Agenda and minutes

 

Apology	Temporary Appointment
Councillor Ray Jelf Councillor Anda Fitzgerald-O’Connor Councillor Lawrie Stratford	Councillor David Wilmshurst

 

Councillor	Item	Nature of Interest
Mrs Fulljames	6. Application to continue importing leachate for treatment at Ardley Leachate Treatment Plant	Disclosable pecuniary interest by reason of proximity. She advised that after making representations as local member she would leave the meeting taking no part in the substantive discussion or voting thereafter.
Lilly	8. Extend existing dust storage shed used in connection with existing asphalt plant at Hansons Aggregates, Appleford Sidings, Sutton Courtenay – MW.0104/12	Personal.  Local Member for the Sutton Courtenay and Harwell Division.  He advised that he had not expressed an opinion on the application in that capacity and intended to take part in the discussion and voting on the application.
Service	7. Change of use of part of sawmill, timber treatment and fencing and timber building manufacturing depot to waste transfer station – Pennyroyal Sawmill site, Goring Heath – MW.0100/12     8. Extend existing dust storage shed used in connection with existing asphalt plant at Hansons Aggregates, Appleford Sidings, Sutton Courtenay – MW.0104/12	Personal.  Member of South Oxfordshire District Council who owned land adjacent to this site. He did not consider that that affected his discretion to participate in the discussion and voting on the item.   Personal.  Local Member for the Didcot Ladygrove which was adjacent to the application site.  He advised that he had not expressed an opinion on the application in that capacity and intended to take part in the discussion and voting on the application.

 

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2012 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2012 were approved and signed.

 

Minute 43/12 – Application to continue importing leachate for treatment at Ardley Leachate Treatment Plant

 

Officers advised that there had as yet been no response from the Secretary of State to the request made by Sir Tony Baldry MP to call in the application for determination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaker	Item
Hazel Watt Chris Herbert Mark Matthews	) ) Ardley Leachate Treatment Plant )

 

Waterstock Golf Course

 

Officers advised that at the latest High Court hearing the Judge had ruled that the Wyatt brothers should begin their prison sentence with immediate effect but that they had instantly appealed.  Although the detail of that appeal was not yet known the presumption was that it had been made against imprisonment as a result of contempt of court and not the judgement regarding restoration of the site which remained.

 

The Chairman confirmed that the Council had been awarded costs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN6).

 

In July 2012 the Planning & Regulation Committee deferred an application by Viridor which sought to use the leachate treatment plant at the Ardley site to treat leachate imported from other sites.  The application was deferred until September so that Thames Water and Environment Agency representatives could address local concerns regarding flooding from the sewer in the locality of Bucknell. A meeting with local people to discuss flooding concerns has now taken place. This report describes the latest position.   The July report stated that the proposed development is considered acceptable as there had been no objection from the Environment Agency or Thames Water in terms of drainage or pollution and it was in accordance with planning policy relating to the location of waste development.  

 

At present the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy is minded to make the same recommendation for approval as appears in the July 2012 report to this Committee. However, he feels it appropriate that the meeting with Thames Water and the Environment Agency should take place before doing so. Therefore, he will seek to make a recommendation to the Planning & Regulation Committee on the application at the 10 September meeting.

 

In July 2012 the Planning & Regulation Committee had deferred an application by Viridor which had sought planning permission to use the existing leachate treatment plant at the Ardley site to treat leachate imported from other sites. That decision had been taken as a result of concerns expressed by residents regarding incidents of flooding from the sewer in the locality of Bucknell and to give Thames Water and the Environment Agency the opportunity to address those concerns and attend the meeting when the application was reconsidered. The July report considered the proposed development acceptable as there had been no objection from either the Environment Agency or Thames Water in terms of drainage or pollution and it was in accordance with planning policy relating to the location of waste development.  The Committee were now asked to consider the application in the light of meetings which had taken place, the original report to the July Committee, the latest report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy and a tabled recommendation by him to approve the application.

Hazel Watt thanked the Committee for their decision to defer the application in July and county officers for their assistance since then in arranging stakeholder meetings, though, unfortunately not all parties had been able to attend until the latest meeting on the previous Friday.  She reiterated that Viridor had stated that there was no proven link between their operation and incidents of flooding yet there was no proof that it could not be linked and she maintained that if the slightest doubt existed then it would be negligent of the County Council to approve the application.  She referred to further evidence from 2 residents who had experienced flooding earlier this year.

Chris Herbert confirmed that Viridor had ceased importation as instructed immediately after the decision to defer and been involved in the meetings subsequently. He referred to the addenda sheet which reaffirmed that neither Thames Water or the Environment Agency had lodged an objection or  suggested any link between leachate discharge and incidents of flooding. There was clearly a potential flooding problem in Bucknell but it was equally clear from submissions by both Agencies that they felt leachate was not the cause.  He urged the Committee to approve the application.

Mr Herbert then responded to questions from:

Councillor Greene – import of leachate was limited to 18,200 tonnes pa and roughly split equally between imported material and material produced on site.  However, the company might need to limit imported material from time to time in order to treat any increase in material produced on site.

Councillor Tanner – material was imported as other sites were either too old or too small to justify their own dedicated facility.

Councillor Sanders – following processing treated leachate was introduced into the sewer.

Mark Matthews thanked county officers for their help in arranging Friday’s meeting which had been very useful and also Hazel Watt for her assistance.  He acknowledged the extreme concerns locally regarding sewer flooding and the existence of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50/12

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN7)

 

The report describes a planning application submitted for a waste facility at an existing sawmill in Goring Heath which proposes to change the use of the northern part of the site to a waste transfer station with a concrete hardstanding containing plant and machinery for waste processing and storage including a crusher, screener and shredder. Waste would be sorted inside an existing building with one skip lorry used to transport approximately 10,000 tonnes per year of inert domestic and building construction waste. The application appears to be for a relatively small scale proposal, but the potential for harm to the AONB and nearby uses and the extent to which there is a need for facilities to serve the local area are unclear. Further information has been requested but not provided.

 

The report describes why the proposals have been put forward, outlines objections and other responses which have been received to the application and sets out relevant planning policies along with comments and recommendation of the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure).

 

It is RECOMMENDED that Application MW.0100/12 be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

1.                  The development is contrary to policy W4 of OMWLP as it has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding need to justify the countryside location.

 

2.                  On the basis of the information provided, the development proposed would have an unacceptable impact on a public right of way running across the site, contrary to policy OMWLP PE18 and OMWCS policy C9.

 

3.                  Insufficient information has been supplied regarding lorry traffic generation.  A substantial increase over existing levels would be contrary to OMWCS policy C8 because the site is located off a narrow rural lane.

 

4.         The proposed development is not appropriate in the AONB. It has not been demonstrated that the development  would be a small scale facility serving local needs. It is contrary to OMWCS policy W6. 

 

 

The Committee considered (PN7) a planning application to change the use of part of an existing sawmill the site to a waste transfer station.

 

Councillor Greene referred to an email which he had received from the applicant at 7.40 am that morning stating that he (the applicant) had only just found out that the application would be considered at this meeting.  He had informed the Chairman and officers.

 

Mr Fagan advised that he had spoken to the applicant during the previous week and that an acknowledgement letter sent out in response to the application had stated when the application was likely to be considered.  He confirmed that all normal requirements had been fulfilled and statutory notices completed with regard to this application and further advised that the local member supported the recommendation, the site was brownfield and situated in the AONB.

 

The Committee noted two amendments to the report. The first to paragraph 35, line one “OMWLP” (Oxfordshire Minerals & Waste Local Plan) to read “OMWCS” (Oxfordshire Minerals & Waste Core Strategy) and the second to Annex 2  - Consultation Responses, South Oxfordshire District Council to read “did not comment on the application” rather than “No objection” as it had merely passed objections it had received to the application directly on to the County Council.

 

Councillor Nimmo-Smith who had sought confirmation as to classification of the site considered the idea a good one but felt the site was in the wrong place and questioned the local need for such a site. 

 

Councillor Crabbe referred to a similar site in his division which had expanded and was now causing considerable problems.

 

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Nimmo-Smith, seconded by Councillor Crabbe and carried by 14 votes to 0, Councillor Service recorded as having abstained) that Application MW.0100/12 be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

1.                  The development was contrary to policy W4 of OMWLP as it had not been demonstrated that there was an overriding need to justify the countryside location.

 

2.                  On the basis of the information provided, the development proposed would have an unacceptable impact on a public right of way running across the site, contrary to policy OMWLP PE18 and OMWCS policy C9.

 

3.                  Insufficient information had been supplied regarding lorry traffic generation.  A substantial increase over existing levels would be contrary to OMWCS policy C8 because the site was located off a narrow rural lane.

 

4.         The proposed development was not appropriate in the AONB. It had not been demonstrated that the development  would be a small scale facility serving local needs. It was contrary to OMWCS policy W6. 

 

 

Report by Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure) (PN8).

 

The report describes a planning application submitted by Hanson Aggregates for an extension to an existing dust shed at the Hansons site within the Sutton Courtenay waste complex. This is a relatively small scale proposal as the extension would be the same height at the existing shed (6.5 metres) and measure 10 metres by 10 metres. The application is being reported to this Committee as objections have been received to the proposal.

 

The report describes why the proposals have been put forward 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 for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastrucutre).

 

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be approved for application MW.0104/12 to extend existing dust storage shed used in connection with existing asphalt plant, subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) but to include those matters listed below:

 

Heads of Conditions

 

1.                  Complete accordance with application

2.                  Development to commence within 3 years of the date of permission

3.                  External materials as per existing building

 

 

The Committee considered (PN8) a planning application submitted by Hanson Aggregates for an extension to an existing dust shed at the Hansons site within the Sutton Courtenay waste complex while noting an amendment to paragraph 4, line 1 that “0-20mm” should have read “0-.02mm”.

 

Councillor Lilly advised that the operation was closer to Appleford than Sutton Courtenay and at the last meeting of the Local Liaison Group nothing had been raised by way of objection to the proposal.

 

Councillor Service referred to doubts regarding the permanency of Appleford sidings and planned growth for Didcot which justified the possibility of an additional condition regarding traffic routeing and access to this site.

 

Mr Groves advised that that would not be possible as this application was for storage and not an application for all uses.

 

Councillor Armitage considered that the same grounds for refusal applied to this application as had applied to the energy from waste application.

 

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Hannaby, seconded by Councillor Greene and carried 14 votes to 1) that planning permission be approved for application MW.0104/12 to extend existing dust storage sheds used in connection with existing asphalt plant, subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) but to include those matters listed below:

 

Heads of Conditions

 

1.                  Complete accordance with application

2.                  Development to commence within 3 years of the date of permission

3.                  External materials as per existing building