Return to AgendaITEM PN3(a)
planning & regulation committee
MINUTES of the meeting held on 18 May 2009 commencing at 2.00 pm and finishing at 5.05 pm
Present:
Voting Members: Councillor Steve Hayward - in the chair
Councillor Alan ArmitageCouncillor Mrs C Fulljames Councillor Michael Gibbard Councillor Timothy Hallchurch MBE Councillor Jenny Hannaby 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
Other Members in Councillor Iain Brown (for Agenda Item 5) Attendance:
Officers:
Whole of meeting: G. Warrington and R. Hanson (Corporate Core); 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. 21/09 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS
Apologies for absence and temporary appointments were received as follows:
As this was the last meeting of the Committee before the 4 June County Council elections the Chairman wished those Members who were seeking re-election well and thanked Councillor Joslin and Councillor Gatehouse who were not for their service to the Committee and wished them both well.
22/09 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
23/09 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6 April 2009 were approved and signed.
Minute 19/09 – Manor School, Lydalls Close, Didcot
Councillor Joslin advised that Didcot Town Council were not prepared to reconsider the decision not to allow parents to park at the Civic Hall car park. As one of the conditions attached to the permission had sought that the existing travel plan be updated to take account of the new development at the school and the changed circumstances relating to parking in the Civic Hall car park he asked whether the School could be exempt from that condition.
Mr Hamilton undertook to refer the matter to the County Council’s school travel team.
Mr Dance took the opportunity to advise that on 6 May 2009 the Secretary of State had published The South East Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East replacing the Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) as the Regional Spatial Strategy for the region and also the saved policies of the Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016, except for policies T7 (Service Areas), H2 (Upper Heyford) and M2 (Sand & Gravel). He tabled a schedule of the changes and advised that none of those changes affected any of the recommendations currently before the Committee.
24/09 PETITIONS AND PUBLIC ADDRESS
The following requests to address the meeting had been agreed:-
25/09 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 (Agenda Item 5)
The Committee considered (PN5) an application to extract soft sand from 4 fields at Upwood Park, Besslesleigh.
Mr Jack referred to the impact of the proposal on the surrounding community and the loss of residential and natural amenities. Traffic levels on the A338 were higher than had been quoted in the report with poor visibility and increased risk from slow moving vehicles turning across faster traffic. Increased noise and dust would create health and safety issues for local residents and he doubted whether the project could be completed in the timescale given. The site was in the green belt and wholly inappropriate. Furthermore residents considered that certain aspects of the consultation had been rushed through with many inconsistencies in the application. He urged the Committee to reject or at the very least defer the application to allow these inconsistencies and possible alternative sites to be investigated.
Mr Burley referred to ecology and conservation issues. The proposed site was in the Green Belt and would have a major impact on both ancient woodland (Hitchcopse Wood) which had a number of protected species and high amenity value and an SSSI (Cothill fen) which boasted a rare ecosystem. He referred to problems from pollution – water, aerial, soil and light. Extensive survey work would be required before work could start in order to gauge the effect on the SSSI and archaeological deposits. He referred to a petition containing 200 signatures which had been collected in only 4 days which highlighted the depth of local concern and asked the Committee to consider alternative sites and exercise the County Council’s statutory and personal responsibilities to protect this valuable site.
Mr Parker advised that the timescale for this proposal was wholly inadequate and would result in the permanent loss of a beautiful and natural area. Soft sand was not unique to this area and he asked that alternative sites with less impact be considered. He felt that the application had been rushed through with inadequate time for full consultation. The site had not been included in the Minerals & Waste Local Plan as an identified site and there had been too little time to evaluate the completed Appropriate Assessment. The County Council should not rely on a shortage of soft sand to justify destruction of a valuable amenity. The National Trust had made a number of comments to mitigate the effects of excavation but had also called for an assessment of alternative sites in the absence of a long term land use strategy for the extraction of sand. Water based extraction could also lead to risk of bird strikes. He asked the Committee to reject the application or at very least defer it to allow further assessment and consideration of alternative sites, which he understood were available and would have less impact.
Simon Rose emphasised that the decision taken today would have long reaching implications for this locality and that selection of sites should not be driven solely by commercial need but also by the impact of such proposals on the local community, particularly when other sites were available which would have less impact. He supported the objections submitted by Parish and District Councils and the local MP and called on the Committee to reject the application.
Members of the Committee then put questions to the speakers:
Councillor Joslin – referring to references which had been made to risk of bird strike stated that there were many sites in the County close to operating airfields and did they think that it would be difficult to make an exception in this case.
Mr Parker replied that the site was 1 kilometre from Abingdon airfield and would present risks if the area was subject to some water based restoration.
On behalf of the applicants Mr Salmon outlined the benefits of the proposal and the measures being taken to mitigate the impact of the proposal and preserve the area for posterity. The smaller fields would be returned to a higher standard of agricultural use and the larger field transferred to BBOWT for nature conservation. The sand in this area was of good quality and was needed urgently in order to supply commercial needs and maintain the County’s landbank of sand reserves. Sand could only be taken from where it had been deposited geologically and the Company’s research over 3 years showed this to be an excellent site. All extraction would be generally hidden from view, no woodland removed and the network of footpaths and bridleways protected. He commended the application as a good low impact scheme providing much needed material and an opportunity for nature conservation.
Anna Butler referred to the considerable amount of investigation which had been undertaken to better understand how extraction and restoration might impact on groundwater and surface water levels and adjacent wetlands and to monitoring of groundwater and surface water levels. These had identified that because it was not proposed to work the mineral within the aquifer extraction activities would not impact on the Cothill Fen area or negatively impact on groundwater flows to Cothill Fen and Parsonage Moor. A buffer would be retained to protect groundwater quality and flow beneath the site and adjacent wetland areas. This method had been used to successfully protect the aquifer at Tubney Wood. These findings had been supported by the Environment Agency, Natural England and the independent Appropriate Assessment.
Mr Salmon then responded to questions from:
Councillor Reynolds – the landbank should be at least 7 years but currently stood at 2½ years.
Councillor Hannaby – he confirmed that the bridlepath across Field 2 would be diverted during work and then reinstated. Other rights of way would be protected and not moved.
Councillor Hibbert-Biles – alternative sites had been investigated over a period of 10 years and he was not aware of the alternative site referred to by other speakers. He confirmed that this was a particularly good site, offering many benefits which might not be realised elsewhere and which met the County Council’s requirements for sand.
Councillor Iain Brown speaking as Local Member asked that the application be deferred to allow further consultation on the Appropriate Assessment which he felt, as did other residents, had been inadequate and investigation of an alternative site some 1½ miles away. That site had been put forward by the owners at the Annual Frilford Heath Parish Meeting on 30 April, which he had attended. He accepted there would be problems associated with any site but as there was the possibility of an alternative which seemed to be less invasive then it should be investigated and a deferral to the September meeting would allow that to happen and give residents a fair opportunity to mount a proper challenge.
Mr Irvine advised that additional representations had been received from local residents and Marcham Parish Council, which were referred to in the Addenda sheet, and confirmed receipt of the petition referred to by Mr Burley. He also referred to a consultation response from the Environmental Health Officer (Vale of White Horse District Council) which had been omitted accidentally from the report but which was now set out in the addenda sheet.
In response to Councillor Seale Mr Hamid confirmed that the low number of vehicles would not necessitate provision of a filter on/off A338 nor adversely affect the flow on the A420/A338 roundabout.
In response to concerns expressed by some members of the Committee concerning adequacy of the consultation process for this application Mr Dance confirmed that officers had been processing this application since August 2008 and that there had been a great deal of pre-application discussion. He was satisfied that consultation had been carried out appropriately.
Councillor Joslin referred to the good record of the operator and the urgent need to replenish the County’s sand landbank. There were no adverse transport issues and the responses from the statutory consultees suggested they were satisfied with the conditions proposed.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Hannaby, seconded by Councillor Joslin and carried by 9 votes to 3) that:
(a) subject to a legal agreement covering:
(i) a management plan including a programme of monitoring to operate for 20 years over and above the 5 year after care period; and
(ii) funding for the implementation of that management plan;
that planning permission be granted for the development proposed in Application MAR/5529/1-CM subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Sustainable Development but to include the matters set out below:
1. Complete compliance. 2. Development to commence within three years of permission. 3. 18 years for completion of extraction with a further 1 year for restoration. 4. Method of working as approved. 5. Restoration as proposed. 6. 5 year aftercare period. 7. Standard operating hours. 8. Sheeting of HGVs. 9. No development until access improvements completed. 10. No mud on the highway. 11. Vehicle wheels to leave the site clean. 12. Development to take place in accordance with the dust mitigation scheme. 13. Noise limits 14. Monitoring of noise levels. 15. Vehicles, equipment and machinery to be fitted with effective silencers. 16. White noise on reversing bleepers. 17. No external lighting unless a plan had been submitted and approved. 18. Bunds not to exceed 4 metres in Field 4 and 3 metres elsewhere.
Ecology conditions
19. No development until the Water Management Plan had been approved. 20. Cessation of works in the event of adverse impacts on conservation areas. 21. No development until the Environmental Management Plan had been approved. 22. Submission of restoration plan within 6 months of permission.
Archaeology
23. Applicant to implement archaeological surveys during soil stripping.
Conditions as suggested by Natural England for soils and aftercare
24. Storage of contaminants to prevent mixing with soils. 25. No development until a soil handling scheme had been approved. 26. Details of bunds within 3 months of formation. 27. Soil to be moved only when dry and friable 28. No soil handling or movements between October – March inclusive. 29. Plant or vehicle should not cross topsoil/subsoil. 30. 5 days advance written notice to MPA of topsoil stripping. 31. Bunds should conform to appropriate criteria. 32. Grassing of bunds. 33. Topsoil retained for restoration. 34. Retention of suitable soil for restoration. 35. Removal of stones in excess of 15cm. 36. 5 days advance written notice to MPA of topsoil replacement. 37. Submission of aftercare scheme not later than 3 months before topsoil replacement. 38. Aftercare in accordance.
(b) if the legal agreement referred to in (a) above was not completed within 10 weeks of the date of this meeting the Head of Sustainable Development be authorised to refuse the application on the grounds that it would not comply with OSP policy M1 in that there would be no satisfactory provision for the long term management of the restored site.
26/09 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 (Agenda Item 6)
Planning permission for the erection of a translucent polythene dome (for use part of the year during adverse weather conditions) over the school’s existing tennis courts for a temporary period of five years had been granted planning permission in April 2007. A subsequent planning application permitted in November 2008 approved a number of changes to the original permission including changes to the physical appearance of the dome, clarification of its hours and times of use and allowed for the use of internal lights. This current application seeks to remove Condition 3 of the existing permission (which in effect requires the dome to be removed during the summer months) in order to allow the dome to remain on the site for 12 months of the year until the expiry of the current temporary planning permission in April 2012.
Mrs Nicki Grieve (Resident of Warmans Close) reminded the Committee of the level of impact the dome had on her property and little had changed since she last addressed the Committee in November 2008. The Liaison Group had failed to deal adequately with any of the main issues. Noise remained a major concern and she reminded the meeting that had the school stuck to the terms of its original permission there would be no need for this discussion. The school had mismanaged the whole project and she urged the Committee to uphold the terms of the original permission.
Susan Keet (Pupil at King Alfred’s School) referred to the dramatic increase in sporting activity which had resulted directly from the availability of the dome. Regarding noise she pointed out that sport activities had taken place in that particular area before the dome had been erected. Not all local residents were against the dome and there had been many expressions of support. The dome was not used every day of the year and rarely after 4 pm but was vital to encourage engagement of young people at the school. The school had tried to find common ground with residents and she urged the Committee to approve the application.
Mr Divall referred to further representations which had been set out in the addenda sheet and confirmed that there would be a cost implication to the school if the dome was deflated during the summer months and that a new application would be required to resite the dome.
Councillor Seale was concerned that provision of a permanent facility might not be realised by 2012 and that therefore the dome could be retained. He considered the real problem for residents was the overbearing nature of the dome. He moved and Councillor Hibbert-Biles seconded that Application R3.009809 be refused.
Councillor Hannaby felt that the real problem was the inability of the school and residents to reach a consensus over noise issues and did not consider that visual impact was a major concern. She moved and Councillor Joslin seconded an amendment to defer Application R3.009809 to the July meeting to address noise measurement issues.
Mr Cousins advised that noise concerns could be addressed by strengthening conditions.
The Chairman disallowed the amendment.
The motion by Councillor Seale was then put to the Committee and lost by 7 votes to 6.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Nimmo-Smith, seconded by Councillor Joslin and carried by 7 votes to 5) to approve Application Number R3.009809 for the continuation of the development permitted under permission V.04/08 granted consent on 24/11/2008 (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 requires 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 subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Sustainable Development to include the following matters:
1. Detailed compliance – that the development must be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars contained in the application and the plans accompanying. 2. On or before 30 April 2012 the dome should be permanently removed from the site and the tennis courts reinstated to their condition before the approved development took place. 3. The dome should be used only for school purposes and only between the hours of 8 am to 6 pm Monday to Friday and only during term time (no use during school holidays). 4. Details of any additional lighting over and above that already installed within the dome (10 lighting columns) must be submitted to and agreed by the Head of Sustainable Development before any such lighting is installed. 5. Lighting within the dome should only be used between the hours of 8 am to 6 pm Monday to Friday and only during term time (no use during school holidays). 6. Within one month of the date of this permission a final scheme for the installation of internal partitions and walls within the dome shall be submitted to and agreed by the Head of Sustainable Development and any such scheme should be implemented within one month of any permission for the partitions and walls given. 7. (a) The level of noise emitted from the Dome’s compressor should not exceed 50dB LAeq 1 hour at a point 3 metres from the side of the unit measurement to be taken at a height of between 1 to 1.5 metres). If that level was exceeded the compressor should immediately cease to be used and should not be re-used until measures were put in place to reduce the noise to below that level. (b) The effectiveness of the sound proofing measures to the dome’s compressor should be reviewed by 20 July 2009 and thereafter annually in term 5. (c) In the event that a review found that the noise from the compressor exceeded 50 dB LAeq 1hour at any pint 3 metres from the eastern (school boundary fence) side of the unit (measurement to be taken at a height of between 1 to 1.5 metres) the compressor should immediately cease to be used and the dome should be dismantled and removed from the tennis courts by the end of term 5 of that school year. (d) Once removed the dome should not be re-installed before the end of term 1 of the following school year. 8. No new flooring should be installed unless final details of such flooring had been submitted to and agreed by the Head of Sustainable Development. 9. All trees and shrubs on the land should be preserved and properly maintained and that in the event of any of the trees or shrubs dying or being seriously damaged or destroyed within the period of this permission (until 30 April 2012) a new tree or shrub or equivalent number of trees or shrubs should be planted and properly maintained.
Informative Liaison Group - The school should continue to hold regular liaison group meetings with local residents in order to discuss and agree any future changes to the use of the dome.
27/09 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 (Agenda Item 7)
The Committee considered (PN7) an application to extend Grundon’s current Waste Transfer site into land off Thorpe Mead, Overthorpe Industrial Estate Banbury.
Councillor Reynolds having earlier declared a possible predetermination of this application left the meeting for the duration of the item.
Mary Thompson referred to the addenda sheet which set out late representations received and changes to the conditions as set out in the officer report. Despite assurances given regarding flooding Councillor Jelf expressed concern regarding the possible risk of flooding in this area and increased traffic movements.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Hibbert-Biles, seconded by Councillor Mrs Fulljames and carried by 10 votes to 2) that:
(a) subject to prior completion of a legal agreement requiring that waste management operations are ceased at Grundon’s Merton Street site once this development had been built and was operational the Head of Sustainable Development be authorised to grant planning permission for application 06/00954/CM subject to conditions to be determined by him but to cover those matters outlined at Annex 1 to the report PN7;
(b) the Head of Sustainable Development be authorised to refuse the application if the legal agreement recommended in (a) above was not completed within 10 weeks of the date of approval of the application.
28/09 ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION (WITH COVERED WALKWAY) TO PROVIDE CLASSROOM, ENTRANCE LOBBY AND OTHER STAFF AND PUPIL ACCOMMODATION; CREATION OF COVERED PLAY AREA AND OTHER EXTERNAL WORKS INCLUDING RELOCATION OF EXISTING AIR FILTRATION UNIT AT ST EBBES CE PRIMARY SCHOOL, WHITEHOUSE ROAD, OXFORD. APPLICATION R3/0097/09 (Agenda Item 8)
The Committee considered (PN8) an application for the construction of a single storey classroom extension at this school to cater for Rising 5 year olds for the first time. Although there had been no objections to the principle or design of the new accommodation itself, objections had been received from a number of local residents over the proposed contractor’s access to the site and therefore the application had been brought to the Planning & Regulation Committee for determination.
Mr Healey referred to the unsuitability of the proposed access for contractor traffic or indeed any traffic and suggested that Whitehouse Road was more suitable. A barrier had been placed across the proposed access some years ago where it joined onto Marlborough Road because of the danger to children. That should be replaced and the alleyway restricted to pedestrian access and use.
The Committee discussed various alternatives but ultimately -
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Hibbert-Biles, seconded by Councillor Mrs Fulljames and carried by 10 votes to 2) to approve Application No R3.0097/09 (for the erection of a single storey extension, with covered walkway, to provide classroom, entrance lobby and other accommodation plus the creation of a covered play area and other external works, etc) at St Ebbe’s CE School subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Sustainable Development to cover the following:
(1) detailed compliance; (2) detailed duration – 3 years; (3) schedule of external materials to be agreed; (4) landscaping scheme to be agreed; (5) implement approved landscaping scheme; (6) tree and hedge protection during building works; (7) construction travel plan to be agreed before work commences on site and implemented for the duration of the work; (8) contractor’s working hours to be agreed; (9) times for delivery of materials to site to be agreed; (10) contractor’s staff parking to be on Whitehouse Road and not Marlborough Road; (11) any damage caused during the duration of building works as a result of the use of the footpath access into Marlborough Road to be made good at the end of the building contract; (12) provision of scooter parking (13) removal of any vegetation/tree work to be done outside bird nesting season.
29/09 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 (Agenda Item 9)
The Committee considered (PN9) an application for outline planning permission for the erection of a permanent lightweight steel cover (made of stretched fabric) over an existing salt store at Chipping Norton Highways Depot.
Councillor Hibbert-Biles expressed some concern regarding noise, height and increased use.
Mr Dance advised that as an outline permission if objections were received to the details, these would be a matter for final decision by the Committee.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Joslin, seconded by Councillor Armitage and carried unanimously) to approve Application Number R.03.0074/09 for the erection of a permanent covered lightweight steel cover (covered by stretched fabric) over existing salt store and erection of small office building at Chipping Norton Highways Depot, subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Sustainable Development to include the following matters:
1. Outline compliance – that the development must be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars contained in the application and the plans accompanying any approval in respect of any subsequent reserved matters. 2. Application for approval of the reserved matters to be made not later than 3 years after the date of the permission. 3. Materials – the stretched fabric over the top of the existing salt cover should be dark green and retained as such thereafter. 4. Noise assessment – that no development works should take place until a noise assessment measuring current operational noise levels had been undertaken. 5. Operational noise levels – After completion of the proposed development, operational noise levels were not to exceed levels identified in the noise assessment and if they did then mitigation measures must be agreed and put in place. 6. Tree protection during construction works – that no development should take place until the trees on the site which were to be retained and which were adjacent to or within the development area, had been protected during building operations by means of a protective fence around the edge of the canopy of the trees.
Informatives: Archaeological Informative: if archaeological finds occurred during development, the County Archaeologist should be notified in order that he might visit the site and advise as necessary. Ecological informative - If any protected species were found to be present at any time during construction of the development, work should stop immediately and the County Ecologist notified in order that he might visit the site and advise as necessary.
................................................................................... in the Chair
Date of signing.................................................................. 2009
|