Venue: County Hall, New Road, Oxford
Contact: Graham Warrington Tel: (01865) 815321; E-Mail: graham.warrington@oxfordshire.gov.uk
| No. | Item | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments Minutes: The Committee stood in silent tribute in memory of Councillor Roger Belson. The Committee also wished Councillor Peter Jones a speedy recovery following his recent illness. The following apologies for absence and temporary appointments were received:
|
|||||||
|
Declarations of Interest - see guidance note opposite Minutes:
|
|||||||
|
Minutes: The Minutes of the meeting held on 5 December 2011 were approved and signed by the Chairman |
|||||||
|
Chairman's Updates Minutes: Waterstock Mr Hamilton advised that at the hearing in the High Court on 19 December the Wyatt Brothers had been allowed further time until 27 January 2012 to prepare an adequate specification for the removal of waste. Energy from Waste, Ardley Mr Hamilton advised that the Liaison Committee had held its inaugural meeting on 10 January 2012. Membership had been extended to include Bucknell Parish Council and Cherwell District Council but proposals to further extend representation to some of the other 19 parishes also affected had been resisted. However, those parish councils would be sent minutes of future meetings and given the opportunity to raise issues if necessary. Representatives of statutory undertakers could also be invited to address specific issues. Councillor Mrs Fulljames thanked officers for their work in establishing the Liaison Committee. Ashgrove Farm, Ardley Mr Hamilton advised that the odour management plan was still with the Environment Agency for agreement. The Agency were monitoring the site and Agrivert were already working to a number of principles set out in the plan, which included a reduction in the size of windrows and levels of waste of 25% and a general improvement in working and management practices. |
|||||||
|
Petitions and Public Address Minutes:
|
|||||||
|
Report by the Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN6) This
is an application to import reject building blocks from three Blockworks, crush
and screen them and mix them with other locally available materials and export
the recycled product to Milton Blockworks to make more building blocks. The
site is a 2.5 hectare area on a sand and gravel stocking area which is also
part of the Sutton Courtenay mineral and waste management complex. The site is
suitable for recycling use to 2030 as it is within a landfill that expires at
that date and the site can then be restored as required by the Valeof White
Horse District Council’s policy for protection of the landscape and
countryside. It has good access to the Didcot perimeter road and lorries can
then be routed to the A34. The site is several hundred metres from the closest
villages of Sutton Courtenay and Appleford and would have no discernable effect
on the amenity of residents there. Although reject blocks would be brought in
from blockworks in Berkshire and Warwickshire policies allow some cross
boundary movement of waste and the harm of long journeys would be outweighed by
the opportunity to recycle material and offset the need for locally won sand
and gravel. The report also outlines the consultation
responses received, relevant Development Plan and other policies and key
considerations for the committee to take account in determining the application
and sets out the views and recommendation of the Deputy Director
(Infrastructure & Growth). It is RECOMMENDED that subject to compliance
with the current site routeing agreement, a contribution of £7,804.84 (index
linked) to Science Vale UK Strategic Schemes that planning permission be
granted subject to conditions to be drawn up by the Deputy Director for
Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) but to include those
matters set out below: 1.
Detailed
compliance condition 2.
Operating
hours – Mon – Fri 0700-1800 and Saturdays 0700-1300 3.
No
operation on Sunday and Bank holiday 4.
Operation
to cease by end of 2030 with restoration to be completed by 2032 5. Crushing of blocks for only 6 weeks a year. 6. Details of mobile plant to be submitted and agreed. 7. Restoration and aftercare to take place in accordance with
Landfill and aftercare. permission restoration 8. Steps to be taken to prevent any solid matter, reject block
material, concrete waste of furnace bottom ash or excess amounts of suspended
matter from passing into any water course 9. No oil storage tanks to be sited. 10. All stock piles not to exceed the height of the trees to the west
of the site 11. Effective
silencers to be provided on plant, machineries and vehicles 12. Reversing
vehicles shall not emit warning noise that may have adverse impacts on
neighbours or properties. 13. No
buildings, plant and machineries to be erected without consent 14. No imported material to be deposited on the land except reject blocks from Coleshill, Thatcham and Milton, concrete waste from Concrete batching plants at Sutton ... view the full agenda text for item 6/12 Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee considered (PN6) an application to import reject building blocks and to crush, screen and blend that material with other locally available materials to produce recycled material for block making for export. Mr Hignell referred to the general concern felt by residents in Sutton Courtenay, which primarily revolved around the laissez faire attitude of the 2 main operators on the landfill site and the general perception locally that due to the character and appearance of the site there seemed to be little support from the regulatory authorities. The cumulative effect of many individual applications now gave the appearance of an industrial and commercial waste land, which conflicted with the provisions of the Vale of White Horse District Council’s Adopted Local Plan. Noise, dust, light and odour pollution and infestation of flies from the site continually affected the quality of life and had, over time, gradually eroded local amenities. The parish council acknowledged that not all of these problems were caused by this particular operation and that the application needed to be considered on its merits and against development plan policies. However, the cumulative impact of successive developments should be a material consideration and at very least have warranted an environmental impact analysis. There were questions over the sustainability of the application regarding traffic/vehicle generation, particularly as material was not sourced locally, the amount of material to be stockpiled when crushing would only take place for 6 weeks of the year and its potential effect on surface water drainage. The proposals could also affect the Millennium Common area and local footpath network. The parish council felt that enough was enough and were asking the county council to seriously consider their objection and the further imposition which would be placed on the local community. Responding to Councillor Crabbe he advised that the concern of the parish council revolved around the cumulative effect of developments and not the retrospective nature of the application itself. Dee McDonald advised that the site was in the right location and appropriate for this type of operation. It was a designated aggregate stock piling area well screened and some distance from existing settlements. It had good access to the local road network and the company were willing to continue operating within the provisions of the current routeing agreement, which would help protect local communities from traffic. The operation contributed to the local economy realising a £5,500 business rate and if permission was granted the company would make a contribution to the Science Vale UK Strategic Schemes. The proposal also realised the need to divert waste from landfill and by securing production of secondary and recycled aggregate on a site, which was part of an existing mineral extraction and landfill site and close to the market for the recycled material, it conformed with policies W3 and W4 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. As far as she was aware there had been no complaints raised at the Millennium Common steering group as a result of this operation ... view the full minutes text for item 6/12 |
|||||||
|
Report by the Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN7) This application
is for the retention and continued use of a temporary building for a further
period of five years. The application is
being reported to this Committee as objections have been received to the
proposal. The report
describes why the school are applying to renew planning permission and outlines
the objections and other responses to the application. Relevant planning policies are included along
with the comments and recommendation of the Deputy Director (Growth and
Infrastructure) on the proposal. It is
RECOMMENDED that Application No. R3.0144/11
be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy
Director (Growth & Infrastructure) to include the following matters: 1.
The development must be
carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars contained in the
application and the plans. 2.
Temporary building to be
removed by 31 January 2017. 3.
School travel plan to be
revisited within 3 months with a view to reducing local congestion around the
school site. Revised travel plan to be
implemented within 6 months. 4.
Reinstatement of the playing
field within 3 months of the removal of the building. 5.
Restoration of netball
court to its original position once the temporary building is removed on 31
January 2017. 6.
Submission of a
landscaping scheme 7.
Implementation of the
approved landscaping scheme. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee considered (PN7) an
application for the retention and continued use of a temporary building for a
further period of five years at Councillor Stratford referred to the good reputation enjoyed by the school and moved the officer recommendation. Councillor Tanner however felt the school needed a permanent building and that a permission granted for 5 years would not exert enough pressure for that to happen. He moved an amendment that planning permission be granted for a period of 2 years and not 5. The amendment seconded by Councillor Sanders was put to the Committee and lost by 12 votes to 2. The original motion was then put to the Committee and carried by 13 votes to 1. RESOLVED:
that Application No. R3.0144/11 be approved subject to conditions to be
determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth &
Infrastructure) to include the following matters: 1.
The development must be
carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars contained in the
application and the plans. 2.
Temporary building to be
removed by 31 January 2017. 3.
School travel plan to be
revisited within 3 months with a view to reducing local congestion around the
school site. Revised travel plan to be
implemented within 6 months. 4.
Reinstatement of the
playing field within 3 months of the removal of the building. 5.
Restoration of netball
court to its original position once the temporary building had been removed on
31 January 2017. 6.
Submission of a
landscaping scheme. 7.
Implementation of the
approved landscaping scheme. |