Viridor’s Second Planning Application at Ardley

As you will recall, County Councillors rejected the planning application by Viridor to establish a waste incinerator at Ardley, and that matter now is the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State, with the appeal I understand due to be heard by an inspector in July.

Viridor have subsequently made a further planning application which, as I understand it, does not differ materially from the original planning application, save that Viridor are now asking for greater longevity on the site – I understand some 35 years – and variations on how they may use any residual heat.

It is very difficult to see how either of these grounds are a material difference from the original planning application.

As you will know, Parliament introduced legislation to prevent developers making multiple planning applications, simply in an attempt to wear down Local Authorities, planning officers and Councillors. Under Section 70 B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Oxfordshire County Council have the right to refuse this second planning application if it is deemed to be “similar to another”.

Clearly the land to which the application relates is the same, or substantially the same, and the development is clearly the same, or substantially the same.

It is clear that this second application is substantially the same as the first application and can I urge the County Council to decline to accept the application?

Apart from anything else, it cannot be good public policy simultaneously for an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to be having to consider one planning application whilst at the same time the County Council are having to consider a similar planning application relating to the same processes on the same land, particularly as I understand it nothing in this new planning application deals with the basis on which the initial planning application was rejected by County Councillors.

Can I suggest, therefore, that the second planning application should be rejected in accordance with the provisions on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and rejected on sound planning and public policy grounds.

Tony Baldry