Issue - meetings

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 16^th 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.

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

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.  

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 Stonehenge that had been granted permission and Gill Mill likely to be granted. Together with other sites it would mean the further obliteration of archaeological sites in the area. Local residents had been very patient and he asked that Cabinet support a more sustainable solution for Oxfordshire.

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