Agenda and minutes
PDF 137 KBVenue: County Hall
Contact: Graham Warrington Tel: (01865) 815321; E-Mail: graham.warrington@oxfordshire.gov.uk
| No. | Item | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments Minutes: Apologies
for absence and temporary appointments were received as follows:
|
|||||
|
Declarations of Interest - see guidance note opposite Minutes: None declared |
|||||
|
Petitions and Public Address Minutes: The following requests to address
the meeting had been agreed:
|
|||||
|
Mineral Extraction and Associated Development - Stonehenge Farm, Northmoor Report by the Head of
Sustainable Development & County Solicitor (PN4) The information that may be discussed is exempt in
that it falls within the following prescribed category: 3 -
Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular
person (including the authority holding that information) 5 -
Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal
proceedings. It is considered that in this case the public interest
in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the
information, in that such disclosure would prejudice the Council’s legal
position. Planning & Regulation
Committee refused planning permission for mineral extraction and associated
development at Stonehenge Farm on 24 November 2008. The reasons for refusal as decided by the
committee were: 1. It has not been
sufficiently demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority
that the impact of the proposed development would not increase the risk to
people, property and businesses arising from additional flood risk. 2. That routeing agreements
had proved ineffective in the past and in practice and was therefore considered
to be contrary to Oxfordshire Structure Plan (OSP) policy T8. 3. The development is
contrary to MWLP Policy PE7 and WOLP NE8 and NE9. The
applicants appealed and an Inquiry is due to start on 17 November 2009. The
reasons for refusal relate to two issues, flood risk and traffic impacts on
local roads and villages. Government
Circular 03/2009 (“Costs Awards in Appeals and other Planning Proceedings”)
provides guidelines so that the parties to an appeal can minimise the
likelihood of costs being awarded against them. One such guideline is that
parties to an appeal should actively review their cases, respond promptly to
changing circumstances and provide a clear explanation of a revised stance or
position, with nothing coming as a complete surprise throughout the process. This
report outlines the work that has been undertaken since the Committee made its
decision, and seeks the Committee’s further instructions as to the stance to be
taken at the forthcoming Inquiry in the light of developments since the refusal
of permission last year. No recommendation in
relation to the flood risk issue can be made at the time of drafting this
report, as our consultant’s final conclusions on the robustness of the new
modelling exercise are not yet available.
A recommendation will be made at the meeting. In relation to traffic
impacts the Committee is RECOMMENDED that: No recommendation in relation to the
flood risk issue can be made at the time of drafting this report, as our
consultant’s final conclusions on the robustness of the new modelling exercise
are not yet available. A recommendation
will be made at the meeting. In relation to traffic impacts it is RECOMMENDED that subject to the completion of formal legal agreements in terms to be approved by the Director for Environment & Economy and County Solicitor but to include the matters set out below, the Council does not pursue at the inquiry its reasons ... view the full agenda text for item 65/09 Minutes: On 24 November 2008 the Planning & Regulation
Committee had refused planning permission for mineral extraction and associated
development at Stonehenge Farm on the following grounds: 1. It had not been sufficiently demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the County Planning Authority that the impact of the proposed
development would not increase the risk to people, property and businesses
arising from additional flood risk. 2. That routeing agreements had proved ineffective
in the past and in practice and were therefore considered to be contrary to
Oxfordshire Structure Plan (OSP) policy T8. 3. The development was contrary to MWLP Policy PE7
and WOLP NE8 and NE9. The applicants had appealed and an Inquiry was due
to start on 17 November 2009. Government Circular 03/2009 (“Costs Awards in
Appeals and other Planning Proceedings”) provided guidelines so that the
parties to an appeal could minimise the likelihood of costs being awarded
against them. One such guideline required parties to an appeal to actively
review their cases, respond promptly to changing circumstances and provide a
clear explanation of a revised stance or position, with nothing coming as a
complete surprise throughout the process.
The Committee now had before it a report (PN4) which outlined work undertaken
since the Committee made its decision in November 2008 and sought the
Committee’s further instructions as to the stance to be taken at the
forthcoming Inquiry in the light of developments since the refusal of
permission last year. Julie Hankey addressed
the issues of routeing. She considered
that negotiations undertaken since November 2008 had undermined and prejudiced
the County Council’s case at the appeal.
The evidence underlying this particular reason for refusal had been
based on evidence gathered by County officers in November 2006 which had shown
that a large percentage of lorries travelled to and from this site using the
prohibited route through Sutton. This
had been the case for many years and continued to be so. The Committee were now being told that a more
robust agreement had been negotiated but there was little confidence locally
that this would be observed and with no real sanction for offenders. Furthermore, the number of lorries using the
main complex made it difficult to identify lorries transporting Hanson’s gravel
and easy for Hansons to deny that offending lorries
were using there operation. A routeing
agreement in this case was a weak instrument for controlling HGV traffic and
she asked the Committee to instruct its officers to defend its decision in line
with national guidance set out in MPG2, Annex C paragraph C9. Responding to a question from Councillor Seale she
considered that signing should make it clear that traffic exiting the site was
required to turn left. Terry Kirkpatrick addressed the issues of flooding and referred to his submission in November regarding increased flood risk and the technical inadequacy of the Flood Risk Assessment and Ground Water Modelling undertaken work by the applicant. That work had been called for because of the acknowledged complexities of the site which lay within a ... view the full minutes text for item 65/09 |