Return to Agenda
PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE
– 18 MAY 2009
ADDENDA
4. Petitions and Public Address
Name |
Item
|
Mike Jack
Jeff Burley
Charlie Parker
Simon Rose
John Salmon –
Agent for Applicants &
Anna Butler
Councillor Iain
Brown (Local Member) |
)
)
)
)
)
) 5. Upwood Park – Application
) MAR/5529/1-CM
)
)
)
)
|
Mrs Nicki
Grieve, Resident Warmans Close
Susan Keet (Pupil
of King Alfred’s School (supported by Nicholas Young, Principal) |
)
)
) 6. King
Alfred’s School, Wantage – )Application R3.0098/09
)
|
Martyn Lawrence
(Spital Farm Allotment Association)
Stewart
Mitchell - Grundons |
)
) 7. MRF,
Overthorpe Estate – )Application 06/00954/CM
|
Tim Healey,
Resident, Marlborough Road |
8. St Ebbes
Primary School – Application R3/0097/09 |
5. The Extraction and
Processing of Soft Building Sand and Intermittently Occurring Limestone and the
Removal of Surplus Soils, the Infilling with Inert Waste Subject to Prior
on-site Sorting and Recycling, the Provision of all Ancillary Facilities
Necessary for Extraction and Infilling Including but not Limited to Office,
Weighbridge, Accessways, Recycling Plant and the Restoration of the Site for Nature Conservation and Agricultural Uses.
Upwood Park, Besselsleigh Application No MAR/5529/1-CM
Further Representations
Further representations received from
local residents and Marcham Parish Council. Five were from local residents who
have previously commented on the application and who will be addressing the
Planning & Regulation Committee. One response was from a resident who has
not previously commented on the proposal. A further representation (not
included in the summary above) was received Sunday and has been included in
full below.
Comments of the Head of Sustainable
Development
Their comments emphasise issues previously
raised and in my view have been fully considered and addressed in the main
report and Annex 2.
Marcham Parish Council - No comments on the Appropriate
Assessment.
Bob & Bernadette Wilcox , Chelford,
Frilford Heath OX13 6QJ (received Sunday 17 May) -
Firstly we understand the need to find a
new site for sand extraction, but object to the proposed Upwood Park planning
application for sand extraction on the grounds of loss of amenity to the nearby
residents and negative environmental impact. We believe this is the wrong site
for such a large sand extraction project in the heart of Oxford Green Belt and
right next to the Parsonage Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
that forms part of the Cothill Fen Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Better
sites with lower environmental and amenity impact must be available along the
extensive Corallian Ridge (most of the Corallian Ridge is in fact outside the
Green belt so why approve a site that is in it.)
Secondly this application is being rushed
through at the last minute with inadequate time for consultation with residents
and the Parish Councils. (For example I could see no feedback at all from the
Frilford Parish Council in the PN5 submission) I believe many residents are
still not aware of the size of the proposed sand extraction and proposals as to
how the site might be controlled are certainly not adequately identified. As an
example I noted in the response to Marcham Parish Council that Halls would like
to send some traffic along the road from Frilford Heath towards Gozzards Ford.
I have spoken to a number of residents at Frilford Heath this weekend and none
of them were aware of this proposal, and none of them found it acceptable. This
is a narrow and windy road that HGV’s from the base are not allowed to use, and
we do not believe HGV’s carrying sand should use it either. This road has no
hard edges and would quickly be damaged by regular HGV traffic. If planning
permission were granted all traffic for Abingdon or the A34 South should
go eastwards along the A420.
We hope as a minimum that any decision is
postponed until the September meeting to enable time for further consultation.
Ommitted consultation response
Environmental Health Officer (Vale of
White Horse District Council)
The consultation response from the Environmental
Health Officer was omitted from the main report. Their response (dated 28
August 2008) raised the following issues:
- No objection to the
proposal should the mitigation measures be implemented as proposed.
- Major concerns relate
to noise, dust and pollution.
- Should permission be
granted, operational procedures should be reviewed prior to and during its
operational life.
Comments of the Head of Sustainable
Development
The omission was accidental. The views
expressed were considered fully in the preparation of the main report.
Recommendation
As main report.
6. The Continuation of the
Development Permitted under Permission V.04/08 Granted Consent on 24 November
2008 (Erection of a Translucent Polythene Dome for use Part of the Year Over
Existing Tennis Courts for a Temporary Period of Five Years) without Complying
with Condition 3 (which Required that the Dome should not be Installed before
the end of Term 1 in any School Year and must be Removed by the end of Term 5 in
that Year) to Allow the Retention of the Dome on site all Year Round at King
Alfred’s School (West Site), Challow Road, Wantage, OX12 9DU Application No
R3.0098/09
Further consultation responses
Three further responses received from a
local resident, Wantage Town Council and Councillor Anda Fitzgerald O’Connor
(Local Member).
(a) Local resident
· Concerned that
allowing the dome to remain in place over the summer will cause noise pollution
distracting from enjoyment of own home.
· Concerned over the
noise of the dome’s compressor which runs 24 hours a day.
· No guarantee that the
sound insulation measures proposed will be implemented or will be successful.
· If permission is
granted then a condition should be made requiring the school to carry out
proper and adequate sound insulation to the compressor equipment.
(b) Wantage Town Council – supports additional sports facilities in Wantage. However objects to
the removal of Condition 3. The Council would support a purpose built building.
(c) Councillor
Fitzgerald O’Connor - As
the local member, unfortunately I was not notified of this matter coming
up at Monday’s Planning meeting (I know I should have been more vigilant!) and
sadly I am unable to attend. I believe that East Challow
Parish Council has responded to the latest consultation and I also concur with
their views. The original permission for the dome was
granted on the condition that the dome be deflated during the summer school
holiday in order to give the houses adjacent to the dome some respite from the
noise from the wind inflation machine and from the fact that their gardens are
overshadowed by the plastic dome. I feel that the residents
should at least be able to enjoy a few weeks of peace in their
gardens. There must be some method of deflating the dome without
actually having to remove the whole thing and then in the Autumn re-inflating
it. An alternative would be to move the dome to the back of the
school, away from local residents, although I know that this is an added
expense due to having to put a new hard surface down. The dome at
present can be seen from the Ridgeway, so moving it to the back of the school
would make absolutely no difference to the view from the
Ridgeway. I appreciate that the dome is a wonderful facility
for the school and well used by the pupils. However, I still
believe that local residents should not have to suffer.
Please bear my comments in mind when coming to your decision.
Additional Information regarding sound
proofing of the dome’s compressor
As discussed in paragraph 20 of the main
report at the time of writing the school were intending to carry out works in
order to sound proof the dome’s compressor before the date of the Committee.
These works were carried out during the week beginning 4 May 2009 and involved
fitting sound insulating padding to the inside of the dome’s compressor and
burner.
Condition 7 of the recommendation requires
that measures to sound proof the compressor should be carried out within one
month of the date of any permission given. This condition is therefore now not
required as the works have been carried out. However, concerns have been
raised as to whether these sound proofing measures will be successful but to
ensure they are I propose a new condition requiring that their effectiveness be
reviewed within two months of the date of any permission given.
Recommendation
As main report subject to the rewording of
Condition 7 as follows:
Condition 7 – Within two months of the
date of this permission the sound proofing measures to the dome’s compressor be
reviewed for their effectiveness. If noise from the compressor is still a
problem, then a scheme for further measures to reduce noise shall be submitted
and any agreed scheme shall be implemented.
7. Application
for the Relocation of Offices, Depot with Vehicle Workshop and Overnight
Parking, an Extension to the Existing Waste Transfer Building and the
Development of a Materials Recovery Facility with Storage and Processing
Facilities for Recovered Materials and Refuse Derived Fuel, Overthorpe Industrial
Estate, Application No 06/00954/CM
Late Representation
An email has been received from Councillor
Chris Smithson, Cherwell District and Banbury Town Council (Grimsbury and
Castle) which is summarised below:
Concerned about the increased levels of traffic
proposed by this development especially in relation to the problem of parking
near the junction between Thorpe Way and Overthorpe Road. These problems could
be overcome through putting in place 24 hour parking restrictions. If the
proposed new access is relocated further into the allotments would the users be
reimbursed with additional allotment space? What the visual impact of the
development would be to residents of the new estate near the train station? Is
a condition for a sprinkler system as recommended by the fire service proposed?
Would water run-off from the development affect any nearby properties? Traffic
along Ermont Way could be reduced by opening up an inner relief road.
Comments of the Head of Sustainable
Development
The increased traffic levels proposed by
this development have been considered by Transport Development Control and are
considered acceptable at this location. Although parking on the street has been
raised as an issue it cannot be dealt with through the determination of this
consent as the vehicles causing the problem do not belong to Grundons. In
addition, traffic along Ermont Way and the provision of an inner relief road
are not directly relevant to this planning application and therefore cannot be
addressed through its determination. However, the comments regarding parking
restrictions in this area and wider transport concerns have been passed on to
Transport Development Control for their consideration.
The application does not propose the
access road to be moved further into the allotments. The visual impact of the
development was assessed in the Environmental Statement and considered
appropriate. This assessment is accepted. The inclusion of a sprinkler system
in the development would normally be a matter that would be dealt with through
the Building Control process as a requirement under the Fire Safety
Regulations.
The Environment Agency has considered the
potential impact of water run off and has not objected to this development. A
condition has been recommended for the submission, approval and implementation
of a detailed surface water drainage scheme as recommended by the Environment
Agency.
Conditions
An email has also been received, since the
drafting of this report, from the applicant querying some of the proposed heads
of conditions. The detailed wording of these conditions can be agreed at a
later date if permission is granted. However, I am now recommending some
changes to the heads of conditions as detailed below:
Condition 17 - The application states that there will be
vehicular access to the site 24 hours a day. There have been no objections on
the basis of these operating hours and I consider these hours to be appropriate
on an industrial estate. Therefore the standard operating hours should refer to
operations on the site, other than vehicular access for parking.
Condition 18 – It is accepted that this proposed condition
duplicates controls that would be imposed by the Environment Agency through the
environmental permit process and so can be removed.
Condition 19 – Should refer specifically to no processing of
hazardous waste. There should be no storage of hazardous waste other than that
detailed in the application. This is because some of the wastes proposed to be
stored as part of this application (coffee grounds, clinical waste and waste
electronic and electrical equipment) are classified as hazardous.
Conditions 30 and 32 – It is accepted that these matters are
more related to private rights and not planning issues, and so I would expect
these matters to be dealt with through the negotiations between the allotment
association, Banbury Town Council and Grundons regarding the transfer of the
land. The conditions can be removed.
Recommendation
As main report subject to the changes set out above
to the heads of conditions (which are set out in Annex 1 to the main report).
Further
consultation responses
Two further consultation responses
received. One from a local resident the other from Oxford City Council.
Local resident - Concerned that the proposed extension may
result in the loss of privacy (particularly for residents of Salter Close)
which may be further compounded by the loss of the school boundary hedge.
Oxford City Council - No objections subject to conditions
relating to floor levels of the new building and details of any flood risk
resilience techniques.
Comments of Head of Sustainable
Development
The hedge referred to by the resident is
to be retained as part of this development and a condition proposed to ensure
its protection during building works (see paragraph 23 of main report).
Recommendation
As main report with the addition of the
following two conditions (as requested by Oxford City Council);
1) Floor levels within the extension shall be
set no lower than those within the existing building and flood proofing for the
proposed development shall be incorporated where appropriate.
2) Prior to the commencement of the
development, details of any flood resilience and resistance techniques shall be
submitted to and approved in writing, and the development shall be carried out
in accordance with those details.
9. Outline
Permission for the Erection of a Permanent Covered Lightweight Steel Cover
(covered by stretched fabric) over Existing Salt Store and Erection of Small
Office and Mess Building at Chipping Norton Highways Depot, Cromwell Business
Park, Banbury Road, Chipping Norton, OX7 5SR. Application R3.0074/09
Further consultation response
A local resident who has also previously
commented has suggested that: a) an alternative lower in height cover be
considered and; b) a defined noise reduction condition be included in any
consent which may be given.
Comments of Head of Sustainable
Development
The concerns raised by the resident have
already been addressed by the main report. The height proposed for the
structure is to allow headroom for vehicles to work within it and can’t be any
lower. Noise conditions are proposed within the recommendations.
Recommendation
As main report.
Return to TOP