Return to AgendaITEM PN3planning & regulation committee
MINUTES of the meeting held on 6 April 2009 commencing at 2.00 pm and finishing at 3.45 pm
Present:
Voting Members: Councillor Steve Hayward – in the chair
Councillor Alan ArmitageCouncillor Catherine Fulljames Councillor Michael Gibbard Councillor Timothy Hallchurch MBE Councillor Jenny Hannaby Councillor Ian Hudspeth (in place of Councillor Hilary Hibbert-Biles Councillor Ray Jelf Councillor Terry Joslin Councillor David Nimmo-Smith Councillor G.A. Reynolds Councillor Don Seale Councillor Chip Sherwood Councillor David Turner
Officers:
Whole of meeting: G. Warrington (Corporate Core) and R. Hanson; C. Cousins and R. Dance (Environment & Economy)
Part of meeting:
The Committee considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the agenda for the meeting, together with a schedule of addenda tabled at the meeting, and decided as set out below. Except insofar as otherwise specified, the reasons for the decisions are contained in the agenda, reports and schedule, copies of which are attached to the signed Minutes.
12/09 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS
Apologies for absence and temporary appointments were received as follows:
13/09 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
14/09 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 February 2009 were approved and signed.
Minute 7/09 (Minute 4/09 – Great Tew Quarry – Application No 08/1590/P/CM)
Mr Dance advised that the boulders at the entrance to the quarry had been sited on the highway but would be removed as part of planned improvements to the quarry access.
Minute 10/09 (Finmere Quarry)
Mr Dance advised that permission for the material recycling facility had been issued. However, issue of permission for changes to landfill arrangements was waiting for finalisation of legal agreements. He confirmed that permission for the material recycling facility could not be implemented until engineering and capping works referred to in application 08/02519 had been completed.
15/09 PETITIONS AND PUBLIC ADDRESS
The following requests to address the meeting had been agreed:-
16/09 COMMONS REGISTRATION ACT 1965: IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION TO REGISTER THE WARNEFORD MEADOW, OXFORD IN OXFORDSHIRE AS A TOWN OR VILLAGE GREEN (Agenda Item 5)
In December 2006 an application was made to the County Council as Commons Registration authority to register Warneford Meadow, Oxford as a Town or Village Green under the Commons Registration Act 1965. Objections to the application had been received. An independent inspector had been appointed and a public inquiry held for evidence to be assessed and an objective recommendation made to the County Council as to whether the application should be approved. The Committee were being asked to consider the report of the inspector and his recommendation which was to confirm the application to register the land.
Julie Waldron speaking on behalf of the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Mental Health Partnership Trust asked the Committee to consider whether or not the applicant had adequately discharged the burden of proof. The Trust considered that he had not and had doubts concerning the Inspector’s findings on both factual and legal matters which therefore left his decision open to challenge. Registration of Warneford Meadow would result in loss of £10 million income to the Trust by restricting the sale of part of the land for redevelopment and seriously jeopardise expansion plans. Those plans had been prepared entirely in line with policies set down in the Oxford City Local Plan, had protected 50% of the area from development, retained the orchard and hedgerows and allowed local people to cross the land. She asked the Committee to reject the Inspector’s recommendation or at very least seek a second opinion.
Christopher Whitmey also asked the Committee to seek a second legal opinion on points of law as set out in Annex 4 to the County Solicitor’s report. He referred particularly to interpretation of the for not less than 20 year rule maintaining that the Inspector had applied the wrong test and omitted to say that there was no clear guidance from the Courts on what was meant by for not less than 20 years.
Chris Dunabin referred to comments made by Julie Waldron regarding the financial implications for the Health Authority if registration was confirmed and to criticisms of aspects of the Inspector’s report. He questioned the ethics that Health Service investment should rely on the development of an area of land and that these issues were not relevant in this matter. In that regard he referred to paragraph 34(a) of the County Solicitor’s report which stated that the application should be considered on the merits of its own case and not on future use of the land. The NHS had neglected Warneford Meadow for over 20 years whereas local people had regarded and treated it as open space. Urging the Committee to approve the Inspector’s recommendation he referred to Warneford Meadow’s high ecological value and importance to the local community for informal recreation.
Mr Hanson drew the Committee’s attention to the plan attached to the addenda sheet which was the plan referred to in the Inspector’s report (paragraph 392) and which should be used as the basis for registration. He emphasised that the Inspector had taken the view that informal recreation had existed for 20 years and that the Committee should not concern itself with accessibility. If the tests for such use had been met, and in the Inspector’s view they had, then the land should become a registerable green. He reminded the Committee that it would need to have good grounds to go against the Inspector’s recommendation and in his view that was not the case.
Councillor Joslin felt that the Inspector had not made it clear what constituted a community and that his decision could therefore be considered unsafe.
Councillor Hallchurch could find no reason to go against the Inspector’s advice.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Hallchurch, seconded by Councillor Hannaby and carried by 10 votes to 3, Councillors Joslin, Reynolds and Seale recorded as voting against and Councillor Turner as having abstained) to approve the application for registration as a new Town or Village Green pursuant to the Commons Registration Act 1965 of the Warneford Meadow, Oxford as described in the application by Mr Paul Deluce dated 19 December 2006, for the reasons given in the Inspector’s Report dated 15 October 2008 and his Further Report dated 28 January 2009.
17/09 COMMONS ACT 2006: IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION TO REGISTER THE FOLLY FIELD, WOODCOTE, IN OXFORDSHIRE AS A TOWN OR VILLAGE GREEN (Agenda Item 6)
In January 2008 an application had been made to the County Council as Commons Registration authority to register Folly Field, Woodcote as a Town or Village Green under the Commons Registration Act 1965. The land was owned by the applicants. The Commons Act 2006 contained a new power for a landowner to register its own land as a Town or Village Green and if certain conditions were satisfied the Council must register the land as a new Town or Village Green. As there were no delegated powers to officers to determine such an application the Planning & Regulation Committee were requested to determine the application.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Hallchurch, seconded by Councillor Hannaby and carried nem con) to approve the application for registration as a new town or village green pursuant to the Commons Act 2006 of the Folly Field, Woodcote as described in the application by Mr Martyn Jordan dated 23 January 2008 pursuant to section 15(8) Commons Act 2006.
18/09 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT TO FIELD ADJACENT TO LEWHEATH HOUSE COMPLETED BY RE-GRADING FIELD BY DEPOSITING INERT WASTE (SUBSOILS) TO BUILD UP CURRENTLY LOW LYING AREAS AT LEWHEATH HOUSE BRIZE NORTON APPLICATION NUMBER: 08/1886/P/CM (Agenda Item 7)
The Committee considered (PN7) an application which proposed the import and deposit of 30,000 cubic meters of inert waste from RAF Brize Norton in order to landraise an agricultural field adjacent to Lewheath House, Brize Norton and improve the drainage of the field and reduce the distance that the waste would have to travel to alternative landfill.
Councillor Seale speaking as local member referred to directional errors on the plan. Also to significant increased risk of flooding for both local residents and surrounding villages such as Bampton. The proposal would also result in heavy lorry traffic with a particularly dangerous crossroads near to Lewheath House. He asked the Committee to reject the application and then left the Committee table taking no further part in the discussion on the application.
Councillor Hudspeth declared a personal interest insofar as his County Council Cabinet Portfolio included responsibility for flooding issues.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Mrs Fulljames, seconded by Councillor Reynolds and carried unanimously) that planning permission for application 08/1886/P/CM for the deposit of inert waste be refused for the following reasons:
(i) The proposed development was contrary to PPS25 in that no Flood Risk Assessment had been provided and it had not been demonstrated that the development would not cause an increased risk of flooding elsewhere.
(ii) The proposed development was contrary to OSP policy T8 in that no additional details about highways drainage had been provided and therefore it was not clear that there would not be an adverse transport impact.
(iii) This proposal for land raising was contrary to OSP policy WM3 as it was not required for the restoration of a mineral working, nor had any overall environmental benefit been demonstrated
(iv) Insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate that this application satisfied the criteria for acceptability of landfill sites set out by OMWLP W7.
(v) There would be unacceptable damage to the local landscape, contrary to OSP EN1.
19/09 RENEWAL OF CONSENT FOR PREFABRICATED BUILDING FOR USE BY LADYBIRD PRE-SCHOOL FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD OF 5 YEARS (TO INCLUDE A CHANGE OF HOURS FROM 8.00AM – 6.00PM TO 7.45AM – 6.30PM) AT MANOR SCHOOL, LYDALLS CLOSE, DIDCOT (APPLICATION NO. R3.0033/08) (Agenda Item 8)
The Committee considered (PN8) an application for permission to retain a prefabricated building on site for a further period of five years for use by Ladybird Pre-School and consent to extend the opening hours from the approved 8.00 am - 6.00 pm to 7.45 am - 6.30 pm.
Councillor Hannaby referred to difficulties of providing pre-school premises near to schools and the advantages this presented for integration of children. She moved the recommendation as set out in the Head of Sustainable Development’s report.
Seconding the motion Councillor Joslin accepted that the traffic situation in Lydalls Close was critical but the pre-school made no difference to that situation.
The motion was put to the Committee and -
RESOLVED: (unanimously) that Application No. R3.0033/08 for the renewal of consent for a prefabricated building for use by Ladybird Pre-School for a temporary period of 5 years and to include a change of hours from 8.00 am- 6.00 pm to 7.45 am-6.30 pm weekdays only be approved, subject to the following conditions:
(a) Detailed compliance; (b) Temporary permission – 5 years; (c) That the hours of former playgroup sessions remain unchanged; i.e. 9.15-11.45 am and 12.30-2.45 pm Monday to Friday. The use of the building for After School Club use to cease by 6.00 pm; (d) That the existing Travel Plan be updated to take account of this development and the changed circumstances relating to parking in the Civic Hall car park.
20/09 Progress Report on Minerals and Waste Site Monitoring and Enforcement (Agenda Item 9)
The Committee considered (PN9) an update on monitoring of minerals and waste planning permissions and progress of enforcement cases for the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009.
Mr Dance advised that although staff levels had increased in recent years, which had led to increased activity and positive results in this area of work, the establishment still included a temporary member of staff and he intended to identify that post as a pressure.
Mr Hodgkinson confirmed the following charges - £288 for an active site and £96 for an inactive site.
Item 67 – South Oxfordshire District Council were taking enforcement action. Permission could then be implemented as issued originally by the Committee.
Item 118 – confirmed that the owners had submitted an application to the High Court to vary the injunction in order to change the restoration plan. The County Council would be opposing such an application.
Officers undertook to include additional details in the next update report which would set out the electoral division and district area of a particular site and clearer address details for each.
RESOLVED
(a) that the Schedule of Compliance Monitoring Visits in Annex 1 and the Schedule of Enforcement Cases in Annex 2 to the report PN9 be noted;
(b) to congratulate the monitoring and enforcement team for the progress achieved to date;
(c) support moves to at the very least retain current monitoring and enforcement staffing levels.
................................................................................... in the Chair
Date of signing.................................................................. 2009
|