Return to Agenda

ITEM PN9

PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE – 17 OCTOBER 2005

MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN

PROGRESS REPORT ON THE APPLICATION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION (A) AND SCHEDULE B PART 1 (4) OF PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE W142/84 TO EXTEND THE END DATE OF CONCRETE BLOCK WORKS TO 31 DECEMBER 2028 AT CONBLOC, DIX PIT COMPLEX, STANTON HARCOURT, APPLICATION NO. W2001/1189

Report by Head of Sustainable Development

1. On 18 July 2005 this Committee considered a report on possible action to be taken regarding an application for development at the Conbloc site (see plan) (download as .doc file). The Committee had originally granted permission for the application in October 2002, subject to routeing and 106 agreements, which have not yet had been finalised (Minute 37/05). When this matter was discussed at the September meeting the Chairman suggested that a further report on the latest position be brought to this meeting.
2. On 18 July 2005 the Committee resolved to grant permission for the development subject to a routeing and a section 106 agreement being concluded within one month of the date of the Committee or such later date that the Solicitor to the Council might advise. Permission was subject to (and I paraphrase):
   
   

1. departure from the Development Plan procedures
2. legal agreements to cover:

(i) routeing away from Sutton and Stanton Harcourt

(ii) financial contributions to necessary and reasonable highway improvements;

(iii) imports of sand and gravel only from Lower Windrush Valley quarries; and

(iv) a permissive footpath along the River Windrush.

3. rewording of condition (A) and Schedule B part 1 (4) of permission W1421/84 to allow the development to continue to 31 December 2028 with restoration by 31 December 2029; and
4. updating of other conditions.

In addition, Committee resolved that in the event that the agreements had not been concluded within the timescale stated, then the Director for Environment & Economy was authorised to refuse application W2001/1189 for the following reasons:

1. it was contrary to policy SH2 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that the development could lead to an intensification of traffic levels and intrusion in the villages of Sutton and Stanton Harcourt.
2. it was contrary to policy SH4 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan and T6 and T8 of the Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 Deposit Draft (as modified) in that necessary and reasonable improvements to the B4449 and A415 would not be achieved.
3. it was contrary to Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 Deposit Draft (as modified) policy T8 in that the development could cause adverse transport impacts.
4. it was contrary to policy SH5 and SH6 (b) of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that the establishment and long-term management of a permissive footpath along the River Windrush has not been secured.
   
   
3. Officers were also authorised to take any necessary enforcement action to end unauthorised development.

Progress on the Application

4. The reason that the application was brought back to the July meeting of this Committee for further consideration was because of the delay in signing the legal agreements. The aim had been to achieve a swift conclusion and indeed it has had the effect of securing significant progress. Wording on the proposed agreements has been finalised and fair copies sent to parties for signing. However, at the time of writing this report no planning permission has been issued as the agreements have not been signed and completed.
5. A briefing note was circulated to Councillors at the end of September explaining progress on the preparation and signing of the agreements. (Annex 1) (download as .doc file).
6. The departure procedures mentioned in the minute had been carried out earlier and, in December 2002, the Secretary of State wrote to say he did not want to call in the application for his determination. Therefore, if the agreements are completed soon then the permission can be issued before the date of this meeting of the Committee and the latest position on that can be reported orally at the meeting.
7. It was reported at the last meeting of this Committee that the signing of the agreements was expected to happen soon and consideration should be given to refusal if the agreements had not been concluded by the date of this Committee (see minute 40/05 – Item 3 on this agenda).

Possible Actions if Agreements have not been signed by the date of this Committee

8. It is recognised that since these agreements involve another party (Steve Hill Ltd), in addition to the applicant, there is potential for delay in concluding the agreements. However, if the third party does unduly delay the signing then the application could be refused. A decision to refuse permission should not be taken lightly since there is, in this case, a strong likelihood of appeal. The appeal process can be time consuming and cannot guarantee, if the appeal is upheld, the same conditions and agreements we are seeking. There is also a risk of costs if the matter is proceeded unnecessarily to Inquiry. In addition, once a refusal is issued, even if the agreements are completed, the appeal process must be completed, or a new application made and processed, if permission is to be forthcoming. If more time is allowed now to complete the 106 agreement and the routeing agreement the same outcome may be achieved much earlier and time and money saved on appeals and on processing a new application.
9. The absence of planning permission for this development means that the development taking place is unauthorised. The alternative to refusing permission is to serve an enforcement notice requiring the development to stop and the site to be cleared in accordance with the provisions of the original permission W1421/84. Enforcement action forms part of the Committee’s resolution of 18 July 2005. Taking enforcement action recognises that there is a breach of control. It would be expedient to take action as the matters set out in the proposed legal agreements (see paragraph 2) have not been secured. Hansons could appeal any notice but the current application would still be extant. The appeal process would still leave time for the permission to be issued if the agreements were to be signed, but would enable the breach of planning control to be addressed if they were not. In my view, the avoidance of an enforcement appeal at which the delay in signing agreements would be the prime consideration, would be in Hanson’s interest and be likely to precipitate the signing of the agreements, resulting in a positive outcome. In any event, a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) has been served to gather information which is necessary in the Enforcement process.

Conclusion

10. In the event that the agreements relating to application W2001/1189 have not been signed then the County Council should not refuse the application but take enforcement action against the unauthorised development at the Conbloc site and the clearance of the site.

RECOMMENDATION

11. It is RECOMMENDED that, if the routeing and section 106 Agreements relating to planning application W2001/1189 have not been signed by the date of this Committee then:-

CHRIS COUSINS
Head of Sustainable Development

Contact Officer: John Duncalfe Tel: Oxford 815356

Background papers: File ‘Conbloc Stanton Harcourt Variation of Condition consent no. W1421/84’ reference 8.5/4004/3 in Planning Implementation Group Office, Speedwell House, Oxford

October 2005

Return to TOP