Decision details

1.         To note the progress and expenditure to date in instigating prosecution of the land owners for breach of the enforcement notices and for seeking injunctive relief.

2.         To re-affirm and refer to the 8 January  2013 Council that the £115k (net of expenditure to date) and the provision of £30k for any operational necessity (approved by Cabinet on 18 August 2011) is set aside from balances from the general revenue fund to cover the cost of this enforcement action.

3.         To recommend increasing the budgetary provision by a further £40k from balances to fund a re-run of the Public Enquiry given the successful High Court Challenge and for continuing enforcement action as detailed in this report.

The Executive Leader introduced a report which outlined the progress and expenditure made to date with instigating legal proceedings relating to the land at Hut Lane, Heath Charnock (known as Heath Paddock) since approval by the Development Control Committee on 9 August 2011 to seek injunctive relief and by the Executive Cabinet on 18 August 2011 to allocate financial resources. 

Following the re-affirmation to continue enforcement action by the Development Control Committee on 30 October 2012, the report requested endorsement and re-affirmation the Council’s budget provision and commitment to continuing with enforcement action.

Members agreed that legal proceedings must continue due to the harm arising to the green belt. 

Decision made

1.         To note the progress and expenditure to date in instigating prosecution of the land owners for breach of the enforcement notices and for seeking injunctive relief.

2.         Re-affirmation and refer to the 8 January 2013 Council that the £115k (net of expenditure to date) and the provision of £30k for any operational necessity (approved by Cabinet on 18 August 2011) be set aside from balances from the general revenue fund to cover the cost of this enforcement action.

3.         To recommend increasing the budgetary provision by a further £40k from balances to fund a re-run of the Public Enquiry given the successful High Court Challenge and for continuing enforcement action as detailed in this report.

Reason(s) for decision

To continue enforcement action.

Alternative option(s) considered and rejected

The Council could refuse to fund the action.  This was rejected on the basis that it would have damaging reputational issues for the Council, could potentially open up the Council to third party claims and encourage further breaches of planning control.