Judge and jury

Last year, they rejected a planning application for the facility, and that application has gone to appeal. This week, the majority of them approved a second plan which, to most observers, was identical to the first one.

It makes a mockery of the whole process, particularly when you consider that the county council has a major interest in the incinerator because it has awarded Viridor the contract to incinerate Oxfordshire’s excess waste.

The council’s planning officers have at least been consistent. They recommended both planning applications for approval.

Whether you consider the council is right or wrong to approve the planning application, the process is undoubtedly flawed.

Local MP Tony Baldry has called on the Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles to call in the second plan for a public inquiry. Given the flawed process, and the fact that the first application has already gone to appeal, it would at least restore public confidence in the process.

Once again, this issue raises questions about the way local authorities, such as Oxfordshire County Council, are able to take planning decisions on schemes for which they are ultimately responsible.

It cannot be right the council acts as judge and jury on the planning merits of its own projects.

The council may argue that its planning procedures are entirely separate to its processes for delivering services, but its planning procedures must also be seen to be utterly impartial. Who would argue that the council passes that test?

In the case of the Ardley incinerator, the only option now is for the development to be tested at a public inquiry.

For the future, we would suggest that Mr Pickles takes a look at local authority planning powers with the aim of preventing councils taking decisions on their own schemes.