Judge orders enforcement against largest glass factory in Europe

Construction of Quinn Glass Ltd's giant factory on the former site of a power station at Elton was completed in 2005 – but still there is no planning consent in place, London's High Court heard.

Consent had previously been obtained for a smaller plant on the site at Elton and Quinn was fighting for retrospective planning permission for the larger factory.

However, Judge David Mole QC yesterday (April 8) agreed with a local resident that it would be “disgraceful” if Quinn Glass was allowed to escape the consequences of the multi-million-pound risk they took.

He said: “It would be a betrayal by the planning authorities of their responsibilities and a disgrace upon the proper planning of this country”, he told London's High Court.

In a unique decision, Judge Mole ordered local planners to issue enforcement notices against Quinn Glass within 14 days and directed that they must require the removal of all the Quinn Glass buildings put up without planning consent and the “cessation of activities” on the site.

“No less than that would meet the point”, he added.

Workers

The judge's ruling is a set-back for Quinn Glass which employs hundreds of local workers on the site. However, the company can still appeal to Communities Secretary, Hazel Blears, against the enforcement notices and she also has the power to grant retrospective planning consent.

Judge Mole also refused to issue a “stop notice” against Quinn Glass, bringing an immediate cessation of its activities on the site. He said such a notice was “not necessary” to ensure that the factory did not become “immune” to enforcement action.

The case was brought to court by Quinn Glass's trade rivals, Ardagh Glass Ltd.

Ardagh argued the factory's very existence is a violation of both domestic and European law, which demands that planning consent must not be given for such projects without first carrying out a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Dublin-based Ardagh Glass argued that, not only should enforcement action now be taken, but planners at Chester City Council and Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council should be forbidden from considering Quinn Glass's latest retrospective planning application.

But Judge Mole refused to go that far, giving Quinn glass a chance to persuade Ms Blears that the enforcement notices should be quashed and planning consent granted.

But that can only happen after a detailed public inquiry at which the environmental impact of the plant must be carefully considered.

Appeal

Judge Mole said he “anticipated” that Quinn Glass will now appeal to Ms Blears, but added that it was vital to make clear that a developer will “gain no advantage by pre-emptive development and that such development will be permitted only in exceptional circumstances”.

In considering Quinn Glass's appeal, the judge said Ms Blears, in order to uphold EU law, would have to consider “whether granting permission would give the developer an advantage he ought to be denied, whether the public can be given an equal opportunity to form and advance their views and whether the circumstances can be said to be exceptional.

He said: “There will be no advantage to the pre-emptive developer where the Secretary of State ensures that he gains no improper advantage and he knows he will be required to remove his development unless he can demonstrate that exceptional circumstances justify its retention”.

The judge refused to hold that retrospective planning permission could not now be lawfully granted for the factory, but said that EU law obligations would have to be carefully taken into account, whatever procedure is now adopted by Ms Blears in dealing with the issue.

The responsibilities of Chester City Council and Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council were taken over by Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council on April 1 this year and it will now be up to the new council to take the enforcement action ordered by the court.

Lawyers for Quinn Glass had pointed out in court that planning consent had earlier been obtained for a smaller plant on the site and defended the factory as good news for local jobs and “for the UK economy in general” in the midst of a recession.

The case, which has been running since 2005, was heard last month and both Ardagh and Quinn put there arguments forward during a 5 day hearing (see letsrecycle.com story).