Agenda item

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

This application seeks to amend condition 26 (maximum of 44 HGV movements) and remove conditions 27 (movement of large stone blocks by tractor and trailer), 28 (tractor and trailer movements limited to 14 per day) and 29 (time restrictions on tractor and trailer movements through Sarsden) of the existing planning permission to allow for the transportation of large stone blocks by HGV and trailer. The application is being reported to this Committee as an objection has been received from West Oxfordshire District Council. The report describes the proposal and outlines the consultation replies and objections to the application. Relevant planning policies are included along with the comments and recommendation of the Director for Planning and Place on the proposal.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for Application MW.0027/18 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director for Planning and Place but to include matters set out in Annex 3 to this report PN7. 

The Committee considered (PN7) an application amending condition 26 (maximum of 44 HGV movements) and removing conditions 27 (movement of large stone blocks by tractor and trailer), 28 (tractor and trailer movements limited to 14 per day) and 29 (time restrictions on tractor and trailer movements through Sarsden) to an existing planning permission to allow for the transportation of large stone blocks by HGV and trailer.

Ms Woodcock introduced the report and responding to a question from Councillor Matelot confirmed that Lyneham parish council were fully aware of the change and had not objected.

Responding to Councillor Roberts Mr Periam could not be precise about the difference in mileage between the two routes but looking at the plan estimated it to be about 1½ to 2 times as long.

Nicholas Johnston then addressed the Committee. As the applicant he advised that the amendment would be for a relatively short period of time and on a site operated under a modern well-conditioned permission to 2020. He confirmed that there would be no intensification of work or increased traffic movements but the change would improve efficiency and importantly health and safety including for other road users. The company would ensure that the operation would be carried out sensibly and linked to the existing routeing agreement. County officers had indicated that the proposal was in accord with existing policies.

He then responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston – the blocks of stone were between 4 and 7 tonnes.

Councillor Sanders – there was probably enough material left in the existing area to last until 2021/22.

Councillor Fox-Davies – it was intended that material for the Great Tew site which was currently moved using tractor and trailer would also be moved by lorry and trailer.

Councillor Mathew – he confirmed that flexibility had been a consideration but as tractors were agricultural vehicles it had been considered more appropriate when moving blocks of stone by road to use a lorry and trailer and as there could also be road safety issues it had been felt this helped lessen the risk to other road users.

Councillor Reynolds – a greater proportion of movements would be to Great Tew with less to Lower Buildings in Sarsden.

Councillor Leffman expressed some concerns about the proposed change and why it had been considered necessary to make it now particularly as she was not aware of any local concerns regarding the current operation. The road through Lyneham, which was in a poor state now would only deteriorate further with use by HGVs eroding the verges and, while accepting that there weren’t many movements, damage was being done. She had been surprised that Lyneham parish had not responded as the road from the A361 to Lower Buildings was narrow raising concerns for 2-way traffic.  There could also be knock on effects from this change for the wider area including Chipping Norton.

Responding to Councillor Webber Mr Periam referred to the reasons for the change to the operation as given by the applicant in his earlier submission. He confirmed that officers did not have a strong enough reason to recommend refusal and agreeing to it now would not prejudice any future application.

To a suggestion by Councillor Roberts he confirmed that changing the terms of the application to restrict use of lorries for movements to Great Tew only while retaining a tractor and trailer for transporting to Lower Buildings would be outside the Committee’s remit.

Responding to Councillor Mathew he confirmed that the current application was subject to a S106 agreement but that would not apply to this S73 application.

To a suggestion by Councillors Johnston and Webber that the proposed/revised route resulting from the S73 application, which would include part of the A361 and an unnamed two-lane single carriageway through Lyneham be given a high priority for future maintenance having regard to the potential for damage to those roads and increased length of the revised route he suggested that the Chairman write to the Cabinet Member for Environment setting out that request. That suggestion was agreed.

Responding to Councillor Sames he confirmed that wheel washing and road cleaning were already a requirement and that couldn’t be conditioned as part of this permission.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Matelot and carried 10 votes to 1, Councillor Mathew recorded as voting against) that:

(a)          planning permission for Application MW.0027/18 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director for Planning and Place but to include matters set out in Annex 3 to the report PN7

(b)          the Chairman of the Planning & Regulation Committee write to the Cabinet Member for Environment on behalf of the Planning & Regulation Committee requesting that the proposed/revised route resulting from this S73 application, which would include part of the A361 and an unnamed two-lane single carriageway through Lyneham, receive a high priority for future maintenance having regard to the potential for damage to those roads and increased length of the revised route.