Venue: County Hall
Contact: Liz Johnston, Tel: (01865) 328280 Email: liz.johnston@oxfordshire.gov.uk
| No. | Item | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments Minutes:
|
|||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest - see guidance note on the back page Minutes: Cllr Charles Mathew declared an interest as Councillor for Eynsham. |
|||||||||||
|
Speaking to or petitioning the Committee Minutes:
|
|||||||||||
|
A 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 4/11 |