Issue - meetings

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN9).

This application is for the temporary use of 0.32ha of land for the manufacture of recycled aggregate and soils and the local member has requested that the application be determined by the Planning & Regulation Committee.

Objections have been received from Northmoor Parish Council due to the transport, dust and noise impacts.

The report outlines the relevant planning policies along with the comments and recommendation of the Director for Planning and Place.

The development accords with the Development Plan as a whole and with individual policies within it, as well as with the NPPF. It is considered to be sustainable development in terms of environmental, social and economic terms. The proposed development would be beneficial in terms of contributing towards Oxfordshire’s supply of recycled aggregate material and that potential impacts can be adequately addressed through planning conditions and the routeing agreement prohibiting HGVs associated with the site passing along the B4449 through Sutton during peak hours.

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to a routeing agreement first being entered into planning permission for Application MW.0059/19 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director for Planning and Place including the matters set out at Annex 3 to the report.

Approved subject to an informative on the consent stating that the reason that a security deposit was not sought for the routeing agreement was that the applicant did not have a poor track record of complying with routeing agreements.

The Committee considered (PN9) an application for the temporary use of 0.32ha of land for the manufacture of recycled aggregate and soils at the request of the local member. Objections had been received from Northmoor Parish Council due to the transport, dust and noise impacts.

Mrs Hudson presented the report.

Suzi Coyne for the applicant welcomed the recommendation.  The proposed use of the land would prevent material going to landfill and was sited away from properties.  The applicant recognising the strong local concerns regarding traffic was happy to enter into a routeing agreement but considered it unreasonable to have to pay a security deposit as outlined in the Council’s lorry routeing protocol as he had a tracking system to monitor lorry movements and as there would only be a maximum of 3 movements an hour with no history of persistent breaches the County Council needed to demonstrate that such a payment was justified.

She then responded to:

Councillor Johnston – confirmed all company vehicles were fitted with the tracking device.

Councillor Roberts – only company lorries and vehicles were used.  There were no sub-contractors.

Councillor Mathew confirmed that active recycling and preparatory work had been carried out prior to permission being obtained. He supported recycling and secondary aggregate production but had concerns regarding noise and dust including for those working next door to the operation. He continued to have concerns over the use of B449 through Sutton and its impact on residents.  He queried whether the applicant had permission to use a private haul road and quoting County Council policy that no new applications would be approved until a Sutton bypass had been built stressed that the present situation remained unacceptable.

Responding to Councillor Fox-Davies he confirmed that the routeing agreement had not been flouted by D & M Plant Hire but they had, in his view, not shown respect to planning regulations.

Councillor Reynolds expressed concern regarding incremental gain.  Applications individually often seemed to be acceptable but that was not the case collectively and he was against this application on the grounds of concern regarding heavy traffic and the impact on Sutton residents living close to the road.

Councillor Johnston stated that there needed to be a demonstration of severe harm in order to justify refusal of an application but he did not consider thatthat  had been done in this case.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Fox-Davis, seconded by Councillor Johnston and carried by 7 votes to 2, Councillor Sames and Councillor Reynolds recorded as voting against) that subject to a routeing agreement first being entered into planning permission for Application MW.0059/19 be approved subject to

(i)        conditions to be determined by the Director for Planning and Place including the matters set out at Annex 3 to the report PN9; and

(ii)       an informative on the consent stating that the reason that a security deposit was not sought for the routeing agreement was that the applicant did not have a poor track record of complying with routeing agreements.