PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE 21 JULY 2008
ADDENDA
ITEM
1. Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments
4. Petitions and Public Address
5. Application for the Extraction of Sand and Gravel with Associated Processing Plant, Silt Ponds, Conveyors and Ancillary Works. Restoration to Wetland/Reedbed and Fishing. Extraction of Basal Clay to form Hydrological Seals and for the Purposes of Restoration on Site Stonehenge Farm, Northmoor - App No 07/0111/P/CM
Additional Representations
A letter from Dr Lucy Elphinstone is attached (download as .doc file).
Since the report was written, three further letters of representation have been received opposing the development on the grounds of potential flood risk. One of the letters also refers to the disruption of wildlife and plant life in the area.
Officer Comment
1. These issues have been comprehensively addressed in the original report to May committee and the letters raise no new issues.
2. These representations received since the report was drafted raise no new issues.
Recommendation
No change to the original recommendation.
6. Continuation of the Development of land for Extraction Of Sand and Gravel, Erection of Plant without Complying with Condition 25 (of Planning Permission RAD/3963) (The Variation of that Condition to extend the Development for Five Years at Thrupp Lane, Radley. Application No. RAD.3963/4-CM
Transport Development Control have received the results of an independent traffic survey that they commissioned. As a result they have now informed the applicant that the contribution to the maintenance of Thrupp Lane should now be £12,750.
The applicant has confirmed that he is not unhappy about contributing to road repairs subject to understanding exactly what repairs are proposed and where, when and subject to what conditions.
The applicant also confirms that an ecological report is in first draft and certain amendments are being checked and made including the effects of ending mineral processing on the water levels in the lake and silt pond. As a result of these uncertainties the applicant has asked if it is possible to defer the application to the September Meeting.
Officer Comment
That the ecological survey results are not concluded was anticipated in the recommendation on this item and I see no reason to defer the item on this premise.
The applicant has said that he is not unhappy about making a contribution to the maintenance of Thrupp Lane so there is no need to change my recommendation to one of refusal as was envisaged in paragraph 8 of the report. Again, recommendation (b) (iv) in the report allows time for details to be concluded and, if they are not, then a refusal could follow.
I am concerned that any further delay in determining this application would mean the condition stopping continued import of unwashed sand and gravel along a substandard road would be delayed.
Recommendation
I consider that the item should be considered at this meeting with no change to the original recommendation.
7. Deposit of Non-Hazardous waste Including Surcharging The existing Landfill, Extending the Duration of Landfill And Clay Extraction Operations, Temporary Storage of PFA and Ancillary Activities Relating to Restoration at Sutton Courtenay Landfill Site. Application SUT/616/59-CM
At the time of writing the report the Environment Agency (EA) had not responded on flood risk. However, they have now replied and have no objection subject to a condition relating to approving and implementing drainage details.
The consultation response from Natural England was not included in the report. This is provided below:
Natural England Consultation Response: No objection. This proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on Little Wittenham Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and therefore does not require appropriate assessment. In addition, the wider conservation interests of Little Wittenham and Culham Brake Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are unlikely to be adversely affected. A through survey of protected species should be undertaken prior to the determination of the application so that the effect on the species concerned can be fully assessed. Provides observations and advice for the applicant on the protection of soils.
The applicant has provided details of the ecological surveys that have been undertaken in recent years. This includes recommendations from their ecologist for the avoidance of harm to protected species. Natural England have confirmed that they are happy with the information and have no concerns.
Additional Representations
Sutton Courtenay Parish Council are unable to attend the meeting but have emailed the following comments:
The Parish Council would re-iterate its objections set out in its letter - mainly operational noise, water run off from higher ground levels, the lack of a detailed accumulation impact assessment and the overall environmental impact of the proposals. It would ask that the application is determined on its own planning issues and not determined on the basis of it being acceptable because it would prevent PFA from being taken to another site. This in itself does not seem to be a material planning consideration.
A further representation has been received regarding the deposit of pfa. This states that if the proposed pfa stockpile would eliminate the need to use Thrupp Lake, this is a major positive benefit of the proposals. It was felt that this was not given enough emphasis in the report. This representation also pointed out that para 21 in the report is not very clear. It implies that only 100 000 tonnes per year of pfa will be imported.
Officer Comments
1. The drainage condition proposed by the EA should be attached to any permission. 2. Natural England are satisfied with the information on protected species and therefore there is no requirement to amend the recommendation. 3. There is no limit on the amount of pfa that can be imported to the site, and as long as it is imported directly into the site without using public highways, it does not count towards the limits of total waste that can be imported to the site. In the past pfa import has been 100 000 tpa because that was all that the landfill site needed for engineering operations. It would be possible to import more pfa than this if permission is granted to stockpile it as no condition is proposed to limit import of pfa.
Recommendation
No change to the recommendation but a drainage condition based on the one recommended by the EA should be included in Annex 1.
8. Application to Continue the Development of Finmere Quarry Landfill Site without Complying with Condition 7 of Planning Permission No 00/01480/CM (so as to substitute or impose a new scheme of working cells, new directions of working and to permit the filling of cells before previous cells have been restored) Application 07/00650/CM
Additional Representations
Finmere Parish Council confirm that, contrary to paragraph 21 of the report, they object to the original application.
Officer comment
The Parish Council are correct and apologies are due to them. The Committee are asked to note that the word “no” should be inserted before “objection” in line 1 of paragraph 21 of the report.
Recommendation
No change to original recommendation
9. Application for Extension of Existing Waste Reycling Facility to Accommodate New Plant, Building, Vehicle Parking/Skip Storage Area and Weighbridge at B&E Transport, 115 Minster Lovell Road, Witney. Application No. 08/0220/P/CM
Additional representation
Councillor Rodney Rose (Local Member) - I find the siting of this business to be wholly inappropriate. I can also verify that burning of waste wood was taking place, on an unannounced visit by me. Enough houses are downwind for this to be a consideration. The bland statement of “a maximum of 70.” sounds fine for traffic movements, but imagine that in a village side road. WODC and others fear this will increase, anyway. In my view, Waste transfer at this site should be scaled down, rather than increased.
Minster Lovell Parish Council – strongly object (a copy of a letter from the Clerk to the Parish Council is attached) (download as .doc file)
Additional information
(i) A protected species survey has now been completed for this site and the County Ecologist concurs with that report provided the recommendations in it are complied with. (ii) The applicant considers that the background noise levels in the area are such that the noise limit set out in proposed condition 7 could not be met.
Officer comment
(i) As the protected species survey has been carried out and is acceptable there is now no requirement for recommendation (b) in the report. Proposed condition 8 covers the requirements in the recommendations. (ii) It is important to set an achievable noise limit. Officers should liaise with the applicant and the Environmental Health Officer of WODC to discuss an appropriate noise limit and the Head of Sustainable Development should then impose a suitable noise limit condition.
Amended Recommendation
(i) Delete recommendation (b);
(ii) Amend proposed condition 7 to read as follows “noise limit to be determined following discussions with the applicant and EHO”.
12 Application No C.06/08 (Launton CE Primary
School)
Bat Survey
An ecological consultant has carried out a bat survey at the school. The survey did not find any evidence of bat roosts in the temporary building to be demolished or a Norway Maple tree which will be removed. The consultants report did however recommend that due to the presence of bats close to the site, works to the tree should only be carried out at temperatures above 10 degrees centigrade and after a climbing inspection to ensure no bats are present. The County Ecologist is satisfied with the findings and recommendations of this survey.
Recommendation
As main report, with the addition of a further condition as follows:
Bat check - Works to the Norway Maple tree on the site should only be carried out at temperatures above 10 degrees centigrade and after a climbing inspection to ensure no bats are present.
13. Planning Application Validation Checklists
The local validation requirements are in fact set out in Annex 1 to PN13 and not Annex 2 as stated in recommendation (a) of the report by the Head of Sustainable Development.
15. Commons Act 2006: In the Matter of an Application to Register The Millenium Village Green, Letcombe Regis in Oxfordshire as a Town or Village Green
Additional Representations
Councillor Anda Fitzgerald O’Connor (Local Member) confirms that she agrees wholeheartedly that approval should be
given to the application to register the Millennium Village Green, Letcombe
Regis, as a village green.
|