Agenda item

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN9).

The report updates the Committee on regular monitoring of minerals and waste planning permissions and progress on enforcement cases.

It is RECOMMENDED that the Schedule of Compliance Monitoring Visits in Annex 1 and the Schedule of Enforcement Cases in Annex 2 to the report PN9 be noted.

The Committee considered a report which gave an update on regular monitoring of minerals and waste planning permissions and progress on enforcement cases.

The Chairman advised that the purpose of the report was to update Committee members on monitoring of waste and mineral sites and progress of enforcement by the Council.  The report was for information only and there were no decisions requested of the Committee in relation to the report or in relation to any of the sites reported in it.  An application had been made by Mr Ron Wyatt to address the Committee in respect of one of the enforcement sites included within the report.  Whilst Mr Wyatt could address the Committee, it was important that all parties appreciated that this matter was presently with the County Council’s solicitor and the courts, and the position as set out in the report, was one which the Committee were being asked to note.  There was no substantive decision to be made.

Mr Wyatt stated that he and his brother disputed the claim that no realistic efforts had been made to comply with the Court order and outlined what had been done including commissioning the services of a reputable landscape company to carry out the works required whilst establishing an accurate record of existing and pre-existing levels, which had been reported to the Council’s monitoring officers.  He maintained that County officers had concurred with the results of the survey.  On the instruction of County officers further excavations had been carried out over an area of 4/5 acres which were recorded and no identifiable waste had been found.  No further instructions had been given to excavate other than in an area under the control of the Environment Agency who had confirmed the view that levels in that area had not changed.  He expressed disappointment that members of the Committee had not had the opportunity to see for themselves the realistic efforts which had been made and what had been achieved.  He felt that the true facts had not always been reported and regretted the £2m costs which had been incurred as result of the dispute. He felt his company had worked hard with officers to resolve this issue and his view now, and he believed that County officers held a similar view, was that the enforcement plan was now no longer suitable for measuring compliance and to take any more material off site would then necessitate importation of material back into the site to maintain existing levels.  He believed they had acted reasonably and realistically in returning the land to as close as possible to its original form and he hoped officers would confirm that. He showed 2 photographs comparing the same bridleway some 20 years apart which he felt illustrated that levels had remained roughly the same.  However, the enforcement plan had required land adjacent to the bridleway to be lowered by an average of 2 metres, a discrepancy replicated across the site.  The photographed bridleway also happened to be the access to The Mill whose owner had threatened to sue should that access be put at risk.   

Mr Dance explained variances in the annex to the report where the number of visits carried out differed from the target number set. Sites were reviewed throughout the year which on occasions often led to changes in the number of visits to reflect changing circumstances at particular sites.

Responding to specific questions Mr Hodgkinson confirmed:

·                    that the in-vessel composting consent at Ardley had now been implemented;

·                    the number of visits at Childrey Quarry had exceeded target visits because the site had been due to close but a shortage of inert material had meant that an extension to the site might be required.  Officers would continue to monitor closely the position at the site;

·                    planning permission had been granted recently for a new building at Enstone WTS subject to a routeing agreement to avoid the Bartons;

·                    that officers would pursue the possibility of providing right turn signage for vehicles exiting the Enstone site and report back after the closure of Dean Pit.

RESOLVED:  that the schedule of compliance monitoring visits in Annex 1 and the schedule of enforcement cases in Annex 2 to the report PN9 be noted.