that the Council had no lawful authority to secure private land without a court order and that acting outside statutory powers would have been unlawful and could have compromised subsequent enforcement and criminal proceedings. Lawful site security only became possible once the Environment Agency obtained the restriction order.

 

Members explored the role of Thames Valley Police and whether they could or should have been informed earlier. Officers explained that criminal investigation of illegal waste activity, including liaison with police forces and national crime units, was led by the Environment Agency. Once the activity was confirmed as criminal, it was pursued through those established channels. Local planning authorities did not have powers to intercept vehicles or duplicate criminal investigations once a site became a crime scene.

 

The Committee asked whether spot‑check monitoring had been sufficient once concerns were identified. Officers advised that spot‑check monitoring formed part of normal planning enforcement but was not sufficient to deter or stop organised criminal activity, which required intelligence‑led criminal enforcement rather than routine civil monitoring.

 

Members queried how effectively agencies worked together. Officers stated that inter‑agency working was strong once the scale and criminal nature of the issue was identified, with clear roles between the County Council, District Council and the Environment Agency. Members acknowledged this but emphasised that earlier clarity and escalation would be an important lesson.

 

The Committee asked how and when local residents and parish councils were informed. Officers explained that public awareness increased significantly from September onwards as the scale of the issue became visible and response activity intensified. While legal constraints limited what could be shared during an active investigation, officers accepted that clearer and earlier communication, where possible, would have helped manage local concern.

 

Members asked what lessons could be learned to prevent similar incidents elsewhere in Oxfordshire. Officers and Members agreed that lessons included improving early intelligence and detection, establishing clearer internal escalation thresholds, strengthening communication with Members, and continuing engagement with national action on waste crime. It was noted that addressing organised illegal waste activity would also require stronger national frameworks and resources.

 

The Committee agreed to make recommendations to Cabinet under the following headings:

 

1. That the Council should ensure that lessons learned from this incident be captured and used to strengthen early detection, escalation, inter‑agency coordination and internal communication in future cases of illegal waste activity.
   
   
2. That the Council should ensure that elected members are kept appropriately informed of progress and key milestones, subject to legal and investigation‑related constraints.

 

The Committee agreed that it would be appropriate to receive a further report at a later stage.