Issue - meetings
Oxfordshire Minerals & Waste Development Framework: Core Strategy - Preferred Minerals Strategy
Meeting: 09/03/2011 - Growth & Infrastructure Scrutiny Committee (Item 4)
PDF 1 MBA request has been received
to call in the decision for scrutiny.
The following Councillors have requested the
decision be called in for
scrutiny:
Councillor
Charles Mathew
Councillor Anne
Purse
Councillor
Melinda Tilley
Councillor Roger
Belson
Councillor
Michael Badcock
Councillor Iain
Brown
Councillor
Stewart Lilly
Councillor
Marilyn Badcock
Councillor Neil
Owen
Councillor Bill
Service
Councillor Pete
Handley
The decision
was:
"RESOLVED:
(a)
To
adopt the locally derived figures for aggregates supply requirement in
paragraphs 7 and 8 of the report as the basis for the County Council’s
preferred spatial strategy approach for mineral working.
(b) to
agree the County Council’s preferred spatial strategy approach for mineral
working for consultation is:
i.
sand
and gravel – concentration of working in existing areas of working, at Lower
Windrush Valley, Eynsham/ Cassington/Yarnton, Sutton Courtenay, Cholsey and
Caversham;
ii. soft
sand – working in three existing areas: south east of Faringdon;
Tubney/Marcham/Hinton Waldrist; and Duns Tew;
iii. crushed
rock – working in three existing areas: north of Bicester to the east of the
River Cherwell; south of the A40 near Burford; and south east of Faringdon.
(c) to
agree that consultation on the preferred spatial strategy approach for
mineral working be combined with consultation on a preferred waste spatial strategy,
in June/July 2011.
(d) the Cabinet Member for
Growth & Infrastructure to write to the Secretary of State and the Chairman
of the Planning & Regulation
Committee to state that under the Coalition Government’s Localism agenda we now
endorse this as the emerging M3
figure when consideration is given to any application from this date
onward."
The reasons
given in the call-in request are:
The decision by the Cabinet on 16th
February 2011 Agenda Item 8 b(i) is contrary to the interests of Oxfordshire
residents primarily due to insufficient consideration of the issue of
sustainability, which would naturally lead to a hybrid solution in the
interests of all parties; this implies that too little emphasis has been placed
on the problems of crossing the River Thames, since the larger needs for gravel
south of the Thames at Grove, Didcot, Harwell and the like should be
administered from pits in their local vicinity. This is supported by secondary
issues, which together merit reconsideration of the spatial strategy approach,
such as spreading the onus, aftercare and infrastructure.
A copy of the report to Cabinet (CA8) is attached.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The
Scrutiny Committee had before it the report of the Deputy Director for
Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) to Cabinet on 18
February 2011 together with the draft minutes of that meeting.
Ms
Julie Hankey (Chair of Outrage) spoke in support of
the call in being referred back to Cabinet for further consideration. Ms Hankey felt that the decision had not taken into account
the cumulative impact of gravel extraction at existing sites and urged the
Committee to consider the impact on small village communities near the sites.
In response to a question from Cllr Nicholas Turner, Ms Hankey
confirmed that she had spoken on this subject to the Scrutiny committee on 6
October 2010 and had circulated a note in advance of the Cabinet meeting on 18
February. In response to a question from Cllr Don Seale, Ms Hankey
re-stated that the impact would be felt in a small number of communities and
that Cabinet should have considered more carefully spreading the extraction and
impact across the County.
Dr
Wright spoke in support of the call in being referred back to Cabinet for
further consideration. He felt that the current proposal did not properly take
into account that most gravel demand will be in the South of the County and so
would increase the amount of heavy traffic needing to cross the Thames. Dr
Wright confirmed that he had sat on the Working Group on this issue and that
this issue had previously been discussed by the working group.
Cllr
Steve Good (West Oxfordshire District Councillor and Northmoor
Parish Councillor) spoke in support of the call in being referred back to
Cabinet for further consideration. Cllr Good felt that the current proposal did
not fully address the issue of crossing over the Thames. Cllr Good also felt
that the current tonnage requirement is too high. In response to a question
from Cllr Nicholas Turner, Cllr Good confirmed that he had fed this back to
Cllr Mathew who attends the Working Group meetings. In response to a question
from Cllr Handley, Cllr Good felt that more enforcement of routing agreements
would mitigate the situation slightly.
At
this point the Chairman called Cllr Ian Hudspeth
(Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure) to the table. The Chairman
indicated that the focus of the committee’s discussion should be if there were
any material concerns over the Cabinet decision, based on examining the
evidence that Cabinet had before it.
Cllr
Charles Mathew spoke in support of the call in being referred back to Cabinet
for further consideration as he has material concerns about the policy
decision. Cllr Mathew felt that the policy is unsustainable as it concentrates
extraction on the North of the River Thames, when most need for gravel will be
in the South of the County. Cllr Mathew stated that he understood the need for
gravel extraction, but that concentrating extraction in the areas proposed
would have too great an impact to be considered sustainable.
Cllr Anne Purse spoke in support of the call ... view the full minutes text for item 4
Meeting: 16/02/2011 - Cabinet (Item 20)
Cabinet Member: Growth & Infrastructure
Forward Plan Ref: 2010/181
Contact: Peter Day, Minerals & Waste Policy Team Leader Tel: (01865) 815544
Report by Head of Sustainable Development (CA8).
The Minerals and Waste Core Strategy will set
out the vision, objectives, spatial strategy, core policies and implementation
framework for the supply of minerals and management of waste in
Oxfordshire. The report summarises the
findings of a local assessment of the requirement for aggregates supply produced
by consultants for the County Council.
This includes locally derived figures for the levels of mineral supply
that the Core Strategy should provide for, as an alternative to the top-down
figures in the South East Plan.
The interim preferred strategy for mineral
working agreed by Cabinet in October 2010 has been tested for deliverability
using these supply levels against a preliminary assessment of potential
sites. This identifies that the Radley/Nuneham Courtenay area is unlikely to be deliverable
and that the Sutton Courtenay area can only provide for part of the plan period
to 2030. The shortfall could not be met
from additional capacity in the other interim strategy areas: Lower Windrush Valley; Eynsham/Cassington/Yarnton;
and Caversham.
An additional strategy area should be identified in southern
Oxfordshire. Assessment indicates that,
of the deliverable options available, the Cholsey
area is less constrained and better located to serve local markets than the
Clifton Hampden or Drayton St Leonard/Stadhampton
areas.
The local assessment of aggregates supply requirements will be made available and comments invited from industry and other key stakeholders over the next two months. A formal public consultation on the preferred minerals strategy, combined with a preferred waste strategy, will be undertaken in June/July 2011.
The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:
(a)
Adopt
the locally derived figures for aggregates supply requirement in paragraphs 7
and 8 of the report as the basis for the County Council’s preferred spatial strategy approach for mineral working.
(b)
Agree the County Council’s preferred spatial strategy
approach for mineral working for consultation is:
i.
sand and gravel – concentration of working in
existing areas of working, at Lower Windrush Valley, Eynsham/ Cassington/Yarnton,
Sutton Courtenay, Cholsey and Caversham;
ii.
soft sand – working in three existing areas: south
east of Faringdon; Tubney/Marcham/Hinton
Waldrist; and Duns Tew;
iii.
crushed rock – working in three existing areas:
north of Bicester to the east of the River Cherwell;
south of the A40 near Burford; and south east of Faringdon.
(c) Agree that consultation on the preferred spatial strategy approach for mineral working be combined with consultation on a preferred waste spatial strategy, in June/July 2011.
Minutes:
The Cabinet considered a report (CA8) that
summarised the findings of a local assessment of the requirement for aggregates
supply produced by consultants for the County Council. This included locally derived figures for the
levels of mineral supply that the Core Strategy should provide for, as an
alternative to the top-down figures in the South East Plan.
The interim preferred strategy for mineral
working agreed by Cabinet in October 2010 had been tested for deliverability
using these supply levels against a preliminary assessment of potential sites.
The report noted that the Minerals and Waste Plan Working Group had recommended
that the strategy for sand and gravel should be amended by removal of the
Radley/Nuneham Courtenay area and inclusion of the Cholsey area.
The local assessment of aggregates supply
requirements will be made available and comments invited from industry and
other key stakeholders over the next two months. A formal public consultation on the preferred
minerals strategy, combined with a preferred waste strategy, will be undertaken
in June/July 2011.
Councillor Anne Purse, Shadow Cabinet Member
for Growth & Infrastructure, commented that she had expressed reservations
in November about the evidence base for the minerals strategy. There was now
much more information and she was pleased to see the evidence supporting a
lower figure. She now felt that the recommendations were more in line with
other reports and pleased that thinking had caught up with her views.
Councillor Mathew, as a local Councillor for
Eynsham stated that the area had provided the bulk of primary gravel in
Oxfordshire and further afield for several years. He acknowledged the need for
primary gravel but he asked for an equitable distribution and sustainability,
with market driven pits close to the areas of need. He also asked for
recognition of the cumulative effect on the local area and an acceptance of the
heightened flood risk. He would wish to see infrastructure to match the
development talking place and no more lakes permitted. There needed to be
enforcement of planning conditions. He referred to the characteristics of the
area including the Newbridge with a weight restriction, the toll bridge at
Swinford and existing developments in the area.
He referred to the sites at
Responding to a question from Councillor
Hudspeth Councillor Mathew confirmed that of course the Gill Mill site was
subject to a decision by Planning & Regulation Committee and would have to
await any such decision.
Councillor Lorraine Lindsay-Gale welcomed the recent publication of the Atkins report and thanked officers and the Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure for their commitment to the project. She welcomed the lower figure for aggregates supply which negated the need to go looking for large new sites. If successful the locally derived figure could be ... view the full minutes text for item 20