Yesterday I published an article confirming that an enforcement notice had been served on the operator(s) of the development at the former pit heap site in Hesleden: https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/8385517070577655169/4819760909797847625
Following reports from residents that works appeared to be continuing on site I asked the head of the planning department at county hall to clarify the full details of the enforcement notice, explain why the enforcement notice was issued against a variation of condition (VOC) from an application submitted in 2019 rather than the one refused by the planning committee on 11 September 2023 and then set out the implications for the company and the community if and when the operator submits an appeal to the government’s planning inspectorate. I've reproduced below the response in full:
I think the short answer to this is that because the most recent planning application was refused, there are no planning conditions associated with that application to be enforced.
The operator has been in breach of conditions attached to the original planning permission (as varied in 2019) since 31 January 2021 as that was the date by which the operations were required to cease. Whilst a planning application to extend the working life of the site was being considered, we felt that it was not expedient to enforce the requirements of this permission. I was comfortable with this approach as it aligns very much with the law and advice in relation to the taking of enforcement action. However, now that that application has been refused, there is no longer any reason to hold off on enforcement action and accordingly, we have sought to enforce compliance with the existing conditions relating to timescale and restoration & aftercare details.
Whilst we could have alleged that that working was taking place outside of the scope of the existing planning permission, and served an Enforcement Notice in respect of that, the requirements of such (most importantly to cease mineral extraction immediately) would have been the same as that which we have issued. So it was really half a dozen of one and six of the other when it came to the issue of choosing between an Enforcement Notice for mineral extraction or an Enforcement Notice for breach of conditions.
In any event, the operator is to lodge both an appeal against the refusal of the planning application for the extension and against the EN. The planning merits to be decided by the Planning Inspectorate on the appeal against refusal of planning permission are not materially different to those which would arise on a ground (a) appeal against the Enforcement Notice so it is extremely likely that the Inspectorate would determine both appeals (against refusal of planning permission and against the Enforcement Notice) at the same time. An appeal against the Enforcement Notice results in the suspension of the notice until disposal of the appeal and the legislation affords the applicant/operator these rights of appeal. I’m afraid there is nothing we can do on these points.
On review of the case with colleagues I am confident we are taking as robust approach as we can here within the remit of planning law and the level of harm arising.
