How The Council Sees It….

March

13

2 comments

The plume of smoke at 7 am Tuesday.
The plume of smoke at 7 am Tuesday.

The District Council have a new page on their website about the fire at Michelin’s Farm. Residents can decide for themselves if they are satisfied with what the council say:

1. What stage are we at in the planning enforcement process with Michelins Farm?

While we have a confirmed enforcement notice, action has already been taken against the previous landowner by Rochford District Council and the Environment Agency, resulting in a conviction, fine and imprisonment. The previous landowner was also ordered to pay the court costs of the Environment Agency and Rochford District Council, which have now been received.

2. Has there been joined-up working in this case?

Essex County Council, Rochford District Council and the Environment Agency have been working closely on this matter, hence the successful prosecution, and continue to work together.

3. Does the Council still believe the site to be in breach of planning?

Yes, and given the lack of compliance with the enforcement notice, the Council has been exploring various options. We are continuing to work with Essex County Council and the Environment Agency on this matter.

4. Why did the Council not take direct action to prevent something like this from occurring?

Direct action would require professional expertise in this case due to the contaminated nature of the land. Any such action would have been at a significant cost to the tax payer, and it is unlikely that this could have been recovered. Therefore other options have been considered.

5. Why has Rochford District Council not issued a Compulsory Purchase Order on the site?

After the Court hearing on 11 July 2014, various options were discussed, including Compulsory Purchase. However, as the defendant was imprisoned thereafter, the site ownership had changed and the Council?s Allocations Document was subject to a legal challenge at that time, no firm decisions could be taken at that point. Moreover, the removal of the vast amount of unauthorised items and materials works at this site could involve highly significant costs. Accordingly, the value of the site is not yet known and the Council would need to be cautious in any action concerning a Compulsory Purchase Order with tax payers? money. This option has not been ruled out though. In the mean-time the Environment Agency and the Council have pursued a successful prosecution of the former site owner for not complying with the enforcement notice.

We will be looking at various options going forward, which will involve working with our partners and seeking to liaise with the new owners of the site.

6. Is the Council aware that the ownership of the site has changed?

Yes, but the enforcement action relates to the land and that being the case, the five directors of the company will be actively pursued as the landowners responsible for complying with the requirements of the enforcement notice.

7. Is the land not potentially too contaminated to be a traveller site?

Only a small portion (1 hectare) of the site is allocated for a 15 pitch travellers? site, and this will need to be subject to remediation as is the case with any potentially contaminated site before development. In order to establish the levels of contamination there would need to be a survey and assessment by specialist contractors.

8. Has the Council considered taking direct action and then putting a charge against the land to cover the cost?

The concern is that the remediation costs would not have been recoverable resulting in a significant cost to the tax payer. While it is accepted that, in theory, expenses of direct action can be secured by way of a charge on the land, this site remains heavily contaminated and full of waste. The Council would need to establish whether this would exceed the value of the land. There is also the fact that the initial costs outlay would fall directly to the Council with uncertainty as to how much, if any, monies could be recovered.

About the author, admin

  • Here is our response to the information published on Rochford District Council’s Web Site. It has been sent to Councillor Ward who is the Portfolio Holder for Planning. He has passed responsibility for answering these questions to Shaun Scrutton, The Director still responsible for Planning and he has written that I should expect a reply in about a week because he is involved in environmental issues on the site.

    Dear Ian

    There will be many more questions but here are some on which I would appreciate answers.

    A Rochford District Council spokeswoman said in the Echo it had not cleared the site due to the costs involved.

    According to the Land Registry the land is valued at £100,000.

    Ian, was a legal charge of that amount not enough to clear the site? Why were estimates not obtained?

    Rochford District Council spokeswoman went on in the Echo: “The council could not have known the land owner intended to transfer ownership. In any event, the concern is the remediation costs would not have been recoverable resulting in a significant cost to the tax payer.”

    If RDC had proceeded to undertake the compulsory purchase that you had agreed, as reported in the Echo on 11 March, with the Environment Agency then the transfer of the land could not have taken place.

    “A spokesman for the Environment Agency added in the Echo “The order to clear the site is at the discretion of the Court to deal with non-compliance.

    So why did RDC not just go back to the Court?

    A Rochford Council spokesman said it still regarded Phipps as in breach of planning regulations, and was “exploring various options” with its partners.

    So what options did RDC with whom (who were your partners? Please name them) and why did these other options fail?

    In July 2014 when The Environment Agency allege in the Echo that they agreed with RDC to go down the CPO route rather than Enforcement, RDC already had been challenged in Kendall v RDC in April 2014 and that RDC knew then that they could not go down the CPO route.

    And RDC didn’t go back to the Enforcement route bringing the Environment Agency and ECC back into proceedings and share in the costs of legal fees, clearance and decontamination.

    It is scandalous that RDC should now excuse its lack of action by blaming this on Linda Kendall when the fault was that of Rochford District Council then in agreeing not to take Enforcement action in favour of a CPO and now because it allowed the disastrous fire to happen.

    Why did RDC let the other Agencies involved in hazardous waste control off the hook? The Environment Agency and Essex County Council. This left taxpayers in Rochford District with the whole problem which evidently RDC could not deal with.

    From yesterday my following questions still remain unanswered.

    Who at the Council, Members and Officers, authorised the position prior to the fire?

    When and how were these decisions taken?

    Why were other Members not informed please? ”

    I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible please.

    Regards

    John

  • As I thought Chris you’ve been kept in the dark as well, so much for democracy

    The plot thickens

    The Portfolio Holder Cllr Ian Ward replies to my email, here and here is my reply to him

    Dear Cllr. Ward,

    We have to be grateful to The Evening Echo and the tenacity of independent, councillors like John Mason in forcing you reluctantly in finally responding

    I had to rely on ” news from second hand selective reports” because neither you or the officials made any statement, although I believe Ms Bliss did give statements to the press which were misleading, I note that Cllr Hudson was able to find time to appear on the television and radio.

    .I have read your web site and believe you have spun the facts, totally ignoring the fact that RDC agreed in July 2014 to actually compulsorily purchase the site.

    Why are Essex County Council not the lead on this matter, they are responsible for Waste Disposal issues why have RDC decided to take responsibility??

    You then reneged on that agreement/decision,

    Did you inform your partners? ( in particular the Environment Agency)
    Who made this decision politicians or officials?
    Did you have a debate and brief with members?
    Was the decision minuted ?
    Roger Phipps imprisonment, The change of ownership, and the Council’s Allocations Document being subject to a legal challenge are all red herrings and I would ask that you remove them from your site.

    If you had purchased the land, the above the ownership issue would not have arisen, and it was only a transfer to a company owned by his children, and I was unaware that imprisonment excluded an individual from compulsory purchases.

    If you had proceeded you could have at least neutralised the site, secured it, even if you didn’t fully decontaminate it!

    You state clearing up the site would have been at a significant cost to the tax payer, what is the estimate of that cost, Cllr Hudson thought the sale of the property would cover it. Please put some figures to these staements

    Who do we believe the deputy Leader or the Portfolio Holder ?

    I

    Regards

    Richard Lambourne

    In a message dated 14/03/2015 12:11:44 GMT Standard Time,

    CllrIan.Ward@Rochford.gov.uk writes:

    Dear Mr Lambourne

    We have a full update on the Rochford District Council website, on the News Banner on the Home page, where you will be able to get accurate information from the prime source regarding Michelins Farm Fire, rather than news from second hand selective reports.

    Regarding any loss you may have suffered I would suggest you address any claims to the owners of the land in question, who are undoubtedly responsible for non clearance, as was instructed by the Courts, which is still in force.

    I am sorry for the delay in replying, as our area has suffered a communications outage at the Exchange. I have been notified that it will not be rectified by BT until 7pm this evening, so I am having to work on the iPhone.

    Kind regards

    Ian

    Cllr Ian H Ward
    Portfolio Holder for Planning
    Rochford District Council
    Email: CllrIan.Ward@Rochford.gov.uk

  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}
    >