As was perhaps to be expected all along, the Government has caved in to Railtrack's demands, and have decided to allow the development of Hinsey Sidings as a virtual quarry.
A letter was sent out to this effect by the Govt. Office for the South East on 22nd October 1999. It was more or less a re-hash of the same points that they had raised before, and gave the impression that none of the concerns that we or anyone else had addressed were given any weight whatsoever.
So what lies behind the decision? Probably a determination by the present government to keep Railtraclk sweet at any price, in the hope that they will be able to persuade them to continue building the Channel Tunnel rail link, and pour some money into the London Underground.
No matter that Railtrack are probably breaking the law, what matters is that this large company, which receives a public subsidy greater than the entire budget of Oxfordshire County Council, must be pandered to by ministers for unstated reasons. That, at any rate, is how those who live in this area interpret the decision.
If you are sickened by these developments, it is probably a good idea to write to your MP and let him know what you feel. It may have no effect on the eventual outcome, but it is important that we let government know that we are not taken in by the spurious legal arguments, and think it is shameful that the environment, the residents of South Oxford and South Hinksey village, and indeed the whole of Oxford city have been treated with such contempt.
The County Council have taken legal advice, and have been told that it is probably not worth their while seeking a judicial review. Even if it were found that The Secretary of State had been unreasonable in making the recommendation which he chose to make, it would not necessarily compel him to rule against Railtrack.
There was a ruling given in the European Courts, on 16 September 1999, (Case No C-435/97) to the effect that any wide scale permits granted by governments and used by companies to side step planning rules and avoid environmental surveys were illegal. This ruling probably would apply to the Oxford Virtual Quarry and makes it illegal per se, as indeed are all the other virtual quarries operated by Railtrack, since they have all been set up without the appropriate environmental surveys having been made. The type of survey required is clearly spelled out in the legislation.
Of course it is one thing to make these points, but entirely another matter to have them proven in the courts. None of the objections that we raised against the Hinksey site being used have ever been tested in the courts. The fact that a company can avoid any Article 4 Direction simply by going ahead with their plans of course makes the legislation which covers such eventualities entirely ludicrous. Railtrack and their lawyers are no doubt well aware of this, but are quite happy to let things ride, in the happy assurance that to challenge them would cost a great deal of money. Since they are bankrolled by the tax payer in subsidies, and by the public in fares, they do not fear legal challenges overmuch.
One day I think the whole question of permitted development rights and their probable illegality will be challenged. Oxford City Council, if they really were keen to stop the quarry, could probably take out an injunction against Railtrack even now. The trouble is that their lawyers are usually too cautious and the councillors hope that the problem will go away. But permitted development rights affect us in other ways also. More than half of the squalor that Oxford residents had to endure this year was caused by Thames Water digging up roads. It is all done under permitted development rights legislation, and there is no control or discretion permitted by local authorities to intervene in favour of quieter working, more convenient hours of operation, swifter completion of the work, and so on. The Public (private) utilities themselves make all the rules, as Railtrack have done in the case of the virtual quarry.
There are moves on foot to tackle this whole situation and to see if any review is possible of PDR legislation. Perhaps it will happen eventually. My view is that it would have been far better to have tackled it on a case by case basis, using European legislation, as OCC in fact could have done, and could still do, rather than hope that, somewhere in the corridors of power, with all the influence that is brought to bear by wealthy companies, that ministers will consider that the legislation needs changing.
STOP THE QUARRY CAMPAIGN
Some specimen letters to the Minister and to our local MP.
Further information from