Oxfordshire County Council logo

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: County Hall, New Road, Oxford

Contact: Graham Warrington  Tel: 07393 001211; E-Mail:  graham.warrington@oxfordshire.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

20/18

Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments

Minutes:

 

 

Apology for absence

 

 

Temporary Appointment

 

Councillor Stefan Gawrysiak ( -)

Councillor Mark Lygo ( - )

Councillor Bob Johnston ( - )

 

 

(-)

(-)

(-)

 

21/18

Minutes pdf icon PDF 192 KB

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 26 March 2018 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 March 2018 were approved and signed.

22/18

Petitions and Public Address

Minutes:

 

 

Speaker

 

Item

 

 

John Salmon (Agent for the Applicant)

Councillor Charles Mathew (Local Member)

 

 

)

) Item 7 – Dix Pit Recycled )Aggregate Facility

)

 

 

 

 

23/18

Routeing Agreements Protocol pdf icon PDF 256 KB

Report by the Director for Planning & Place and Director of Law & Governance (PN6).

 

This report considers the adoption of a revised Routeing Agreements Protocol further to the adopted motion by Councillor Mike Fox-Davies at the meeting of the County Council on 27 March 2018.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that the revised Routeing Agreements Protocol set out in Annex 2 to the report PN6 be adopted.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

On 27 March 2018 the County Council approved a motion by Councillor Fox-Davies in the following terms:

 

Many approvals for planning permission are granted, subject to routeing agreements, (normally for HGV traffic). These form a contract with the applicant. If these agreements are not followed, there is limited power of enforcement. Once granted the permission cannot be removed, the only enforcement process is for the applicant to be pursued through the civil court.

 

This is currently embedded in planning law. Whilst many applicants will abide by the legal agreements, there is no easy deterrent for applicants who flout them.

 

As a rural Council with many villages affected by HGV movements, we feel strongly that the law in this area needs to be amended. This Council requests that the Planning & Regulation Committee strengthen the existing OCC planning protocols to include measures to enable easy redress following persistent breaches such as the retention of a financial performance bond, with the necessary mechanism for any persistent breaches of the routeing agreements.

 

Additionally, this Council asks that the Leader of the Council Lobby every MP in Oxfordshire to support this change and raise a back-bench motion in Parliament, to strengthen the UK planning law to allow local authorities more redress when conditions or legal agreements entered by contractors are persistently breached.”

 

In the light of that approved motion the Committee considered (PN6) a revised routeing agreements protocol based on the terms of the six options which comprised the existing routeing protocol as agreed in September 2016 and which applied only to applications which the County Council itself determined as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority together with an additional option to meet the terms of Councillor Fox-Davies’ motion as follows:

 

“7) If an application is received:

 

a)     and there is a history of substantiated, persistent or flagrant breaches by an applicant of the terms of an existing routeing agreement, a security deposit will be required from the applicant at the outset when entering into the new routeing agreement.

 

b)     for a site in a part of the county where there has been an ongoing concern with regard to existing vehicle movements but there has been no history of non-compliance on the part of the applicant, the routeing agreement will include a provision that if the Council reasonably determines later that there have been substantiated, persistent or flagrant breaches of that agreement then operations will cease until a security deposit has been paid to the County Council 

 

In either case, the security deposit would be used to fund the council’s costs incurred in monitoring the agreement, investigating suspected breaches of the agreement and securing compliance with the agreement, as necessary. The security deposit would not normally exceed an amount of £1,000 per year for the number of years the development is permitted.”

 

Councillor Fox-Davies agreed in principle with the terms of the additional option but considered a more appropriate figure for a security deposit would be £5,000 per year or a minimum of £25,000  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23/18

24/18

Section 73 application to continue the operation of Dix Pit Recycled Aggregate Facility permitted by planning permission no. 16/04166/CM (MW.0140/16) 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 - Section 73 application to continue the operation of Dix Pit Recycled Aggregate Facility permitted by planning permission no. 16/04166/CM (MW.0140/16) 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 - Section 73 application to continue the operation of Dix Pit Recycled Aggregate Facility permitted by planning permission no. 16/04166/CM (MW.0140/16) 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 - Application No. MW.0015/18 pdf icon PDF 295 KB

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN7)

 

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 the Planning & Regulation Committee because it is a resubmission of  previous application no. MW.0073/17 for the same development which was refused planning permission and is the subject of an undetermined appeal.

 

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

 

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

 

Members are asked to consider with regard to Application No. MW.0073/17:

 

(a)     whether the application overcomes their previous concerns and so reason for refusal; and EITHER

 

(i)        if not, refuse for the following reason:

 

There would be an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of residents in Sutton village arising from the additional Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements proposed by the application, contrary to policy C5 of the adopted Minerals & Waste Core Strategy. The offer of £10,000 for highway improvements could not overcome that concern.

 

OR

 

(ii)      if so, subject to the applicant first entering into a section 106 Agreement to secure the payment of £10,000 towards highway improvements along the B4449 through Sutton and the provision of an additional road sign advising HGV traffic turning onto the B4449 from Blackditch not to travel through Sutton during peak hours, Application MW.0015/18 be approved subject to the existing conditions and 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.”

and

 

to an additional condition requiring that the operator’s records of heavy goods vehicle movements to and from the site be provided to the Waste Planning Authority on a quarterly basis.

 

(b)    that the Chairman of the Planning & Regulation Committee writes to the Cabinet Member for Environment advising that there are ongoing concerns about the impact of traffic   through Sutton and asking that the council seek as Highway Authority to investigate with the applicant and other local businesses ways in which it may work with them to help secure a            Sutton Bypass.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application to increase the amount of waste imported to the existing Dix Pit 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 were proposed.  The application was being reported to the Planning & Regulation Committee as a resubmission of a previous application no. MW.0073/17 for the same development which had been refused planning permission and was now the subject of an undetermined appeal.

 

Presenting the report Mr Periam updated members on recent contraventions of the routeing agreement. Although no complaints had been received from members of the public since the last meeting officers had carried out two separate monitoring visits which had culminated in one vehicle being observed on the previous Thursday contravening the terms of the agreement, which, on investigation, it had been established that the vehicle was not in fact owned by the applicant but in the ownership of a third-party contractor. The applicant had subsequently responded and dealt with the report immediately in line with agreed procedures.

 

Mr Periam then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Matelot – officers continued to use their best endeavours to ensure compliance.

 

Councillor Sames – the site had wheel-washing facilities but vehicles from this site weren’t the only vehicles which used this road.

 

John Salmon on behalf of the applicants stated that a lot of information put before members had been incorrect and misleading and confirmed the applicant’s view that the agreement was not frequently or flagrantly violated. This was a sound application which met the county council’s guidelines and lorry route policies as well as government aspirations for recycling and daily traffic fluctuations resulting from this application would be imperceptible.  The applicants were proud of their operation, which was the only one at the Dix Pit site which had signed up to a routeing agreement and it was important to note that the company owned 18 lorries yet 180 used the site.  They considered they had been unfairly treated and delays with this application had cost them £1m.  Today’s application had been made on Counsel’s advice to try and reach a compromise and to do that the company had tried to be honest and objective.

 

Councillor Charles Mathew reminded the Committee that at the 8 January 2018 meeting he had proposed a staggered approach to the increased tonnage with a reduced amount of traffic on the B4449. That approach had been rejected by the applicants and the application subsequently refused on the grounds of adverse impact on amenity of residents in Sutton village so he was not happy to now see a reapplication based merely on an increased offer towards highway maintenance and provision of a road sign.  He understood an email had been sent to all members by the applicants stating their intention to sue him and the County Council for defamation which he considered had been based on a false interpretation of what he had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24/18

25/18

Progress Report on Minerals and Waste Site Monitoring and Enforcement pdf icon PDF 212 KB

Report by Director for Planning & Place (PN8).

 

The report updates members on the regular monitoring of minerals and waste planning permissions for the financial year 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018 and on the progress of enforcement cases.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that the Schedule of Compliance Monitoring Visits in Annex 1 and the Schedule of Enforcement Cases in Annex 2 to the report PN8 be noted.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered (PN8) a report updating members on the regular monitoring of minerals and waste planning permission for the financial year 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018 and progress of enforcement cases.

 

Councillor Fox-Davies suggested it would be useful to have some brief comment against monitoring to give members more guidance on the current state of operations rather than just a figure stating the number of visits.  Councillor Phillips noted this but stated that she preferred officers to devote their time going out and monitoring sites and investigating breaches of planning control.

 

RESOLVED: that the schedule of compliance monitoring visits set out in Annex 1 and the schedule of enforcement cases in Annex 2 to the report PN8 be noted.