Decision details

Agreement to not to seek a Judicial Review of the appeal allowed and planning permission granted by the Planning Inspectorate on 5th March 2024 in relation to the remodelling of Whiston Hall Golf course. The appeal (Appeal Ref. APP/D3450/W/22/3309457) relates to a waste planning application (SCC ref. SCC/21/0033/FULL) refused by the County Council’s Planning Committee in June 2022.

12/04/204

Director for Economy, Infrastructure & Skills is required to make the decision whether to challenge the appeal decision.

Members of the local community, including emails from the Churnet Valley Conservation Society, and Kingsley Parish Council to the Chief Executive, have requested that the County Council challenge the appeal decision.
As indicated above, the appeal relates to a waste planning application submitted on 13 September 2021 for the ‘Remodelling of existing golf course to improve on-site water management, accessibility and player safety through the importation of engineering materials to regrade and reprofile part of the existing golf course, with the construction of new attenuation and irrigation ponds, erection of an associated pump house and proposed landscaping and tree planting’ at Whiston Hall Golf Club, Black Lane, Whiston, Stoke-on-Trent, ST10 2HZ (ref. SCC/21/0033/FULL). The engineering material would consist of 150,000 tonnes of fill materials (inert waste and topsoil), imported over a 2-year period.

The application was refused by the County Council’s 9th June 2022 Planning Committee and a ‘Refusal Notice’ was issued on 13 June 2022. The application was refused for the following reasons:

Reason a of ‘Refusal Notice’

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposal is:

o reasonable and necessary;
o comprehensive, detailed, practicable and achievable within the proposed timescale.
(ref. Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Joint Waste Local Plan (Policies 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6, National Planning Policy for Waste (paragraph 1, 7, Appendix A and B, and the National Planning Policy Framework (section 12)).

Reason b of ‘Refusal Notice’

The applicant also failed to demonstrate that the unacceptable adverse impacts of the operations on local amenity and the environment resulting from noise, dust, water pollution, traffic impact and the visual impact could be satisfactorily mitigated such that the site was capable of being operated to high environmental standards within the Churnet Valley, close to Whiston village, Churnet Valley SSSI, Whiston Eaves SSSI, and Whiston Hall SBI, and adjacent to former 1804 route of the Cauldon Low Tramway. Therefore, the development was not considered to be compatible with nearby uses, or appropriate in scale and character to the surroundings.
(ref. The Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Joint Waste Local Plan (Policies 1.1, 4.1 and 4.2), the Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Local Plan (policies SS11, SD 4, SD 5, DC 1, DC 2, DC 3 and NE 1); the Churnet Valley Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (Development and Management Principles: 8.1 Natural Environment, 8.2 Heritage, 8.3 Sustainable Tourism); the National Planning Policy Framework (sections 12 and 15); and, the National Planning Policy for Waste (Appendix B)).

Reason c of ‘Refusal Notice’

Overall, it was considered that the material planning objections outweighed any material planning benefits associated with the development and as such the proposals did not represent sustainable development.

The Planning Inspector identified the main issues:
a) whether it has been sufficiently demonstrated that the proposal is reasonable, necessary, comprehensive, detailed, practicable and achievable within the timescale envisaged (Reason a of ‘Refusal Notice’).
b) whether the proposed development is compatible with nearby uses having regard to its effect on local amenity and the environment in relation to noise, dust, water pollution, highway safety and visual impact (Reason b of ‘Refusal Notice’).

The Planning Inspector concluded that:

a) the potential adverse impacts of the proposal, would be limited as they would be sufficiently mitigated via the imposition of suitably worded conditions.

b) the proposal would provide economic benefits and benefits in terms of improving player safety (moderate weight attached) and would provide health benefits to the community in relation to increasing participation in outdoor sports /recreation and improve accessibility for elderly and disabled golfers (significant weight attached).

c) the proposal would accord with the development plan and the Framework when read as a whole and the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies contained within them.

d) there are no material considerations which indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

The request from the Churnet Valley Conservation Society to challenge the Inspector’s decision are based on the following grounds:

a) nature of the appeal (written representation rather than hearing) (n.b. the County Council indicated to the Planning Inspectorate that the written representation process suggested by the appellant was acceptable).

b) there have been unsatisfactory experiences at other sites (Walleys Quarry and the Stafford Castle Golf).

c) the County Council’s lack of resources to monitor the development (Planning Regulation Team); and

d) other evidence not before the inspector could be obtained by SCC and submitted as part of a legal challenge.

Kingsley Parish Council have also asked the Council to “challenge the Inspectorate’s decision by way of judicial review” and “in the event that the result of the appeal stands to take a robust approach to the enforcement of the many and critical conditions imposed by the Inspector”. The Parish have commented on the difficulties that Staffordshire Moorlands District Council have encountered in getting the applicant/appellant to adhere to ‘planning regulations’ and have concerns about the materials to be imported (not from approved sources), the frequency and routes of road movements associated with the development and subsequent pollution and impact on the surrounding countryside.

Other requests by email from local residents have not included reasons on which grounds the Council should challenge the appeal decision. It should be noted that a person who objected at planning application stage would also be entitled to mount a challenge under s288.

Officers have carefully considered the Inspector’s report and the requests to challenge the decision over recent weeks and have concluded that there are no grounds to challenge the decision as the Planning Inspectors judgement is not unreasonable for the following reasons:

Reason a of ‘Refusal Notice’

The Planning Inspector is satisfied that the proposal would constitute waste recovery rather than waste disposal and the volume of waste materials to be imported to the site to facilitate the proposal could be adequately controlled via the imposition of suitably worded conditions. The Planning Inspector has also highlighted that there is evidence that the appellant has held pre-application discussions with the Environment Agency (EA) and has submitted draft waste recovery plan and draft waste acceptance procedure which would be further developed as part of an application for an Environmental Permit from the EA. The Planning Inspector also highlights evidence (provided at the appeal by the appellant) from a local operator which confirms their ability to supply the required volume of material over the duration of the development.

The County Council provided draft conditions if the appeal was allowed which formed the basis of the conditions imposed on the appeal scheme by the Planning Inspector. These were agreed with the appellant and include 43 conditions of which 10 are pre-commencement conditions. Accepting the Planning Inspectors reasoning, the focus and responsibility of the County Council is now to ensure that prior to the commencement of the development the applicant/appellant submits to the Planning, Policy and Development Control Team the information required to discharge the planning conditions, and the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, documents and conditions. Adequate monitoring of the site and enforcement of the stringent conditions will be carried out by the Planning Regulation Team in line with legislation and national guidance. The applicant and Planning Agent have been notified by the Planning Regulation Team of the requirements of the pre-commencement conditions.

Reason b of ‘Refusal Notice’

The Planning Inspector is satisfied that any potential adverse impact could be sufficiently mitigated via the imposition of suitably worded conditions and the proposed development would be compatible with nearby uses, having regard to its effect on local amenity and the environment in relation to noise, dust, water pollution, highway safety and visual impact.

The County Council’s consultation responses from statutory consultees were that the environmental impacts associated with the works are not unacceptable in planning terms, subject to conditions, many of which are pre-commencement conditions.

The Planning Inspector has noted the Council’s point that there are a good number of conditions including pre- commencement ones that the proposal would need to adhere to for it to be made acceptable in planning terms. However, the Planning Inspector has stated that while paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum there is nothing within national policy or guidance to limit the number of conditions imposed on a grant of planning permission if they meet the relevant tests.

The County Council had concerns which led to its recommendation for refusal at Planning Committee. This was a planning judgement based on the number of outstanding matters of detail required by pre-commencement condition (10 conditions) which consultees considered appropriate to provide the necessary level of confidence to recommend approval.

The Planning Inspector however considered the planning conditions, including pre-commencement conditions addressed the consultees recommendations and the County Councils concerns, and are precise, reasonable and enforceable. Accepting the Planning Inspectors reasoning, the responsibility of the County Council is now to ensure that prior to the commencement of the development the applicant/appellant submits the information required to discharge the planning conditions, and the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, documents, and conditions. Adequate monitoring of the site and enforcement of the stringent conditions will be carried out by the Planning Regulation Team in line with legislation and national guidance.

Overall, it is considered that a robust case with all available evidence was put forward at the appeal. Whilst the Churnet Valley Conservation Society considers there is other evidence not before the Inspector which could be obtained by the County Council and submitted as part of a legal challenge, the Planning Inspector was provided with evidence citing three other planning permissions which have been granted for what it considers to be similar development to the proposal which required additional time to be completed due to a lack of sufficient waste material and one of which has not been completed after a 10-year period.

The Planning Inspector considered that the circumstances applicable to these schemes are not exactly the same and each case should be determined on its own merits. Furthermore, the Planning Inspector concluded that just because a similar scheme required additional time for the site to be restored does not necessarily mean that the restoration of the appeal site would be similarly delayed. As a result, the Planning Inspector afforded this matter little weight. Planning Inspectorate guidance also indicates that Local Planning Authorities should not provide new evidence or additional technical data.

Other matters

Kingsley Parish Council concerns (highlighted above in paragraph 10) are matters for the Planning Regulation Team, Environment Agency and District Environmental Health Team to enforce as appropriate.

In consideration of the requests from the Churnet Valley Conservation Society, Kingsley Parish Council, and local residents, there are no grounds for a legal challenge.

Having carefully considered the Inspector’s report, and the requests to challenge the Inspector’s decision, we are satisfied that there are no grounds to challenge the decision. The Inspector has imposed a comprehensive set of planning conditions (based on those recommended by Planning Officers if the appeal was allowed).

Based on the above, the responsibility of the County Council is now to ensure the planning conditions are discharged, and the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, documents, and conditions.

Overall, The County Council is satisfied that a robust case with all available evidence was put forward at the appeal and that suitable and adequate monitoring of the site and enforcement of the stringent conditions imposed by the Inspector will be carried out by the Planning Regulation Team