Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2014 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2014 were approved and signed.

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

This is a ‘details pursuant’ application providing details required by a condition on an existing planning consent. Condition 31 on the planning permission for an Energy from Waste plant at Ardley landfill site requires that the applicant provide details of the external lighting for the plant, for approval by the Waste Planning Authority.

Following comments from a specialist lighting consultant, the applicant amended the scheme and provided a series of photomontages to show how the proposed lighting would look from a number of viewpoints. There is no objection from the consultant providing lighting advice. Therefore, it is considered that the lighting scheme submitted would provide the appropriate level of lighting for the permitted development whilst ensuring that light spillage beyond the boundary of the site is minimised in the interests of the residents in the locality, as required by the condition.

This application was originally reported to Planning and Regulation committee on 13 January 2014 where it was resolved to defer consideration until further information has been submitted to help understand how the proposed lighting would. The applicant provided further photomontages to show how the proposed lighting scheme would look for April committee and no further comments were received from Parish Councils or neighbours. Planning and Regulation committee deferred the item again on 7 April and the applicant has now provided further photomontages showing both existing and proposed lighting from three viewpoints.  

It is RECOMMENDED that Application MW.0067/13 be approved

Councillor Owen took the chair for the duration of this item.

The Committee considered (PN6) a details pursuant application required by condition 31 on an existing planning condition which required details of external lighting for the energy from waste facility at Ardley to be approved by the Waste Planning Authority. This matter had been previously deferred by Committee on 13 January and 7 April 2014.

Councillor Hudspeth advised that although he had been a member of the Cabinet, which had approved various matters with regard to this facility he still had an open mind in relation to this particular matter and would consider the issues in the light of the officers report and any other information presented at the meeting.

Following a presentation of the report Ms Thompson and Anthony Potts addressed questions from:

Councillor Purse – Mr Potts confirmed that Viridor’s proposal complied fully with British standards.

Councillor Mrs Fulljames – Mr Potts advised that he had been asked to comment only on degrees of sky glow from the facility  Issues regarding proposals for lighting in the ash area and whether or not they would be wall or column mounted and the heights of those columns were a matter better directed to Viridor who were responsible for the design element.

Councillor Purse – Mr Potts explained differences in the photomontage images where in one the lighting had appeared to be more controlled. Other images showed the temporary construction lighting which created more reflected light from surfaces around the site.

Councillor Hudspeth – officers advised that it seemed that lighting in the ash ponds area would be wall mounted and as such would therefore be lower than the wall surround itself.  

Councillor Purse – Mr Potts advised that following the review to be undertaken in November 2014 (paragraph 21 of the report) if there were any issues of light spillage from the site they would be addressed by reducing output of lamps or switching down to two or one third(s) to reduce light trespass.

Councillor Handley – Mr Potts confirmed he was happy with compliance on light emission and sky glow.

Mr Scott thanked members of the Committee for visiting the site which he hoped had demonstrated that the operational lighting would be more sympathetic and less intrusive for residents and on a par with other operating sites in the area such as the motorway service area. He reminded the Committee that a right to a view was not a planning consideration.  Regarding the November 2014 review Viridor would be having discussions with county planning officers but would also take the opportunity to raise these issues at the Liaison Committee.

Mr Scott then responded to questions from:

Councillor Cherry – he had not had any personal interaction with local residents but issues had been discussed at the quarterly Liaison meetings.

Councillor Purse – with regard to her comments regarding the constant glowing nature and the possibility of reducing reflected light he advised that the construction lighting was more reflective. That  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18/14

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

This report updates members on the regular monitoring of minerals and waste planning permissions and on the progress of enforcement cases for the period 1 October 2013 to 31 March 2014. 

All sites with planning permission are regularly visited on a formal basis and a written report produced following a site visit which is shared with the site occupant. Where elements of non-compliance with a consent are identified this can result in subsequent compliance with matters that are outstanding or in a planning application being made to regularise unauthorised activities on site.

Of all the sites, 66 fall within the remit of Government Regulations that allow the council to charge a fee for conditions monitoring, in that they relate directly to the winning and working of mineral permissions or directly to land filling permissions.   The remaining non-chargeable sites include scrap yards, recycling operations, waste transfer stations, sewage works and composting operations.

The routine monitoring programme benefits the county's environment by increasing compliance with planning conditions, and in identifying and rectifying matters where conditions are not being complied with on all mineral and waste planning permissions. .

It is RECOMMENDED that the Schedule of Compliance Monitoring Visits in Annex 1 to the report PN7 and the Schedule of Enforcement Cases in Annex 2 also annexed to PN7 be noted.

Councillor Mrs Fulljames resumed the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.

The Committee considered (PN7) a report updating the regular monitoring of minerals and waste planning permissions and progress of enforcement cases for the period 1 October 2013 to 31 March 2014.

Mr Wyatt spoke to Annex 2 (Waterstock Golf Course).  Challenging the assumption that any of the alleged deposited waste remained on site he pointed out that an 8 month monitoring period had failed to locate it.  He maintained that little or no waste remained on site other than what had been legitimately allowed. He alleged that a report written by county officers supported that view but he had been denied access to it and told that no report existed or had existed. He had wanted to secure a retrospective planning application and it was grossly unfair that the sequestration process could now result in the loss of 2 family homes.

The Committee noted :

Annex 1

Gosford Silo Waste Recovery site no longer existed.

LC Hughes scrap yard situated in Blackthorn not Bicester.

Shenington ROMP – Mr Hodgkinson explained the discrepancy between targeted visits and visits completed. Although no scheduled  visits had been planned there had in fact been 2. The ROMP was subject to review and had been served a prohibition order. However, it was not an active ROMP.

Woodeaton Quarry – there was a legal problem regarding access which needed to be resolved before restoration work could start.  The County Council was not party to those discussions.

Annex 2

Ferris Hill Farm – Mr Hodgkinson explained the rationale behind the delay. Care had been needed before serving an enforcement notice to ensure everything that needed to be included had been as failure to do so could inadvertently allow something which had not been intended.

The Committee commended Mr Hodgkinson and his team for a thorough report and the improvement in the monitoring and enforcement position over the last few years.

RESOLVED: that the Schedule of Compliance Monitoring Visits in Annex 1 and the Schedule of Enforcement Cases in Annex 2 to the report PN7 be noted.