Earlier this week I reported that the county planning committee in county hall had refused planning consent for extraction works to continue on the former pit heap site in Hesleden. The implication in the planning report put before committee members was clear that the only operational option open to the applicant at this stage was to begin works to restore the site, with those works to be completed within 12 months.
Full details can be found in the articles published on Monday: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/hesleden-community-stands-together-as.html
Since then we’ve been contacted by residents reporting that extraction and removal works appear to be continuing. From details confirmed in the planning report this is without the benefit of planning permission.
When we reported these incidents to the planning office we were told that development continues ‘at the developer’s risk.’ In return we’ve asked the planning case officer to confirm precisely what ‘at risk’ means, and what the implications will be in planning terms if development or extraction works continue on site. Background details can be found here: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/hesleden-pit-heap-councils-legal-team.html
In addition to the response I received earlier this week we’ve now received further clarification from the planning office. I’ll update on progress after the planning office confirms legal opinion next week:
Dear Cllrs
Thank you for your e-mails. I understand that there is some confusion with what is meant by ‘at their own risk’ when we are describing the current operations at the Hesleden Pit Heap.
In general, if development is carried out without the benefit of planning permission then there is a ‘risk’ that the LPA will pursue enforcement action. Such enforcement action may simply require development to cease, or it may be more prescriptive to address any harm that has occurred.
With the case of the Hesleden site the operator is continuing ‘at risk’ because they don’t know what enforcement action may be taken yet and the continuation of works at the site could make the restoration requirements more costly or difficult.
However, as previously stated, a decision has not yet been made in relation to enforcement and we are meeting with legal next week to discuss next steps.
I trust this is of assistance.
