Planning & Development News

>> Sept 2007

People familiar with Waterstock Golf Course accessed from Junction 8 of the M40 near Wheatley must be wondering whether the 9-hole academy course on which work started in 1994 will ever be completed. When sites become blighted in this way and progress becomes bogged down, interested parties often look in the direction of the owners of the site for answers, as to why the facilities have not been improved or even completed.

Site Mid Eighties

The saga, which has continued for over ten years cannot be set out in full without losing the readers interest but even from the bare bones, it is not difficult to reach some judgement as to what has happened here and where the blame might lie.

When building began in 1994 on the 9-hole academy course on what, for obvious reasons was known locally as “Clay Hill”, in order to complement the 18-holes that had already opened for play in 1994, the owners (Wyatt Bros. (Oxford) Ltd) assumed that the importation of materials to be used for the purpose of constructing the course and the methodology would be much the same as that used in the unhindered construction of the 18-holes already up and running. The Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) disagreed with this approach on the grounds that the imported materials was ‘waste’ and not construction material and its use would require planning permission. In fact, it turned out that the distinction between construction materials, which might not require permission, and waste materials was a very fine one (and the law based largely on European judgements is still far from clear). In the case of the soil imported, in 1997, from the Welcome Break MSA site, under construction across the road, the High Court decided, after a legal challenge to a decision from a lengthy public inquiry, that the same material could be for construction and yet be waste and therefore permission should have been obtained.

The fact that OCC had in 1989 already granted planning permission for the very same soil, from the M40 motorway construction earth cutting, to be dumped on the Wheatley Triangle (the Welcome Break MSA), suggested that, on planning policy merits, using a tiny fraction of this soil for the golf course construction, would not be a problem. However, OCC not only enforced against the owners of the golf course but told the Welcome Break contractors that they could take the ‘waste’ 10 miles to dispose of it on a golf course being constructed at South Hinksey in Oxford, also in the green belt where “it was exempt from tax and waste could be deposited in accordance with an agreement signed by the OCC”. OCC eventually supported the grant of permission and has never provided a satisfactory explanation as to why the Welcome Break soil was pointed in the direction of this competing golf course by OCC and allowed to stay there.

Having failed to agree a landscape solution for the retention of most of the waste at Waterstock, OCC prosecuted the owners and applied for a High Court injunction. By that time the owners had removed most of the ‘waste’ except for that which had been given permission to remain by the Planning Inspectorate, and remnants of hardcore that had been used to make up the haul road around the lake void.

Landscaping works completed.

Through discovery by the owners’ engineer, the enforcement plan, accredited to OCC engineering consultants, W S Atkins, that had been relied upon by OCC, the Planning Inspectorate, the Courts and the owners of the site, was found to have been altered by a ‘cut and paste’ exercise by a OCC consultant unconnected to W S Atkins and unqualified to do this kind of technical work. Although the High Court required a replacement plan, which is now correct in a horizontal sense, in that it ‘fits’ the site boundaries and features, the vertical accuracy of the plan as represented by the contours, is such that indigenous soil would have to be exported off the site in order to achieve compliance with the plan.

Since this discovery was made, the original plan has been described by OCC as a ‘sketch’ and the replacement plan as ‘illustrative’.

Following a decision in May 2007 by OCC to take the matter back to High Court the owners find themselves in an impossible position. They are being required to remove a quantity of waste, which does not exist, or suffer the risk of being in ‘contempt of court’ and could possibly find themselves in prison.

Having spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in financing two planning inquiries and visits to higher courts on seven occasions including the engagement of planning and other experts, solicitors and barristers (as well as defending a criminal prosecution) it is not difficult to understand why completion of the golf course development had to be put on hold. The OCC admit (through Freedom of Information Act enquiry) that their own Consultants cost in the matter is a sum approaching £200,000.

In both cases these are monies that could have been used to the greater benefit of both golf course users and the ratepayers of the County. The 9-hole academy course will never be constructed if the land is to be shaped in the way proposed by OCC with unsafe and illegal slopes leading into a lake void and with blue clay close to the surface over much of the site, that will puddle in the winter and crack in the summer.

View from the 10th Tee

At any distance from the politics of planning one might wonder why this matter could not be resolved between the owners and OCC.

Before entering discussions, however, the OCC are insisting on removal of an ‘imaginary’ quantity of waste, compliance with a plan that is obviously wrong in a vertical sense, as well as requiring operations which would be both illegal and unsafe, as far as health and safety regulations are concerned. A pragmatic approach to the problem must be by discussion or mediation and forming the site into an attractive landscape.

Apart from unhelpful press statements from the Council this saga has proceeded away from public gaze. In the face of impossible and dangerous demands from the Council the owners of the golf course are for the first time explaining the situation to the members of the Club and the wider public inviting their views on this matter. There is a public footpath (no. 12) running across the site, which is in a state on which it would be possible to view the terrain and the public are welcome to consider the landscape achieved by the owners and to see whether there can be any sense in removing indigenous material and tip waste in order to comply with an inaccurate plan thereby destroying any chance of the site ever being used for golf.

Plan showing public footpath (no. 12).'

This is a very short summary of the case so far and the website will be updated to include the results of the current court case and other information, which may be relevant. This potted history has been sent to the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council and their replies will be published. Meanwhile, if you feel that OCC should do more to come to an agreement without further expense to both sides, please ask your local County Councillor to investigate.

Top Soiling in Progress

On 3 March 2007, under the heading ‘Yet more waste at Waterstock’ the Waterstock Parish Meeting Chairman publicly wrote:

“Yet More Waste at Waterstock Golf Club?”

Following the Golf Club’s protestations reported in an earlier notice that the waste tipped on their site for profit would be impossible or inadvisable to remove, I now learn that the Golf Club has offered itself to the County Council for consideration as an official site for the tipping of waste.

The County Council is in the process of developing its minerals and waste strategy for coming years and has asked landowners interested in becoming tips to register their interest.

Two landowners in Waterstock have put up their hands, Waterstock Golf Club and Holloway Farm (just at the back of the Motorway Service Area).

If you wish to see details give me a call or visit the County Council website click here (The two documents relevant to Waterstock are attached for “notices by e-mail” subscribers).

I will consult with the County on these proposals whether and what action we need to take at this stage.

The Owners of Waterstock Golf Course wish it to be known that there is no truth whatsoever in the statement made by Waterstock Parish Meeting dated 3 March 2007 relating to Waterstock Golf Club. Despite the golf course being within the parish of Waterstock, the owners were not consulted by the author as to the accuracy of the matters referred to in the notice. To date there has been no explanation, neither has there been any retraction, as far as can be known. Wyatt Bros. (Oxford) Ltd are of the opinion that malicious statements based on misquotes, untruths, rumour and innuendo should have no place within the hierarchy of public office admin in our towns and villages. To date we have not received an apology from OCC or from Waterstock Parish Meeting. Neither has there been any public retraction of the statement as far as we are aware.

On 20 March 2007, for the second time in less than a year, 5 of the putting greens were severely damaged on the golf course, to the East of Waterstock Road, by the spraying of weedkiller over the whole of 5 greens (see photograph). As a consequence of this act, all of the damaged greens have had to be systematically repaired and therefore taken out of play temporarily.

We do not know who has carried out this criminal act or for what reason, or purpose. The club are offering a reward of £5,000.00 for information leading to the conviction of the person or persons responsible. The police telephone number is 0845 850 5505, please speak to PC Durham, case number MT9728917/07.

 
One of the damaged greens

Planning & Development - September 2007

Following the disclosure of 28 July 2007, on the web page regarding the state of play between the golf course development and Oxfordshire County Council, yet another case of the inconsistency in the planning administration of OCC has come to light. In a letter sent to OCC on 20 August 2007, the owners have outlined a current operation being undertaken at Farmoor in Oxfordshire, as follows:

Photograph of Farmoor site, August 2007

‘The legal obligation on OCC to be consistent in its planning administration arises again in a comparison between decisions being taken in respect of Waterstock and those taken in deciding that OCC, as waste authority, was not concerned with the deposit of waste material derived from the reservoir which is being excavated at a Green Belt site at Farmoor. In this case the waste (which we estimate to be in the order of 60,000cu m) is being deposited both in bunds and over an adjoining field, an operation with no agricultural justification. This disposal operation is of a comparable scale to that carried out at Waterstock (from which the imported material has been removed) and yet OCC decided that no waste disposal operation requiring planning permission was being proposed.’

We have no axe to grind with Thames Water or Hinksey golf club. We merely seek a level playing field and a consistent approach to all. In response to our latest request for a meeting to discuss the position at Waterstock, OCC have said that this would send out the wrong messages to the public. We wonder what ‘the public’ who care about the land at Waterstock, and know about the background to this case (including the very unequal treatment being handed out by OCC), actually feel about this refusal to discuss the form of the landscape which has now been achieved having removed substantial quantities of waste (no waste has been removed from the development of either Hinksey Heights Golf Course or the Farmoor reservoir)? What ‘public’ interest can you think is being served by OCC in singling out Waterstock for enforcement through the courts instead of seeking resolution through sensible discussions?