Return to Agenda

ITEM PN9

Report by Director of Environmental Services

Introduction

1. Hinksey Heights Golf Course is the subject of an outstanding enforcement notice relating to the unauthorised deposit of waste, which has been appealed. There is also an outstanding planning application for the regularisation of the unauthorised deposit. This report reviews and updates the position in respect of the enforcement notice appeal and the progress of the planning application.

The Planning Application

2. On 9 July 2001 the former Planning Sub-Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 9) on a planning application to regularise the unauthorised deposit of waste, which had taken place at Hinksey Heights Golf Course, and resolved (Minute 45/01):

that, subject to referring the application to the Secretary of State for him to decide if he wished to call the application in for his own determination, planning permission be granted for the development proposed in application no: SHI/8759/42-CM, subject to:

1. the Director of Environmental Services being authorised to negotiate as appropriate the terms of a bond to secure the necessary funds to complete the required works in the absence of them being completed by the applicants;
2. a legal agreement with the landowners and the Vale of White Horse District Council to secure full implementation of the proposed remodelling works;
3. the Vale of White Horse District Council being minded to approve the layout of the new 9-hole golf course, and
4. conditions to be drawn up by the Director of Environmental Services to include:

1. complete compliance with plans and particulars
2. timescales for completion of works
3. regrading of small scale mounding
4. no further import of material whatever
5. detailed working scheme
6. restriction on plant/machinery/skips during works and removal afterwards
7. details of water features
8. archaeological evaluation and mitigation
9. monitoring programme
10. removal of any contaminants
11. working hours
12. pollution prevention measures
13. no floodlighting
14. no reversing bleepers
15. bunding of fuel tanks
16. retention and maintenance of vegetation including hedge relaying
17. additional planting
18. restoration details
19. aftercare.

3. The position in relation to the items mentioned in the Sub-Committee resolution is as follows:

• the Secretary of State was notified and decided not to call the application in;

• a legal agreement has been completed in accordance with item (b) of the Sub-Committee resolution;

• the Vale of White Horse District Council has indicated that it is minded to approve the layout of the new 9-hole course;

• a set of conditions has been drawn up and agreed with the applicants.

4. The only outstanding issue is the proposed bond. It has not been possible to secure a bond from the applicants, although they say that there is no objection in principle to the costs of completing the works being secured. The cost of the works has been agreed at £270,000 and the applicants’ agent has said that the considerable cost of providing a bond would be better applied to carrying out the works to be authorised by the permission. He states that bank finance has been arranged to enable the works to be carried out.
5. In place of a bond, the applicants have offered the Council a charge on some residential property that they own to cover the cost of the works. They state that they fully intend to do the work and have arranged the finance for it. A bond is therefore an unnecessary expense and the property charge would provide the Authority with the same security.
6. The properties in question have been valued and it appears that they will provide adequate security for the cost of the works. A draft charge document has been drawn up and submitted to the applicants’ solicitors. It would provide security for the necessary funds to complete the works, should the applicants default, albeit that the mechanism for calling in the funds would be somewhat less straightforward than with a performance bond. The Council would have to exercise its right under the charge to force a sale of the properties, and could then use the monies recovered to carry out the works. However, I consider that in all the circumstances the proposed charge is an acceptable alternative to a bond.

The Enforcement Notice

7. The public inquiry into the appeal against the enforcement notice opened on 5 March 2002. However, the Inspector agreed to an adjournment until 15 May 2002 given that matters relating to the planning application appeared to be approaching resolution
8. This should provide sufficient time to complete the charge documentation. The planning permission could then be issued and the enforcement notice withdrawn, so that there would be no need to re-convene the inquiry.
9. The recommendation below is framed to refer to a "charge (or other form of security)" to give some flexibility in the eventual form of security, in case there is some unforeseen difficulty with the proposed charge (e.g. on investigation of the title to the properties). Whatever form of security is ultimately negotiated, the intention is to secure the cost of the works prior to the issue of planning permission.

Environmental Implications

10. These are set out in the report to Planning Sub-Committee on 9 July 2001.

Financial and Staff Implications

11. If the Enforcement Notice Inquiry goes ahead, staff time will be taken up, and there will be professional and legal costs incurred.

RECOMMENDATIONS

12. It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be granted for the development proposed in planning application no: SHI/8759/42-CM, subject to:

1. the Director of Environmental Services being authorised to negotiate as appropriate the terms of a charge (or other form of security) so as to secure the necessary funds to complete the required works in the absence of them being completed by the applicants;
2. conditions to be drawn up by the Director of Environmental Services to include:

1. complete compliance with plans and particulars
2. timescales for completion of works
3. regrading of small scale mounding
4. no further import of material whatever
5. detailed working scheme
6. restriction on plant/machinery/skips during works and removal afterwards
7. details of water features
8. archaeological evaluation and mitigation
9. monitoring programme
10. removal of any contaminants
11. working hours
12. pollution prevention measures
13. no floodlighting
14. no reversing bleepers
15. bunding of fuel tanks
16. retention and maintenance of vegetation including hedge relaying
17. additional planting
18. restoration details
19. aftercare.

March 2002

Return to TOP