Issue - meetings

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN6).

This is a planning application to allow a further period of time, up to 31 December 2019,  for the extraction of the mineral. The application area is within the overall permission for Shipton on Cherwell Quarry which had a range of uses on the site and currently includes waste recycling, land filling and restoration.

The report outlines the relevant planning policies, along with the comments and recommendations of the Director for Planning and Place.

The main issues with the application is the effect on the local amenity, and the need to extract the mineral. It is felt that the effect on the local amenity can be controlled by conditions and that there is a need to remove the reserve rather than have it sterilised. Therefore, the recommendation is to approve the application

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application no. MW.0001/19 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning and Place to include the Conditions set out in Annex 1 to the report PN6.

Agreed subject to:

·                       amending Condition 2 in Annex 1 to the report to read 2. The extraction of minerals shall cease by 30 September 2019.

·                       An additional informative to encourage the applicants to implement the rail sidings as included in the planning permission.

·                       A monitoring report on progress of extraction and restoration of the site to be submitted to the Planning & Regulation Committee in 6 months.

The Committee considered a report (PN6) outlining relevant planning policies and main issues associated with an application to allow a further period of time, up to 31 December 2019 for extraction of unworked permitted reserves within the Shipton on Cherwell Quarry. The report concluded that the effect of an extension on local amenity could be controlled by conditions, there was a need to remove the reserve rather than have it sterilised and therefore had recommended that the application be approved.

Mr Broughton presented the report and addenda sheet referring to a petition received containing 101 signatures and also addressing comments received from Shipton-on-Cherwell parish council. Officers then responded to questions from:

Councillor Sanders – confirming that there was regular monitoring of the site and some complaints but no evidence on which to base further action with regard to noise and dust issues. Regarding dust mitigation if the applicant had been found to be in persistent breach of a condition then a breach of condition notice could be served and if that breach continued then the operator could be prosecuted through the courts.  Regarding the railhead there was no guarantee that that would be built. 

Councillor Roberts – there was no automatic noise monitoring on the site but if complaints were received then officers would visit and take readings over a period of time. However, it appeared that to be specific noises affecting residents rather than prolonged and persistent noise levels. Stages of restoration for the site were then explained and confirmation given that that work was also monitored.

Councillor Matelot – with regard to the suggested condition from the parish council as set out on page 6 of the addenda that they should be given full consultee status officers explained that conditions could only be enforced by the County Council and not by a third party.

Councillor Phillips – officers agreed that 6 months could be seen as a reasonable time in which to complete extraction and confirmed that in their opinion there would be adequate room available on site to store extracted material away from residential areas.

Councillor Thompson – it was not anticipated that lorry movements would increase and if the application were approved an informative could be added to encourage moves to secure the railhead.

Mr Warrington then reported a submission received from Marian Fox on behalf of local residents. She had intended to speak at the meeting but had been unable to do so due to a hospital appointment.  Her submission referred to the impact of the application on local amenity; restoration of the site; the role of the liaison committee; stockpiling; remediation schemes and Section 73 applications. In conclusion, her submission stated that while residents understood that excavation of the remaining mineral would be necessary in order to avoid sterilisation of the material the impact on the community from the site was well documented and that needed to be considered as part of any decision. Therefore, residents felt that any steps necessary to conclude the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11