Planning application withdrawn…
…but to be resubmitted straight away!
Communities near Clay Cross in Derbyshire were expecting the planning hearing to decide on an opencast application incredibly close to hundreds of houses to be heard in the next couple of months. However, the coal company Provectus, have shown themselves to be incompetent.
For background info check out the campaign group’s webpage
We recently submitted what we thought were our final objections anticipating that the application would soon be going before the Planning Committee for a decision.
How wrong we were!
On Thursday 3 September Provectus Remediation Ltd announced that they were withdrawing their application because of a procedural defect but would immediately re-submit it in essentially the same form, save for the corrected notices and technical updates.
So we’re nearly back to square one!
We have been assured by the DCC Planning Department that all the objections sent in by Hilltop Action Group and hundreds of local residents will be carried forward to the new application. We do not need to resubmit them.
Provectus Remediation Ltd have been instructed to make clear any significant changes in their resubmitted documents. We will still need to check them carefully.
Once the new application is in, DCC Planning Department will have to go through another publicity and consultation exercise.
The assessment of the application should be carried out within 13 weeks so the December Planning Committee Meeting looks likely.
This all looks like another example of incompetence on the part of Provectus Remediation Ltd.
Article 11 of the Town and Country Planning [Development Management Procedure] [England] Order 2010 requires that ‘an applicant for planning permission shall give requisite notice of the application to any person (other than the applicant) who on the prescribed date is an owner of the land to which the application relates, or a tenant‘.
In their statement they say that for reasons beyond the control of Provectus some of the notices … had not been served.
Yet the regulations clearly state it is the obligation of the applicant to serve the notices. If they weren’t served it was because they didn’t do it – they can’t try to put the blame on someone else.
How many more things can they get wrong?
- Licence for exploratory drilling obtained retrospectively
- Mineral Application Form incorrectly and misleadingly filled in
- Out-of-date cross-section diagrams submitted
- Ignoring the watercourse that runs through the middle of the proposed coal processing area
Taken from an email from the Hilltop Action Group