Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2011 and to receive for information any matters arising therefrom.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2011 were approved and signed.

Updates

Dix Pit, Sutton Courtenay – Appeal against refusal allowed

Ardley Energy from Waste

Residents Against Incinerators had submitted a judicial review challenging the decision by the Secretary of State.

Slurry Lagoon, Worton Farm

The Council’s Monitoring Officer was carrying out an investigation into the process leading up to approval of this application following representations by a local resident.  The permission would not be issued pending the outcome of that investigation.

Oxfordshire Minerals Producers Group

Members were asked to respond to an invitation issued by the Producers Group to attend a seminar on 11 May.  County officers would also be attending.

(1)               Change of use of the materials recycling facility which is the subject of planning permission reference 10/00361/CM to add biodrying and gasification waste treatment technologies and associated power generation together with the extension of the operational life of the materials recycling facility – Application 11/00015/CM

(2)     To continue development of non hazardous landfilling operations without complying with conditions of planning permission 00/01480/CM (as varied by appeal reference APP/U3100/A/09/2117987/NWF) relating to phasing of landfilling and restoration, life of the site, restoration and aftercare schemes and tipping levels – Application 11/00026/CM

Report by Assistant Director of Environment & Economy – Growth & Infrastructure (PN5)

These applications are to (1) add gasification plant to the MRF permission to process more waste and (2) continue with landfilling operations at Finmere quarry without complying with conditions related to an end date for filling, changes to phasing of tipping and restoration and assessment of pre-settlement levels. The gasification plant would process wastes that would otherwise be landfilled so reducing the amount of waste going to landfill by half. It is proposed to end both the MRF and landfill in 2035 rather than  the currently permitted date of  2020 to cope with the reduction in landfill material. It is proposed to change the phasing so that the edge of the site closest to Finmere village will be landfilled and restored first in order to reduce the visual and other impacts of the remaining tipping so for most of the site’s life the developments would not impact on the village unacceptably.  The proposals are, therefore, acceptable.

The report outlines the consultation responses received, comments from third parties, relevant Development Plan and other policies and key considerations for the Committee to take account in determining the application together with the views and recommendation of the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Growth & Infrastructure are also included.???

It is RECOMMENDED that::

(a)                    subject to a legal agreement requiring restoration payments and operation of a hinterland that planning permission be granted for Application (1) (11/00015/CM (MRF) ) subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment Growth and Infrastructure the heads of which are set out in Annex 3 to the report PN5; and

(b)                    subject to a legal agreement requiring early application for diverting bridleway 4, restoration payments and operation of a hinterland that planning permission be granted for Application (2) (11/00026/CM (Landfill)) subject to the condition changes proposed in the application as set out in Annex 1 to the report PN5 (with the exception of condition 4), the modified condition 4 and any other conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy - Growth and Infrastructure but to include the heads of which are set out in Annex 3 to the report PN%.

Change of use of the materials recycling facility which is the subject of planning permission reference 10/00361/CM to add biodrying and gasification waste treatment technologies and associated power generation together with the extension of the operational life of the materials recycling facility – Application 11/00015/CM

To continue development of non hazardous landfilling operations without complying with conditions of planning permission 00/01480/CM (as varied by appeal reference APP/U3100/A/09/2117987/NWF) relating to phasing of landfilling and restoration, life of the site, restoration and aftercare schemes and tipping levels – Application 11/00026/CM

The Committee considered (PN5) two applications. The first to add a gasification plant to the existing MRF permission to process more waste and the second to continue landfilling operations at the quarry without complying with conditions which related to an end date for filling, changes to phasing of tipping and restoration and assessment of pre-settlement levels.

Mr Kerford-Byrnes referred to the dismay locally at yet another request to extend operations at the quarry. This translated to a total operational life of 42 years which was wholly disproportionate when compared to the area of land involved which was only 16 hectares.  Finmere Parish Council considered that amounted to grounds for refusal in itself.  Previous operations had blighted the landscape.  There were also many unknowns regarding the gasification process and provenance of the operation itself with no guarantee that it would be successful.  There were also serious safety concerns.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application on the grounds of the length of the restoration operation and uncertainties regarding gasification technology.  At the very least residents would expect a condition to be imposed to revoke any permission for the plant if it was not operational after a certain time in order to prevent any unnecessary delay to the restoration programme.

He then responded to questions from:

Councillor Reynolds – previous problems at the site had been largely containable but this was new technology even closer to the village and if a major incident occurred, say an explosion, could potentially have catastrophic results.  Residents had from past experience little confidence in the quality of operations at the site.

Matthew Horton QC reminded the Committee that permission for the MRF and the extension to operations at the site had been granted on appeal in September 2007 and that circumstances which existed before that date were irrelevant because ownership had changed.  The nature of the MRF had also changed as a result of new technology.  Gasification was in line with government policy and complaints regarding odour had been overcome.  Delays to landfill had occurred because of problems with the Environment Agency, the recession and increased levels of recycling.  There would be a further reduction in landfill material because of gasification which had resulted in the need to apply for an extension to the landfill operation.  He did not accept statements made regarding uncertainties relating to gasification technology nor was there any risk of explosion.  The gas produced would be sealed and transported via pipes and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11/11

1)                 Continuation of the development permitted under permission STA/SHE/8554/8 (extension of areas of extraction of limestone and sand and restoration to agriculture at original ground levels using inert fill over total quarry area and retention of existing facilities) without complying with conditions relating to approved plans, bund details, access, depth for working dewatering and water discharge, removal of bagging and processing plant, the importation of aggregates, restoration details, and sand martin habitat and extension of the time period for operations at the site;

2)                 An extension of the existing quarry to the east for the extraction of limestone and sand with restoration to agriculture at original ground levels using inert fill

Report by Deputy director for Environment & Economy – Growth & Infrastructure (PN6)

This report describes 2 applications for developments at Shellingford Quarry, near Stanford in the Vale, in the south corner of the county.  The first application seeks consent to vary a number of conditions on the existing permission for the quarry, principally dealing with changes to the phasing of sand and limestone extraction (with subsequent infill operations), the depth of working of the site and an extension of the time period for completion of the development.  Any new consent issued would be accompanied by a new set of conditions to control the development.

The second application seeks permission for an extension to the east of the existing quarry to extract further sand and limestone with subsequent restoration to agriculture using inert waste material.  The application seeks permission for an 8 year development with restoration within a year.

The report describes both applications, sets out the policy context and outlines the objections (and consultation responses) received to the applications together with the comments and recommendation of the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy - Growth & Infrastructure.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be granted for the developments described in Applications STA/SHE/8554/12-CM and STA/SHE/8554/11-CM subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy -Growth & Infrastructure to include the matters set out in Annex 1 (with regard to Application 1) and Annex 2 (with regard to Application 2)to the report PN6..

Continuation of the development permitted under permission STA/SHE/8554/8 (extension of areas of extraction of limestone and sand and restoration to agriculture at original ground levels using inert fill over total quarry area and retention of existing facilities) without complying with conditions relating to approved plans, bund details, access, depth for working dewatering and water discharge, removal of bagging and processing plant, the importation of aggregates, restoration details, and sand martin habitat and extension of the time period for operations at the site;

To consider an extension of the existing quarry to the east for the extraction of limestone and sand with restoration to agriculture at original ground levels using inert fill

The Committee considered (PN6) 2 applications for developments at Shellingford Quarry, near Stanford in the Vale the first of which sought consent to vary a number of conditions on the existing permission for the quarry, principally dealing with changes to the phasing of sand and limestone extraction (with subsequent infill operations), the depth of working of the site and an extension of the time period for completion of the development.  The second sought permission for an extension to the east of the existing quarry to extract further sand and limestone with subsequent restoration to agriculture using inert waste material over a period of 8 years with restoration within a year.

Mr Bowley thanked county officers for their work during the pre-application stage. That had helped to allay many concerns regarding the applications and the only real area of concern seemed to relate to traffic.  The site had direct access onto an A road with proposed improvements to the access if the application was approved. There would be no increase to current levels of traffic and the applicants, as one of many users of the A417 did not consider it necessary to impose any limits on traffic movements.  However, if the Committee were so minded then limits should only apply to south bound vehicles.  The Company were sympathetic to the concerns of local residents regarding the impact of lorries but felt the best way forward was through management. The Company were therefore proposing a formalistion of current practice through a code of practice for all hgv drivers which would deal with issues such as driving behaviour, speed, sheeting of loads and wheelwashing. The company were also suggesting a hot line to deal with any problems and reinstatement of the quarry liaison committee.  He referred to a number of conditions which related to the old site which duplicated the activity of other agencies.  He asked the Committee to support the officer recommendation.

He responded to questions from:

Councillor Tilley – an average figure for vehicle movement was 140 daily but that did fluctuate.

Councillor Armitage – he clarified that the vast majority of the proposed conditions were relevant but some for example relating to groundwater, landfill gas and leachate referred to areas of activities of other agencies.

Councillor Seale – he agreed that southward lorry movements presented more of a problem  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12/11