Return to AgendaITEM PN3
PLANNING & REGULATION committee
MINUTES of the meeting held on 14 January 2008 commencing at 10.00 am and finishing at 6.00 pm
Present:
Voting Members: Councillor Steve Hayward - in the chair
Councillor Alan ArmitageCouncillor Tony Crabbe Councillor Catherine Fulljames Councillor Barbara Gatehouse Councillor Timothy Hallchurch MBE Councillor Ray Jelf Councillor Terry Joslin Councillor David Nimmo-Smith Councillor George Reynolds (in place of Councillor Hilary Hibbert-Biles) Councillor Don Seale Councillor Chip Sherwood Councillor Lawrie Stratford Councillor David Turner
Other Members in Councillor Lesley Legge (for Agenda Item 5) Attendance: Councillor Bob Johnston (for Agenda Item 5)
Officers:
Whole of meeting: G. Warrington and R Hanson (Corporate Core); R Dance (Environment & Economy)
Part of meeting:
The Committee considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the agenda for the meeting, together with a schedule of addenda tabled at the meeting, and decided as set out below. Except insofar as otherwise specified, the reasons for the decisions are contained in the agenda, reports and schedule, copies of which are attached to the signed Minutes.
1/08 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS
Apologies for absence and temporary appointments were received as follows:
The Chairman reported the death of Councillor Jim Moley. On behalf of the Committee he extended sympathy to Councillor Moley’s family and the Committee observed a minute’s silence in his memory.
2/08 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3/08 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 November 2008 were approved and signed subject to amending Minute 56/07 to record that Councillor Armitage was a member of the Central, South and West Area Committee.
4/08 PETITIONS AND PUBLIC ADDRESS
The following requests to address the meeting had been agreed:-
5/08 COMMONS REGISTRATION ACT: IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION TO REGISTER THE THRUPP AND BULLFIELD LAKES, RADLEY IN OXFORDSHIRE AS A TOWN OR VILLAGE GREEN (Agenda Item 5)
In October 2006 an application was made by Mrs Jo Cartmell for registration of the Thrupp and Bullfield Lakes, Radley as a Town or Village Green under the Commons Registration Act 1965 and as the Commons Registration authority the County Council through its Planning & Regulation Committee had statutory responsibility for determining such applications. Objections were received to the application from the relevant landowners and an independent inspector had been appointed and a public inquiry held in order for evidence to be assessed and an objective recommendation made to the County Council as to whether the application should be approved. The Committee now had before it the Inspector’s report and recommendation, and a Further Report prepared after consideration of a counsel’s opinion obtained by solicitors for Save Radley Lakes (PN5). It also had before it two letters, from Public Law Solicitors and from Jo Cartmell, and a Briefing Note from the County Solicitor.
Jenny Standen expressed the Radley Parish Council’s dismay at the Inpspector’s conclusion particularly in the light of what she considered to be the overwhelming evidence at the Public Inquiry. The original statement by nPower regarding the urgency for this disposal facility had not been substantiated and alternatives had been found in the interim period since the original planning application had been made. The Parish Council regarded the Inspector’s report to be seriously flawed and were exploring ways to appeal if the application was refused. She urged the Committee to reject the Inspector’s recommendation.
Jo Cartmell reiterated the points raised in her letter of 9 January 2008 which had been circulated with the addenda and urged the Committee to revisit the site before making a decision.The site had undoubtedly been used for lawful sports and pastimes and she found it impossible to distinguish between the Radley Lakes site and the Trap Grounds which had been registered as a green. She considered the Committee were free to differ from the Inspector’s conclusions and recommendations if satisfactory reasons were given. She considered the extensive use for informal recreation had been proved as a matter of fact and degree. The Radley Lakes site was an invaluable resource to local people and she urged the County Council to accept the application or at very least take a second legal opinion before reaching a final decision.
Roger Thomas firstly advised the Committee that Evan Harris MP (Oxford West & Abingdon) had expressed his support for the application to register the area as village green and would support any application for judicial review made in response to a decision to reject the application. Mr Thomas considered that misleading statements had been made by nPower regarding the urgent need for this disposal facility. He questioned the inspector’s interpretation and reiterated the entitlement of the County Council to differ from the Inspector’s view if there were good reasons so to do. He advised the Committee to defer its decision in order to visit the site again and to allow for a further legal opinion to be sought.
Councillor Legge urged the Committee to support registration as village green. She agreed that there were good and sound reasons why the Committee could reject the Inpspector’s decision and allow the area to be registered as village green. The area was an important escape retreat and had been used for informal recreation.
Councillor Johnston declared a personal interest insofar as he had made a donation to CPRE. He referred to areas of concern in the Inspector’s report and referred particularly to his comments regarding the evidence by Mr Raymond Faulkner whom he knew personally and could vouch for his evidence regarding the amount of use and frequency of visits. The ecosystem at this site, which was unique in the Thames Valley area would be lost unless the site was registered as village green. He endorsed the views put forward that the County Council could reject the Inspector’s recommendation if it so wished and he considered there were sound reasons to do that and supported calls for a further site visit and the views of another Inspector before reaching a final decision.
Mr Hanson referred to the correspondence from Jo Cartmell and the Public Law Solicitors which had been circulated with the addenda sheet. The Further Report of the Inspector continued to support his earlier recommendation not to register as village green and officers supported that view. Mr Hanson also pointed out that the counsel’s opinion obtained for Save Radley Lakes did not dispute the Inspector’s recommendation that there was insufficient evidence of use of the lakes themselves to warrant their registration; the dispute focussed on the use of the land surrounding the lakes. In response to a request from Councillor Joslin, Mr Hanson explained the concept of ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ (which was mentioned in the Inspector’s Further Report in relation to the Committee’s ability to depart from his recommendation) by reference to the Briefing Note that had been circulated.
Councillor Gatehouse considered that considerable use of the lakes area had been proven and she could not differentiate between the decision taken regarding the Trap Grounds registration and the Radley Lakes application.
Councillor Armitage and Councillor Turner also referred to similarities between the Trap Grounds and Radley Lakes and considered that the evidence put forward at the Inquiry supported registration. Councillor Armitage moved and Councillor Turner seconded that the County Council formally approve the application to register the Thrupp and Bullfield Lakes as a Town or Village Green.
The Chairman mentioned that the Radley Lakes Inspector would have been familiar with the Trap Grounds as he was also the Inspector that had recommended registration of the Trap Grounds.
Councillor Joslin considered that if the Inspector’s recommendation was not followed then the County Council would be acting ‘Wednesbury unreasonably’.
Referring to paragraph 22 of the report Councillor Crabbe reminded the Committee that the Inspector had found that no case had been made on the evidence to register either the lakes or the areas of land surrounding the lakes and had addressed the situation regarding Wednesbury in paragraph 46 of his Further Report.
Councillor Armitage’s motion was put to the Committee and lost by 10 votes to 4.
Councillor Hayward then moved the recommendation set out in the officers report. Councillor Reynolds seconded the motion.
Councillor Turner again referred to his view that there was an inconsistency between the Trap Grounds decision and the recommendation to refuse this application. Supporting calls for a further site visit he moved an amendment to defer consideration of the application.
The amendment was put to the Committee and lost by 10 votes to 4.
Councillor Hayward’s motion was then put to the Committee and carried by 10 votes to 4.
RESOLVED: to REJECT the application for registration as a new town or village green pursuant to the Commons Registration Act 1965 of the Thrupp and Bullfield Lakes and the surrounding land as described in the application by Mrs Jo Cartmell dated 19 October 2006, for the reasons given in the Inspector’s report dated 13 October 2007 and his further Report dated 10 December 2007.
6/08 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES, EXTRACTION OF LIMESTONE, IMPORTATION AND DEPOSIT OF INERT FILL, CONSTRUCTION OF A RAIL AGGREGATES DEPOT, A RAIL STORAGE DEPOT, B8 INDUSTRIAL USE, WILDLIFE AND GEOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, TEMPORARY CAR STORAGE (15 YEARS) AND WOODLAND FOR MANAGED TIMBER PRODUCTION (AFTER 15 YEARS), SHIPTON ON CHERWELL QUARRY (Agenda Item 6)
The Committee considered (PN6) an application for a comprehensive redevelopment of the site.
Mr Dobson for the applicants outlined the proposal which he said represented a comprehensive redevelopment of a brownfield site. The scheme was a practical and viable proposition with significant support and commitment to comprehensive restoration. He said there were inaccuracies in the opinion of the County Ecologist, he referred to planned improvements to the SSSI site and the restriction on vehicle movements.
Responding to questions from Councillor Seale and Councillor Turner he confirmed that the section 106 could be used to guarantee delivery of the whole package and restoration.
Mr Broughton outlined the proposal, highlighted the key planning issues and drew the Committee’s attention to a replacement paragraph 105 as set out in the addenda sheet and to a number of typographical errors in the Committee Report. He reminded members that the vegetation had been cleared from the site by the applicants who said this had been done for health and safety reasons.
Councillor Joslin considered that the site had been well managed over the last four years and referred to the importance of promoting economic development and employment.
Councillor Hallchurch speaking as local member advised that the Parish Council supported the scheme which would increase local amenity and redevelop a site which had lain redundant for many years.
Ian Corbyn spoke on behalf of the County Ecologist and referred to the desire to conserve the existing bio diversity and retention of the significant interest which currently existed on the site which made it of County Wildlife site status.
Mr Dance emphasised the scale of the development proposed, and explained that there was an extant permission for development, and a non statutory local plan policy which gave advice on the sort of development that would be acceptable on the site both of which would enable removal of the derelict cement works buildings. He explained that if members were inclined towards resolving to permit this development, this would need to be on the basis that the benefit of removal of the derelict cement works buildings amounted to very special circumstances for allowing development in the green belt, and need to allow development which would cause harm to the County Wildlife Site. He further advised that any permission should be subject to comprehensive conditions and legal agreement.
Following a long discussion during which many expressions of support for the development were made a motion was proposed by Councillor Mrs Fulljames and seconded by Councillor Joslin as follows -
RESOLVED: (by 12 votes to 0)
(a) to notify the Secretary of State under the Town & Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Directions 1999 and the Town and Country Planning (Green Belt) Direction 2005 that Application 06/02046/CM represents significant development that the Committee is not proposing to refuse;
(b) unless the application is called-in for determination by the Secretary of State the Head of Sustainable Development be authorised in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning & Regulation Committee to grant planning permission for the development in Application 06/02046/CM subject to appropriate conditions and legal agreements to include:
(i) satisfactory vehicle access and off site road layout (ii) commitment to import/export vehicles and materials by rail (iii) satisfactory long term public access arrangements including management (iv) satisfactory long term ecological package including mitigation and management arrangements (v) agreed timescales and quantity for import of infill material by road (vi) development of a woodland scheme to maximise ecological value (vii) restoration of the car storage site (viii) a bond to underwrite restoration works
(c) in the event that agreement could not be reached to satisfactorily secure the above matters and the Chairman considered it appropriate then the matter should be brought back to the Planning & Regulation Committee for decision.
7/08 EXTENSION OF EXISTING COMPOSTING SITE TO PROVIDE FOR IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING WITH RECEPTION BUILDING, BIOFILTER, WEIGHBRIDGE, OFFICE, COMPOSTING TUNNELS AND EARTH BUNDING AT WORTON FARM, CASSINGTON APPLICATION 07/00851/CM (Agenda Item 7)
The Committee considered an application (PN7) for a permanent in-vessel composting facility for the processing of Oxfordshire’s organic waste (including food waste).
Mr Gibbard referred to strong local concerns at proposals to substantially extend this site. Local residents had experienced problems with odour and dust and it was expected that these problems would continue. He said that material would be transported in open vehicles and roof panels on the site would be opened for up to 2 hours which would allow odour and bio aerosols to escape. He asked the Committee to refuse the application or defer to allow a full environmental impact assessment.
Mr Waters responded that the proposal offered significant improvements to the current operation and although he could not guarantee problems would not occur he was confident that these would be reduced significantly by the very nature of the aeration process. Similarly the in vessel composting site would result in fewer problems of dust and there would be little risk to health from bio aerosols. The process was heavily regulated and the company were committed to working in harmony with the local community.
Mrs Green referred to the amended recommendation as set out in the addenda sheet.
There was general support for the application and the assurances given by the applicants regarding odour and dust were welcomed although the Committee asked the Head of Sustainable Development to write to Yarnton Parish Council setting out complaint procedures if problems with dust and odour occurred.
RESOLVED: that subject to:
(a) first notifying the Secretary of State under the Town & Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Directions 1999 and the Town and Country Planning (Green Belt) Direction 2005 that Application 06/02046/CM represented significant development that the Committee was not proposing to refuse;
(b) the Environment Agency withdrawing their objection;
(c) a legal agreement to secure a contribution to the pedestrian/cycle route;
that planning permission for the development proposed in Application 07/000851/CM be approved subject to conditions in accordance with the heads of conditions set out below:
1. Compliance condition 2. Commencement date 3. Operating hours 4. Site used for composting only 5. Organic waste only 6. No floodlighting 7. Existing vegetation to be retained 8. Planting and fencing scheme required 9. Bund specifications (including height, angles and maintenance requirements) 10. Effective silencers 11. External building materials to be agreed 12. Site signage on A40 to be kept to a minimum 13. Sweeping on and adjacent to the site 14. Processing of organic waste only 15. A limited amount of soil be allowed for blending 16. Restoration of the site if the facility became redundant
(d) the Environment Agency be requested that the following issues be covered by the Waste Management Licence conditions:
1. Odour control 2. Pest and vermin control 3. Noise control
8/08 PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY DIVERSIONS - OBJECTED TO ORDERS (Agenda Item 8)
The Committee considered diversion orders for Bucknell Footpath 9 and Alvescot Footpath 17 which having received objections following publication were required to be referred to the Planning & Regulation Committee under the Council’s Constitution.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Mrs Fulljames,seconded by Councillor Seale and carried nem con) to submit the objected to orders for Bucknell Footpath 9 and Alvescot Footpath 17 to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for determination.
9/08 APPLICATION TO DIVERT OXFORD FOOTPATHS 80 AND 113 (Agenda Item 9)
The Committee considered an application (PN9) to divert two public footpaths in Oxford City which had recently been made to the county council under section 119 Highways Act 1980. The diversions were required as part of the development of the new Cancer Centre at the Churchill Hospital.
Mr Pasterfield explained the background to this situation and expressed disappointment that the City Council had not pursued a Highways Act Order but the Consortium which he represented were grateful to the County Council for considering this matter as a priority.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Mrs Gatehouse, seconded by Councillor Nimmo-Smith and carried nem con) to:
(a) confirm that the application to divert Oxford Footpaths 80 and 113 should be treated as an exceptional priority, and
(b) instruct officers to begin processing the application immediately.
10/08 REVIEW OF CHARGES 2008/09 (Agenda Item 10)
The Committee considered a report (PN10) which set out proposed charges for 2008/09, for those areas which were the responsibility of this Committee and which summarised the Corporate Charging Policy.
RESOLVED: to note those charges prescribed by legislation and approve those charges where there is local discretion as set out in Annex 1 to the report PN10.
................................................................................... in the Chair
Date of signing.................................................................. 2008
|