Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Judy Roberts declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Cholsey &Wallingford Railway.

Councillor Jeannette Matelot declared an interest as a member of South Oxfordshire District Council.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2017 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2017 were approved and signed.

Committee was advised that the Oxfordshire Minerals & Waste Local Plan: Part 1 – Core Strategy had been adopted by Council in September. The applications before Committee today would each be considered individually against this plan.

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

This is an application for extraction of 2.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel from an area north of the River Thames between Clifton Hampden and Culham, in South Oxfordshire. The land would be restored to a mixture of agriculture, lakes and mosaic wetland. No imported waste would be needed to achieve the proposed restoration. Clay would also be extracted for onsite engineering operations.  Permission is sought for a 10 year period. There would also be a new plant site and a new access onto the A415. The site is currently in agricultural use.

The application is being reported to this Committee as a large number of objections have been received, including from the local Parish Councils, South Oxfordshire District Council, the local County Councillor, Oxford Green Belt Network and CPRE. Over 500 letters of objection from local residents were received during the initial consultation period. 

The Transport Development Control team has also objected to the application, as the development would have severe traffic impacts in terms of delays, safety and amenity. The Transport Strategy and Policy team has objected to the application on the basis of the potential conflict with the protection of a potential route for a new road and river crossing.

Other than the transport concerns the proposal is considered to generally  accord with development plan policies. Previous concerns regarding the landscape and visual impacts have been overcome by the provision of an improved landscape mitigation scheme. The proposal is not fully consistent with policy directing development to the areas of least flood risk.  However a site specific flood risk assessment has demonstrated that the development would not increase the risk of flooding.

It is RECOMMENDED that Application MW.0039/16 (P16/S1192/CM) be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

i)             The additional vehicle movements arising from the development would lead to severe highways impacts contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF; would not maintain the safety of road users and the efficiency of the road network contrary to OMWCS policy C10 and would contribute to congestion, disruption and delays on the road network, contrary to LTP policy 02.

ii)           The additional vehicle movements arising from the development would worsen queuing at the local junctions leading to stationary vehicles with associated air emissions, causing unacceptable adverse impacts on environmental amenity, contrary to OMWCS policies C5 and C10.

The Committee considered (PN6) an application for extraction of 2.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel from an area north of the River Thames between Clifton Hampden and Culham, in South Oxfordshire.

Ms Thompson presented the report advising that the statutory Highway Authority objection had been resolved and drawing attention to the amended recommendation for approval set out in the addenda. She, together with Peter Day and Geoff Arnold then responded to questions from:

Councillor Glynis Phillips – The 7 year land bank target was a minimum and the fact of having greater than the minimum was not a reason for refusal.

In respect of the alternative river crossing the Committee was advised that there were 2 proposed routes, one of which affected the site. No choice had been made between the routes. Officers considered that even if the route over the site was chosen it would not affect the road going there, as it was a temporary development which would not preclude the provision of the river crossing, although it could affect costs.

Councillor Alan Thompson – The traffic survey had been carried out in May to avoid school holidays when the roads would be quieter.

In respect of the archaeological sites these had been taken into account as set out in the report. There had been geo physical work and trial trenches. The only significant site was the barrow cemetery and this was not under any threat.

Councillor Bob Johnston – The landbank of permitted reserves does not include dormant Review of Old Mineral Permission (ROMP) sites.”

Councillor John Sanders – It was explained that on the condition that no peak period trips were allowed on the two junctions where concern had been expressed then officers were satisfied that the impact would not be severe: which would have to be the case under the National Planning Policy Framework to justify refusal.

Councillor John Howson – the Committee was advised of the survey undertaken in May and that queues outside the peak hours were far less. The figures related to the site access and the two adjacent junctions. If approved the conditions would be monitored and consideration given to the taking of enforcement action as necessary. The routeing agreement would also be monitored and any breaches identified addressed.

Councillor Mrs Anda Fitzgerald-O’Connor – A comprehensive flood risk assessment had been carried out and there was no impact on the Thames Path. Page 52 of the report showed an area of land given over to allow for flooding.

Councillor Lawrie Stratford – One hundred trips were planned over 10 hours at a time when the network was better able to cope.

Councillor Judy Roberts – it was confirmed that one of the proposed routes for the river crossing would go across the new lakes area.

Suzi Coyne, SCP, spoke against the application feeling that to approve it at this stage would prejudice the local plan led approach. It would automatically become a site, undermining and pre-determining the Part 2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46/17

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN7).

This application is for the extraction of 2.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel at a new quarry between Cholsey and Wallingford in South Oxfordshire. The land would be restored to agriculture using imported inert infill material. The development would take 18 years to complete extraction and a further two years to complete restoration.  A new plant site and access onto the A4130 is proposed.

The application site is currently an open field in agricultural use.

The application is being reported to committee because it is accompanied by an Environmental Statement and because objections have been received from the local Parish, Town and District Councils.

South Oxfordshire District Council have objected on the grounds of prematurity. Concerns raised by the Parish and Town Councils include lack of need for the mineral, working method, potential flooding and impacts on landscape, traffic and amenity. There is also an objection from the Chilterns Conservation Board.

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

The development accords with the Development Plan as a whole and with individual policies within it, as well as with the NPPF. It is considered to be sustainable development in terms of environmental, social and economic terms. The proposed development would beneficial in terms of contributing towards Oxfordshire’s supply of sharp sand and gravel and providing a high quality restoration. It is considered that potential impacts can be adequately addressed through planning condition and legal agreement.

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to:

(i)           a Section 106 legal agreement to include matters set out in Annex 2;

(ii)          a routeing agreement to ensure that HGV movements associated with the new development accord with the County Council’s Lorry Routeing Strategy; and that

(iii)        that the Director for Planning and Place be authorised to refuse the application if the legal agreement referred to in (i) above is not completed within 10 weeks of the date of this meeting on the grounds that it would not comply with OMWCS policy M10 and the guidance set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF in that there would not be satisfactory provisions for the long term management of the restored site.

application no. MW.0094/16 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director for Planning and Place to include the matters set out in Annex 1 to this report.

The Committee considered (PN7) an application for the extraction of 2.5 million tonnes (MT) of sand and gravel at New Barn Farm, Cholsey, Wallingford, Oxfordshire.

Mary Thompson, Senior Planning Officer, presented the report and addenda confirming that there would be no need to divert the footpath, no dewatering and with restoration back to agricultural land. She outlined the routeing agreement and referred to paragraph 93, confirming that the viewpoint referred to was within the AONB but that this did not change the views of the Environmental Strategy Officer. She then responded to questions from:

Councillor John Sanders – The numbered phases indicated the order of development and restoration. Section 1 was chosen to be developed and restored first as it was closest to the housing.

Councillor Mrs Anda Fitzgerald O’Connor – All vehicles leaving the site would turn left, then use the roundabout if they wanted to go right.

Henry Thornton, speaking as a local businessman spoke against the application that he felt would harm Oxfordshire. The application was in the wrong location close to AONBs  and popular amenities and close to a care home, medical centre, a hospital and two schools. He commented that the report was all about damage limitation and highlighted the huge amount of opposition to the proposal. It had been removed from Part 1 of the Core Strategy and this was an attempt to reintroduce what was already rejected. He commented that there was a sufficient supply of sand and gravel and this application was premature. Work should be completed on Part 2 of the Core Strategy on site allocations.

Wallingford Town Councillor Adrian Lloyd, speaking on behalf of Wallingford Town Council stated that they had consistently opposed the application. He commented that the report did not make clear that the public right of way was the Agatha Christie Trail which 1000’s walked each year. He argued that the applicants had been wrong to use wind information from RAF Benson and that Cholsey Hill was a closer meteorological site. Data from 2012 was publicly available and using this data the noise would carry into the new housing site.

He then responded to questions from:

Councillor Matelot – He had a technical background having worked in wind farms and his opinion was based on experience.

Councillor Judy Roberts – He confirmed that in his opinion the wrong wind direction information had been used so the information regarding noise was incorrect.

Councillor Howson – He confirmed that for part of the local area, including the community hospital, nursing home and nursery school the information was correct. With regard to dust Wallingford Town Councillor Lloyd commented that the houses were not on the same level and that smaller particles would travel further. He felt that it was likely that dust would travel into the affordable housing areas affecting families and young children. He noted that the site would work on Saturday mornings meaning the noise nuisance would continue at a time when many people would be hoping  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47/17

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN8).

This application is for an increase in the amount of waste imported to the existing Recycled Aggregates Facility from 100,000 to 175,000 tonnes per calendar year through a variation of condition 6 of planning permission no. 16/04166/CM (MW.0140/16). No other changes to the existing conditions are proposed.

The application is being reported to committee because concern had been expressed previously by the Local County Councillor with regard to compliance with the routeing agreement which will continue to apply should planning permission be granted to this application.

Objections have been received from three local residents on highway capacity, safety and amenity impact grounds.

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

The development accords with the Development Plan as a whole and with individual policies within it, as well as with the NPPF. It is considered to be sustainable development in terms of environmental, social and economic terms. The proposed development would beneficial in terms of contributing towards Oxfordshire’s supply of secondary aggregate. It is considered that potential impacts can be adequately addressed through planning conditions and the routeing agreement which prohibits HGVs associated with the site passing along the B4449 through Sutton during peak hours and which will continue to apply.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to approve Application MW.0073/13 subject to the existing conditions other than as may be amended should non-material amendment application no. MW.00889/17 be granted and to condition 6  reading as follows:

No more than 175,000 tonnes of waste shall be imported to the site in any calendar year. Records of imports, sufficient to be monitored by the Waste Planning Authority shall be kept on site and made available to the Waste Planning Authority's officers on request. Separate records shall be kept on site of any topsoil or other soil materials imported solely for use in the restoration of the Controlled Reclamation Site permitted subject to planning permission no. MW.0141/16 (16/04159/CM).

The Committee considered (PN8) a Section 73 application to continue the operation of Dix Pit Recycled Aggregate Facility permitted by a previous permission without complying with condition 6 thereby allowing an increase in the maximum tonnage of waste material imported to site to 175,000 tonnes per annum.

Having presented the report David Periam, responding to a question from Councillor Reynolds indicated that there would be an additional 5-6 additional vehicle movements/hour during the off peak period.

John Salmon, agent for the applicant, commended the report that he felt explained how the application met the Council’s policies. It would result in a re-use of materials avoiding landfill and would provide a supply of local building materials. He outlined the efforts taken to monitor and control vehicle movements. Mr salmon responded to questions from:

Councillor Glynis Phillips – The plant was designed for a much higher capacity and the additional tonnage would use the plant efficiently with the only impact being on the numbers of vehicles on the roads.

Councillor John Howson – Mr Salmon explained that there were a wide range of third party contractors using the site. These could be single person operations and he explained the difficulty in controlling their vehicle movements. It was not possible to put trackers on third party vehicles but they used fines and bans as methods of control.

Councillor Charles Mathew, Chairman of Stanton Harcourt Parish Council and local councillor for Eynsham expressed concern o,ver the impact on the B4449. The extra lorries were totally unacceptable with 1 extra hgv every 10 minutes, on a road that narrows at points to only 5.5m wide. He referred to breaches to the routeing agreement that had been notified. The planning conditions were aimed at mitigation but needed enforcement action. Councillor Matthew asked the Committee (if they were minded to agree the application) to consider a staged increase to see the effects on hgv movements. Councillor Mathew also asked for a quarterly email on vehicle movements and on breaches that had been notified. Councillor Mathew responded to questions from:

Councillor Jeannette Matelot – The Sutton bypass once constructed would ease the problems in Staton Harcourt but funding was not available.

Councillor Judy Roberts – He agreed that it would be better for lorries to turn left from the site to get to the A40 but the operators did not agree.

During discussion Members suggested that there was merit in considering a staged increase and Councillor Reynolds proposed, it was seconded and it was:

RESOLVED:             (by 10 votes for to 1 against) to defer a decision to allow further negotiation with the applicant.

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN9).

This is a planning application to provide 2 classrooms and associated toilets, cloak area and store rooms. The proposal would include the demolition of an existing prefabricated modular building, containing a single classroom and a withdrawal room, as it has reached the end of its economic life. The proposal would allow the admission number for the school to rise from 25 to 30.

The proposal is in the Green Belt, and a case for very special circumstance has been made by the applicant. No objections have been received and the parish supports the proposal. The development is, by nature of being in the Green Belt, a major departure from the Development Plan, and Committee approval is therefore required is permission is to be granted.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application no. R3.0033/17 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning and Place to include the following:

    I.       Detailed compliance.

   II.       Temporary period of 5 years.

 III.       School Travel Plan to be submitted and approved within 6 months of the date of occupation of the building. The approved scheme to be implemented.

IV.       Prior to the first occupation of the development a scheme for the location of at least two bird boxes shall be submitted and approved. The approved scheme to be implemented.

Committee considered an application(PN9) for the demolition of an existing one and a half classroom prefabricated modular building and the installation of a two classroom prefabricated modular building for a temporary period of 5 years at Great Milton (C Of E) Primary School, High Street, Great Milton, Oxford.

It was proposed by Councillor Stratford, seconded by Councillor Johnston and it was

RESOLVED:             (by 11 votes for to 0 against) that planning permission for application no. R3.0033/17 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning and Place to include the following:

(i)        Detailed compliance.

(ii)       Temporary period of 5 years.

(iii)      School Travel Plan to be submitted and approved within 6 months of the date of occupation of the building. The approved scheme to be implemented.

(iv)      Prior to the first occupation of the development a scheme for the location of at least two bird boxes shall be submitted and approved. The approved scheme to be implemented.