Report by Head of Sustainable Development (PN5).

This application seeks in part to regularise existing waste activity at Hickman Bros Landscaping Ltd which involves the sorting of materials such as soils and concrete/kerb stones which the applicant brings back to the site from landscaping contracting jobs for reuse. The applicant also proposes to run a skip hire business from the site. The annual throughput of waste could be up to 25,000 tonnes per annum (inert and non hazardous waste). Waste related traffic movements would amount to an average of 20 journeys per day (10 loads) with a maximum of 40 journeys per day (20 loads). Two buildings are also proposed, one is for the sorting of waste, it would be 36 metres in length, 15 metres wide with a ridge height of 8.5 metres. The second building is a replacement of the existing vehicle maintenance workshop which is on site; it would be larger than the existing building with a length/width of 22.5 metres and a ridge height of 7.9 metres.

Although the existing screening on the site would go some way towards obscuring views of the waste sorting building, it is the cumulation of all the impacts of the development which make it unsuitable for this location within the AONB. As there are a number of other waste recycling facilities available within 10-12 miles of the Fulbrook site it is therefore difficult to justify a need which overrides Oxfordshire Minerals and waste Local Plan policy W4 which does not normally allow waste recycling in the countryside. The development is not confined to consolidation and effective operation of the already permitted landscape company use but represents expansion into other activity, which on the evidence available, could reasonably be accommodated at other sites.

It is RECOMMENDED that Application Number 05/1419/P/CM be refused because the development proposed is contrary to:

Report by Head of Sustainable Development (PN8).

A progress report on planning matters with possibilities for enforcement action was requested by Committee at its 5 September meeting. A number of breaches in conditions 16,18 and 20 of Planning Permission 00/01480/CM have been noted and checks are to be carried out shortly before the October meeting to see if these have been rectified. If these checks confirm that satisfactory actions have not been taken then Breach of Condition Notices should be served. Similarly, if by 17October monitoring of imports of waste carried out by Premier Aggregates do not show the origins of waste then prosecution of the Company should be undertaken and enforcement action taken to secure the removal of all waste above approved tipping levels as set out in planning permission 00/01480/CM.

It is RECOMMENDED that:

In October 2002 the County Council’s Planning & Regulation Committee granted permission for the above application subject to Routeing and Section 106 Agreements. On 18 July 2005 the Committee considered a further report on possible action regarding the development as those agreements remained unsigned and agreed that if the agreements had not been concluded within one month of the date of that Committee or such later date that the Solicitor to the Council might advise then the Director for Environment & Economy be authorized to refuse the application. To date they have not been signed although there has been significant progress despite the involvement of a third party. If that delay continues then there is authority to refuse the application. However, a decision to refuse permission should not be taken lightly since there is, in this case, a strong likelihood of appeal, which can be time consuming and cannot guarantee, if the appeal is upheld, the same conditions and agreements that the County Council is seeking. There is also a risk of costs if the matter is proceeded unnecessarily to Inquiry. In addition, once a refusal is issued, even if the agreements are completed, the appeal process must be completed, or a new application made and processed, if permission is to be forthcoming. If more time is allowed now to complete the 106 agreement and the routeing agreement the same outcome may be achieved much earlier and time and money saved on appeals and on processing a new application. Therefore, rather than refuse the application, it is proposed that an Enforcement Notice be served to secure cessation and removal of works at the Conbloc site in accordance with the original permission W1421/84. If in the meantime the agreements are signed the Committee are being asked to confirm that permission could be issued.

It is RECOMMENDED that, if the routeing and section 106 Agreements relating to planning application W2001/1189 have not been signed by the date of this Committee then:-

Report by Head of Sustainable Development (PN10).

Permission for a green waste composting site in the green belt near Clifton Hampden was approved in October 2004 (Ref.P04/W0260/CM, Minute no.56/04).This site is now operational and the applicants, Land Network Boxon, are seeking to extend the site and increase the amount of green waste they can import for composting, in response to a Vale of White Horse District Council kerbside green waste collecting trial and the anticipated increase in the amounts of waste. The applicants would also like to compost paper and cardboard along with the green waste. Whilst the site is located close to a source and market for green waste and has acceptable access to the highway network, I do not think that established overriding need for additional composting capacity has been demonstrated. Whilst District Councils in Oxfordshire may decide to adopt green waste kerb side recycling schemes in the future, there is already an alternative site which is capable of receiving this waste from this part of central/southern Oxfordshire.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to refuse planning permission for Application No. P05/W0818/CM for the reasons set out below:

Peter Bennie Limited have submitted 3 applications at Wroxton Fields Quarry. It is proposed that the extensions to phases 2a and 2b (Applications (a) and (b)) would facilitate better restoration contours so that when the land is restored to agriculture it would have good drainage. The size of the extension area for phase 2a is 0.9ha and extraction would last one year. The size of the extension area for phase 2b is 400 square metres and extraction would last one month. There is only a small amount of ironstone which would be extracted from the extension to phase 2a (35,000 tonnes of which 50 per cent would be waste) and no mineral would be extracted from the extension area to phase 2b which has been proposed strictly to benefit restoration.

The applicant states that the revised siting of the internal access (Application (c)) is necessary because the electricity pylons which run across the site are going to be moved later than was anticipated. As the pylons are on a raised ridge of ironstone an access through this ridge is necessary. This application seeks to adopt a revised plan to make this change and ensure that the development takes place in accordance with approved plans. The resiting of the internal access road from phase 1 to phase 2 is a minor alteration to the proposed working of the site. There are no implications for residential amenity as a result of this application.

Overall, the effects of the proposed developments are negligible and although there is no swap of land is proposed that would satisfy policy SD4 (Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan), there are no adverse environmental or amenity effects and restoration would be improved. In addition, environmental controls placed on any grant of permission as conditions, would control the working of the site to the same standard as the main quarry.

It is RECOMMENDED that Application Numbers 05/01529/CM, 05/01531/CM and 05/01507/CM be approved for the development as proposed in each application subject to conditions, the heads of which are set out in Annexes 1a, 1b and 1c to the report.

Return to TOP