Agenda, decisions and minutes

With regard to Item 9 (Enstone Airfield, Enstone – Application No. MW.0160/15) Councillor Owen advised that as a member of West Oxfordshire Uplands Planning Committee he would take no part in the discussion or voting.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2016 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2016 were approved and signed.

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

This is an update on the application for sand and gravel extraction at Camas Land Sutton Wick, which Planning & Regulation committee approved on 18 May 2015. Permission has not yet been issued for this development and the developer has undertaken drainage works involving soil removal to part of the site which means that it will not be possible for the developer to comply with the proposed phased working plan and therefore, an alternative working plan has now been put forward for approval.

It is RECOMMENDED that if at the end of the current consultation period no overriding objection has been received to the amended working plan, that plan is approved instead of the previous working plan when application MW.048/05 is otherwise approved in accordance with the previous decision of the Planning and Regulation committee on 18 May 2015.

The Committee considered an update on an application for sand and gravel extraction at Camas Land Sutton Wick, which the Planning & Regulation Committee had approved on 18 May 2015. Permission had not yet been issued for this development but the developer had undertaken drainage works which involved soil removal to part of the site which meant that it would not be possible for the developer to comply with the proposed phased working plan and therefore, an alternative working plan had now been put forward for approval.

Presenting the report Miss Thompson advised that 2 further representations had been received. These had been detailed in the addenda sheet and neither had raised any objections.

Councillor Purse felt that opportunities for diversity as originally agreed could be compromised.

Referring to the growing number of retrospective applications Councillor Bartholomew questioned whether enough was being done to dissuade developers.

Miss Thompson advised that officers had been unhappy that work had been undertaken by the developer but in an effort to try and move the situation  forward officers had recommended as set out in the report.  Responding to Councillor Johnston she advised that an Environment Agency licence would have been required for the work undertaken and a restrospective application had also been submitted for that.

The work undertaken and which had led to the retrospective application had been regarded as insufficient to have affected any permission had it been issued. The ecologist had advised that the revised phasing was acceptable but if that advice had been otherwise then other options would have had to be considered. No mineral extraction had occurred.

Endorsing the earlier comment made by Councillor Bartholomew regarding retrospective applications Councillor Lilly suspected that in most cases, if not all, such action was premeditated. He understood some authorities had introduced a fine system to offset any costs and he wondered whether the County Council should consider adopting a similar charge.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Greene, seconded by Councillor Mills and carried by 10 votes to 1, Councillor Bartholomew recorded as having abstained) that if at the end of the current consultation period no overriding objection had been received to the amended working plan, then that plan be approved instead of the previous working plan and that in all other respects permission be issued for application MW.048/05 as had been approved in accordance with the previous decision of the Planning & Regulation Committee on 18 May 2015.

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

This report concerns the approved route for vehicles associated with the concrete batching operation at Dix Pit. Having implemented the consent (MW.0053/15) the developer found that journey times from the site into central Oxford were being adversely affected by roadworks on the Wolvercote and Cutteslowe roundabouts, to the extent that some concrete had been out of specification on arrival and had to be returned.

The developer proposed an alternative route, using the B4449 and the B4044 to reach Oxford from the west. That route included the B4449 through the village of Sutton, which was specifically protected from a significant increase in traffic intrusion by development plan policy. It was proposed that the alternative route would only be used for the duration of the roadworks, during off peak hours (9pm-3pm) and only by vehicles carrying concrete to The Westgate redevelopment in central Oxford, or returning to the site after delivering concrete to the Westgate redevelopment. That was considered on 30 November by the Planning & Regulation Committee who resolved that a deed of variation to provide for this temporary routeing be entered.

This report sets out identified breaches of the existing routeing agreement which have taken place since the variation was agreed along with the response of officers to seek to secure compliance.

The Committee are RECOMMENDED to note the report.

In November 2015 the Planning & Regulation Committee had agreed that a deed of variation to the routeing agreement attached to a permission to erect a mobile concrete batching plant granted in July 2015 to allow up to 10 loaded concrete mixer lorries per day to travel from the plant through Sutton between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm to the Westgate Centre redevelopment until the completion of roadworks on the Cutteslowe and Wolvercote roundabouts. The variation had been agreed to address concerns that journey times from the site into central Oxford were being adversely affected by roadworks on the Wolvercote and Cutteslowe roundabouts, to the extent that some concrete had been out of specification on arrival and had had to be returned.

The Committee now considered a report (PN7) setting out identified breaches of the existing routeing agreement which had taken place since the variation had been agreed along with a response from officers to seek to secure compliance.

Introducing the report Mr Periam confirmed the temporary nature of the variation which applied to outgoing lorries only. There had been a number of breaches in the intervening months but, as a civil matter and not a planning application, a High Court injunction would be required to address the matter and officers were of the opinion that this would not constitute a major breach.

Responding to Councillor Bartholomew who had raised the issue of stronger action Mr Periam advised that the Committee could decide to reverse its earlier decision with regard to the route variation but if it did then clear and defined reasons would be required for doing so. 

He confirmed that delays in signing the deed of variation had allowed the opportunity to bring this further report to Committee.

Responding to Councillor Tanner he advised that he was aware of 13 breaches so far but there could be more and he was unable to put a precise figure as to what percentage that represented of the total vehicle movements to date.

Councillor Mathew referred to the three previous occasions when he had urged the Committee not to agree to the developments at this site including  latterly the variations to routeing. He felt that the evidence presented of 21 breaches the latest at 8.25 that morning, which had also been outside the agreed time exonerated him in voicing those concerns that conditions applied to the development would not be honoured. The situation was intolerable and the breaches totally unacceptable.

He responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston – photographic evidence existed for the breaches he had referred to.

Councillor Greene – the only real alternative in his view was to rescind the variation.

Dave Norminton and Matt Barlow then addressed the Committee. Mr Norminton apologised for the 13 breaches which had occurred since the end of November but he was confident that the Company had now got to grips with the situation.  There were other hauliers accessing the site who used Hanson’s livery but who were not subject to the variation and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8/16

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

The proposal is for a permanent extension to the existing waste transfer apron to allow for increased operating space and a large picking station 57 metres in length. There would be no increase in the tonnage processed at the site and, therefore, no additional traffic would be generated by this proposal and has been made, due to health and safety concerns.

Following accidents at waste sites elsewhere in the country which had led to recommendations from the Health and Safety Executive, the applicant wishes to introduce measures to stop the practice of sorting the waste on the apron or within the WTS building. This normally results in unprotected staff members sharing small spaces with mobile plant machinery. The picking station in its proposed location will separate unprotected staff from potentially dangerous mobile machinery with the larger apron allowing the application to store more baled process waste to allow increased larger bulk collections thereby potentially reducing vehicle movements.  

Due to the rising topography from west to east, the applicant proposes digging out the rising ground level to the east by 2.2metres so that the apron extension is at the same level as the existing apron.

The apron floor on the extension would be laid with concrete with suitable drainage and walls would be pre-cast concrete panels supported within upright steel ‘I’ beam columns, all to match the existing. 

It is RECOMMENDED that Application MW.0132/15 (15/01829/CM) be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) to include the following:

(i)           The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars of the development, plans and specifications contained in the application except as modified by conditions of this permission.

(ii)          The development to be commenced within a period of three years from the date of the permission.

(iii)        The picking station shall not be coloured in anything other than dark green or grey colour to match the existing Waste Transfer Station Building.

(iv)        No operations authorised or required by this permission shall be carried out and plant shall not be operated, other than during the following hours:

a)            Between 0800 and 1700 hours Mondays to Fridays

b)           Between 0800 and 1200 hours on Saturdays

c)           No such operations shall take place on Sundays and Public and Bank Holidays and Saturdays immediately following Public and Bank Holiday Fridays.

(v)         The maximum total of waste material imported via the main access shall not exceed 24,999 tonnes per annum. This includes all waste processed within the blue line area on the approved Site Location Plan.

(vi)        No other means of access shall be used.

(vii)       From the date of issuing permission the operator shall maintain records of all waste entering the site for all operations within the blue line area and shall be made available to the Waste Planning Authority within 14 days on request.

(viii)     Other than the  ...  view the full agenda text for item 9/16

The Committee considered (PN8) a report for a permanent extension to the existing waste transfer apron to allow for increased operating space

Having presented the report Mr Case responded to questions from:

Councillor Phillips - it was not intended to increase the amount of material but enable greater storage of baled material to be transported out by larger but fewer vehicles.

Councillor Purse – the building and apron were permitted. This application was for the picking station to enable process and separation of material.

Carl Middleditch (Agent) and Nigel Mathews (Applicant) addressed the Committee. Mr Middleditch advised that the site was well contained. Extensive planting with more to come and careful siting of the building had reduced visibility of the site from outside. The applicant’s intention was to create a model recycling centre with 100% of material recycled. Improvements continued to be made with no complaints made and no recorded accidents. They accepted that county officers had produced a factual report but the applicant asked the Committee to reconsider condition 3 requiring the picking station to be coloured dark green or grey on the grounds that due to the nature of the material of the building that painting might not work and furthermore they felt it unnecessary as the building was not visible from outside the site.  Also condition 8 needed to be amended to reflect the need that some waste would need to be removed from site.

Responding to questions from:

Councillor Johnston - Mr Middleditch confirmed that the amendment to condition 8 had been requested to allow waste to be tipped in the waste transfer station before it went into the trommel in the picking station. Mr Mathews adding that material needed to be checked as early as possible in the process and pre-sorted into segregated bins in order to remove any contaminants. Those were then stored and removed to designated sites when sufficient amounts had been gathered.

Officers confirmed that they could discuss with the applicants some appropriate wording for condition 8 in order to meet their and the planning authority’s needs.

Councillor Reynolds agreed the site was well screened and although lighting from within the site could be seen landscaping and lighting conditions should help mitigate against that. The routeing agreement was in place and he could only recall one complaint being received some time ago.  He felt condition 3 should remain but was happy for officers to discuss further amendment to condition 8.  He so moved and Councillor Bartholomew seconded. The motion was put to the Committee and –

RESOLVED: (by 11 votes to 0) that Application MW.0132/15 (15/01829/CM) be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) to include the following:

(i)           The development should be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars of the development, plans and specifications contained in the application except as modified by conditions of this permission.

(ii)          The development to be commenced within a period of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9/16

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN9).

The proposal is to allow the importation and processing of waste soils and stone in order to construct the noise attenuation bunds (as permitted by West Oxfordshire District Council (WODC)). The applicant wishes to import circa 277,000 m³ of material required to create the bunds over a site area of approximately 11.6 ha (district permission). The importation of material would create 20 HGV movements per day over a five year period.

It is RECOMMENDED that Application MW.0160/15 (15/04481/CM) be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) to include the following:

(i)               The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars of the development, plans and specifications contained in the application except as modified by conditions of this permission.

(ii)             The development to be commenced within a period of three years from the date of the permission.

(iii)            Processing of waste to construct the noise attenuation bunds shall cease within 5 years of the date of permission. All buildings, plant and machinery associated with the processing of waste shall be removed within the 5 years of date of permission and site restored in accordance with the restoration scheme specified in Planning Statement (dated December 2015) and Proposed Noise Attenuation Screen Bund Plan (Drg No. 4C). 

(iv)           No operations authorised or required by this permission shall be carried out and plant shall not be operated, other than during the following hours:

(i)        Between 0800 and 1630 hours Mondays to Fridays

(ii)       Between 0800 and 1300 hours on Saturdays

(iii)     No such operations shall take place on Sundays and Public and Bank Holidays and Saturdays immediately following Public and Bank Holiday Fridays.

(v)             From the date of issuing permission the operator shall maintain records of all waste entering and leaving the site for all operations within the red line area and shall be made available to the Waste Planning Authority within 14 days on request.

(vi)           The output of residual waste from the processing operation shall not exceed 20% of the total amount of waste imported to the site per annum.

(vii)           HGV movements related to importation and export of waste to and from the site shall not exceed a maximum of 20 per day (10 in, 10 out).

(viii)         From the date of issuing permission the operator shall maintain records of all HGV movements entering and leaving the site for all operations within the red line area and shall be made available to the Waste Planning Authority within 14 days on request.

(ix)           Stockpiles of waste shall not exceed a height of 5 metres.

(x)             All vehicles, plant and machinery operated within the site shall be serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and, where silencers are specified by the manufacturer for any vehicles, plant or machinery; they shall be installed and retained in use.

(xi)           No mud or  ...  view the full agenda text for item 10/16

The Committee considered (PN9) a proposal to allow importation and processing of waste soils and stone in order to construct the noise attenuation bunds (as permitted by West Oxfordshire District Council (WODC)).

In accordance with the terms of his interest as set out in Minute 4/16 Councillor Owen took no part in the discussion or voting on this item.

Presenting the report Mr Case also referred to the addenda sheet which set out clarification of vehicle movements, suggested amendments to conditions (vi) and (vii) and a revised recommendation that if the application was approved then that should be subject to further consultation with regard to the changes to vehicle movements.

Officers then responded to questions from:

Councillor Purse – the site was no longer used for motorcross but was used for shooting. In addition the district council permission was to address noise problems for the shooting range but did not allow for importation of waste. Any proposals to use the site for any other use would require a further application.

Councillor Phillips – the site was currently being used for shooting and there had been some complaints regarding that and in respect of the previous motorcross use. Also with regard to the timescale for construction of the bunds, which she had suggested seemed a bit excessive, the application had been made for 5 years in order to import, process and construct. It might not take 5 years and could be completed within a shorter timescale an application had been submitted for 5 years to avoid further applications for extensions. The district council had approved the elevation and height of the bunds.

Councillor Reynolds – district councils were able to grant permission for bunds.

Councillor Johnston felt that with 26 tonne per vehicle it would be easy to achieve 176,000 tonnes pa and therefore the scheme could be completed within 2 years. He had concerns regarding overtipping and the operation would need to be carefully monitored to avoid that.

Mr Case confirmed that importation of material was by cubic meter and not tonnes and that the hgv movements were a limit. The monitoring and enforcement team would monitor the operation including bund construction.

Responding to Councillor Cherry Mr Periam confirmed that if the Committee so required a routeing agreement could be imposed.

Peter Butler a local resident referred to the environmental impact of lorries and traffic movements on local villages. He had estimated that 277,000 cubic meters of waste equated to 443,700 tonnes of material and with a maximum of 20% for re-export 531,840 tonnes of material required to build the bunds and with a limit of 80,000 per annum that equated to 6/7 years of blight. The number of vehicle movements had now risen from 10 in and 10 out to 20 in and 20 out. He had no complaints regarding the applicant who had been helpful throughout the process but he felt that a proposal agreeing 55,000 lorry movements over 5 years seemed rather a lot to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10/16