Issue - meetings

Section 73 application to continue the operation of Dix Pit Recycled Aggregate Facility permitted by planning permission no. 16/04166/CM (MW.0140/16) without complying with condition 6 thereby allowing an increase in the maximum tonnage of waste mate

Meeting: 08/01/2018 - Planning & Regulation Committee (Item 5)

5 Section 73 application to continue the operation of Dix Pit Recycled Aggregate Facility permitted by planning permission no. 16/04166/CM (MW.0140/16) without complying with condition 6 thereby allowing an increase in the maximum tonnage of waste material imported to site to 175,000 tonnes per annum at Sheehan Recycled Aggregates Plant, Dix Pit, Stanton Harcourt, Witney, OX29 5BB - Application No. MW.0073/17 pdf icon PDF 223 KB

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN7).

 

This application is to increase the amount of waste imported to the existing Dix Pit Recycled Aggregates Facility from 100,000 to 175,000 tonnes per calendar year through a variation of condition 6 of planning permission no. 16/04166/CM (MW.0140/16). No other changes to the existing conditions are proposed.

 

The update report to this Committee follows deferral of the application at its meeting on 27 November 2017 to allow for further negotiation with the applicant.

 

The development accords with the Development Plan as a whole and with individual policies within it, as well as with the NPPF. It is considered to be sustainable development in terms of environmental, social and economic terms. The proposed development would be beneficial in terms of contributing towards Oxfordshire’s supply of secondary aggregate and it is considered that any potential impacts can be adequately addressed through planning conditions and the routeing agreement which prohibits HGVs associated with the site passing along the B4449 through Sutton during peak hours which will continue to apply.

 

The Planning & Regulation Committee is RECOMMENDED that:

 

(a)       Application MW.0073/13 be approved subject to:

 

(i)         the existing conditions including the amendment made under Non-material amendment application no. MW.00889/1 to condition 6 reading as follows:

 

          No more than 175,000 tonnes of waste shall be imported to the site in any calendar year. Records of imports, sufficient to be monitored by the Waste Planning Authority shall be kept on site and made available to the Waste Planning Authority's officers on request. Separate records shall be kept on site of any topsoil or other soil materials imported solely for use in the restoration of the Controlled Reclamation Site permitted subject to planning permission no. MW.0141/16 (16/04159/CM); and

(ii)       an additional condition requiring that the operator’s records of heavy goods vehicle movements to and from the site including daily traffic numbers and tracking details for those vehicles controlled by the operator be provided to the Waste Planning Authority on a quarterly basis.

 

(b)       that the Chairman of the Planning & Regulation Committee write to the Cabinet Member for Environment advising that provision of the Sutton Bypass has been raised by Councillor Mathew in commenting on this application and advising of the applicant’s expression of interest in working with other parties to help secure it.

 

Decision:

There would be an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of residents in Sutton village arising from the additional HGV movements proposed by the application, contrary to policy C5 of the adopted Minerals & Waste Core Strategy. The offer of £5,000 for highway improvements could not overcome that concern

Minutes:

The Committee considered PN7 an application to increase the amount of waste imported to the existing Dix Pit Recycled Aggregates Facility from 100,000 to 175,000 tonnes per calendar year through a variation of condition 6 of planning permission no. 16/04166/CM (MW.0140/16). No other changes to the existing conditions had been proposed.  This matter had been deferred at the 27 November 2017 meeting to allow further negotiation with the applicant.

 

Mr Periam presented the report together with the addenda sheet tabled at the meeting.

 

The Committee also noted a late submission from the residents of Deans Farmhouse, Evergreen Cottage, Tudor Cottage and The Green all objecting to any increase in the already high volume of HGVs on a road which they considered not fit for that type of traffic.

 

Responding to Councillor Johnston Mr Periam confirmed that the applicants had not been prepared to consider a staged approach to the proposed  increase in vehicle movements to the site for the reasons set out in paragraph 2 of the officer report.

 

Mr Salmon for the applicants advised that the application supported Council policy on recycling, production of secondary aggregates and maximum diversion of waste from landfill. The route to the site followed a designated lorry route and a recent traffic consultancy report had shown that impact on Sutton village from this increase would not be as severe as had been suggested. Although there were currently over 3,000 daily movements on the road the predicted number of additional vehicles to or from Dix Pit as a result of this application would equate to one every ¼ hour with none of the extra vehicles in any event travelling through Sutton. Similarly, as the number of vehicle movements resulting from the application were considered insignificant the applicant felt any need to agree a staged increase was impractical.  Sheehans were happy to comply with conditions requiring information and notification of any breaches of the routeing agreement every 3 months and had also agreed a contribution of £5,000 towards a feasibility study to determine the most effective way to improve highway safety. Contrary to what had been suggested Sheehans took its role regarding local amenity and safety seriously. They were accredited under the Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme and trained their drivers to a high standard. They had an exemplary safety record and adhered to the routeing agreement to avoid Sutton during peak hours despite the alternative route requiring a 20 mile diversion, which was both time consuming and environmentally costly and not required by other operators who used the site. Sutton village was not a typical village centre but had 24 residences spaced out on both sides of the road, over a distance of 600 meters, and set well back from the road itself. It had a 30 mph speed limit with adequate signing and 2 HGVs were able to pass each other. The County Council’s own highways department considered the road acceptable as a local lorry route. Therefore, bearing in mind that the application supported Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5