Agenda and minutes
PDF 240 KBVenue: County Hall, New Road, Oxford
Contact: Graham Warrington Tel: (01865) 815321; E-Mail: graham.warrington@oxfordshire.gov.uk
| No. | Item | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments Minutes:
|
||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest - see guidance note opposite Minutes:
|
||||||||||
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 5 March 2012 were approved and signed. |
||||||||||
|
Minutes: Mr Dance advised as follows: Minerals and Waste
Core Strategy Council had approved the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy for submission to the Secretary of State moving the policy document on a stage further. The Committee now needed to give significant weight to that when considering applications. National Policy Planning Framework (paper circulated with the addenda sheet) The Government’s National Policy Planning Framework had been published on 27 March setting out a national framework within which Councils should prepare plans and decide planning applications. Planning law required
that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with
the development plan, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The
Framework needed to be taken into account in the preparation of local and
neighbourhood plans, and should be a material consideration when considering
planning applications. The Framework did
not contain specific waste policies, since national waste planning policy will
be published as part of the National Waste Management Plan for England. However,
local authorities when preparing waste plans and taking decisions on waste
applications should have regard to policies in this Framework so far as was
relevant. Rob Dance listed
a number of key matters contained in the Framework: ·
Presumption in favour of
sustainable development. ·
Core planning principles ·
Protecting Green Belt
land ·
Facilitating the
sustainable use of materials ·
Decision taking · Key elements of the National Planning Policy Framework (relevance to decisions to be taken by the Committee). · Inconsistency in reports regarding the significance of the Minerals & Waste Core Strategy as approved by cabinet and Council. |
||||||||||
|
Petitions and Public Address Minutes:
|
||||||||||
|
Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN6). This application
is for a new soft sand quarry at Pinewoods Road Longworth. It is proposed to
dig and process on site 880,000 tonnes of soft sand in five phases over an 11
year period. The site would be progressively restored mostly to agriculture at
low land level. Access is proposed from Pinewoods Road and then to the A420
Oxford/Swindon road. The application has been the subject of notable local
interest and generated objections both from individuals and local
representatives. The report sets out the
proposal, response from objectors and the views of formal consultees. It is RECOMMENDED that Application No.
MW.0080/11 be refused for the following reason: The development proposed is contrary to
policy PE2 of the Oxfordshire Minerals & Waste Local Plan. The site is not within an area identified
for mineral working as referred to in policy PE2 of the Minerals and Waste
Local Plan and there is no urgent need for additional soft sand reserves. The proposed development is inconsistent with
Policy M3 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy approved for
submission to the Secretary of State. The development would have an unnecessary
adverse impact on the environment which the Council’s extensions policy M3
seeks to avoid. For the period of
extraction the detriment to the environment and landscape of the area including
the loss of oak trees on the site protected by a tree preservation order, is
unjustified and not consistent with the aims of Vale of White Horse Local Plan
policy NE7. Minutes: The Committee considered an
application (PN6) for a new soft sand quarry at Supporting the recommendation to refuse the application Mark Baker (CPRE – Vale District) emphasised the need to protect and preserve the integrity of the Corallian Ridge. Approval of this application would set a dangerous precedent to that aim and the quarry would be very intrusive in a beautiful landscape. He considered that adequate resources of soft sand already existed and there was no need for this site. Adam Ogilvie-Smith referred to the concern felt by local residents. The application should certainly be refused on the policy grounds as set out in the recommendation but he also suggested that those grounds for refusal could be extended to include noise, restoration, impact on the adjacent market garden and traffic from slow moving HGVs on a fast stretch of the A420 where concerns regarding visibility had been ignored. Peter Evans (Hinton Waldrist Parish Council) referred to concerns expressed by the Parish Council in 2004 when this proposal had first been presented. Those concerns still existed 8 years later and had strengthened as the true impact of the work became clear. This was grade 2 arable land not within an area identified for mineral working. There was no identified need for additional soft sand and over provision could lead to the export of material outside the county with more traffic movements. There were concerns regarding the impact of deep excavation on boreholes and dust, both of which could affect the adjacent market garden. Access remained a major concern. The A420/Pinewoods Road junction had a poor accident record including 2 fatalities, no alterations had been proposed to the right turn from the A420 and there would be considerable impact on the A420 itself. Alan Boyce (Longworth Parish Council) advised that this matter had gone on long enough. It had been a major issue for 8 years which had been recommended for refusal twice, having been withdrawn at the last minute by the applicants on the last occasion when due for consideration by this Committee. Reasons for refusal remained the same – need for material and loss of trees. Council policy now favoured extensions to existing sites rather than new sites and there was no justification to approve this application. There was substantial local concern as evidenced by the number of people in attendance at the meeting. Graham Jenkins (agent for the applicants) addressed a number of concerns which had been raised by the previous speakers. Noise – there was a reliance on conventional limits and the site would adhere to those. Restoration – there had been no objection from Natural England, the County Ecologist or landscape officers. Market garden – the application had been expressly redesigned to avoid affecting crops and there had been no objection from environmental health officers or the Food Standards Agency. Traffic – the highway authority had not objected. This suggested that the traffic assessment had been detailed and not, as suggested, superficial. |
||||||||||
|
Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN7) This application is for the importation of inert construction waste to
restore the disused quarry at Woodeaton. A minor
recycling operation is also proposed to produce topsoil for the restoration.
The development would take ten years.
The application is being reported to this Committee as objections have
been received to the proposal. The report sets out the proposals and outlines objections and other
responses to the application. Relevant
planning policies are included along with the comments and recommendation of
the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth and Infrastructure)
on the proposal. The proposed development would be beneficial in terms of providing an appropriate
restoration scheme for an unrestored quarry, in
accordance with planning policy. The site has an extant permission for mineral
extraction. The traffic and noise impacts associated with the proposed
infilling with inert waste would be no greater than that currently allowed
under the mineral permission and could be adequately controlled by condition. It is
RECOMMENDED that subject to: (a)
a Section 106 agreement
to cover: - non implementation of existing minerals
consent (M162/49); - 15 year long term
management of restored site; - Appropriate access to the
restored site; (b)
a routeing agreement to
ensure that vehicles access the network of A-roads via the northern quarry
access, left onto the B4027, Bayswater Road to the A40 roundabout and to ensure
that lorries are sheeted; that Application
No. MW.0015/12 be approved subject to
conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment &
Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) to include the following matters: 1.
Complete accordance with
plans 2.
Commencement within 2
years 3.
Wheel cleaning to
prevent mud on highway 4.
Deposit of waste shall
cease within 10 years of the date of the permission 5.
Operating hours
(0730-1800 Mondays to Fridays, 0830-1300 Saturdays) 6.
No use of southern
access 7.
Dust monitoring as
proposed 8.
Dust suppression
measures implemented should dust monitoring show it is necessary 9.
Noise monitoring and
submission of records 10.
Maximum noise levels at
noise sensitive properties 11.
White noise on reversing
vehicles 12.
Mobile plant fitted with
silencers 13.
No fixed plant or
machinery 14.
No external lighting 15.
Oil storage on
impervious bases 16.
Development to be
subject to Environment Agency Permitting Process 17.
Trees planted in
accordance with restoration scheme to be maintained and replaced if necessary 18.
Submission and
implementation of a detailed restoration scheme
with completion within 1 year of the cessation of waste deposit 19.
No material stockpiled
higher than 3 metres above the nearest rim of the quarry 20.
Topsoil, subsoil and
overburden to be stored and respread separately and not removed from the site 21.
Scheme for the
protection of geology 22.
Submission of full
details and erection of noise barrier as proposed 23.
Drainage – submission of
a surface water drainage scheme 24.
Soils should only be handled
when dry and friable 25. Submission and implementation of fencing details, maintenance of fence ... view the full agenda text for item 23/12 Minutes: The Committee considered (PN7) an application for the importation of inert construction waste to restore the disused quarry at Woodeaton. Councillor Hallchurch withdrew from the Committee table. City Councillor Van Coulter referred to the impact of this proposal on residents of Bayswater Road who did not want an intensification of traffic. Many properties along this road were prefabricated structures dating from the 1940s and were less resilient to vibration. There were also a number of residential homes for the elderly and vulnerable people. There were a number of speed bumps along this road which were needed but would amplify noise from HGVs. This road also accessed the crematorium. He urged the Committee to take into account the needs of local residents and refuse the application. John Walsh questioned the need for this operation, which had increased from the existing extraction permission of 150,000 tonnes to infilling with 520,000 tonnes of waste. Sufficient capacity at Tubney Wood and 2 other sites nearby meant there was no justification for this site. Local roads were not suitable for this type of traffic and the B4027 was a narrow country road used by walkers, cyclists and horseriders. Phil Garrett advised that Woodeaton Parish Council did not oppose restoration of the site but considered this proposal unacceptable. He focused on 2 issues – noise and access (after completion). With regard to noise the analysis had seemed okay but the data did not reflect how the site would operate. Machinery had not been working for the whole day and had not been sited in the correct place. Noise levels would be higher when machinery was operating and there was no noise reduction fencing proposed. Access to the SSSI had not been considered in a practical way and the narrow access drive to the site was in constant use by other properties. Responding to Councillor Owen he advised that the Parish Council had not specifically employed a noise consultant but had sought a second opinion on the data provided and had been advised that it did not appear to be representative. Suzi Coyne for the applicant advised that this was an application to restore an unsafe quarry. It would benefit the SSSI and the applicants had been working closely with Natural England to secure access. Restoration would be completed within 10 years, which gave an end date to working, whereas if the current mineral permission was invoked that would not be the case. With regard to noise it was not normal practice to have machinery running when carrying out a noise test. The assessment had been thorough and the applicants were confident that noise would not be as bad as objectors feared. There was a need for the facility as there was a shortfall of 100,000 tonnes. With regard to traffic the applicants were considerate operators and vehicle movements would be 10 per day averaging one every 30 minutes, each with a maximum 20 tonne load. Acoustic fencing would be provided around the southern ... view the full minutes text for item 23/12 |
||||||||||
|
Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN8) This application
is for the use of a sand and gravel processing plant site to wash and grade
material extracted from a nearby area which has planning consent for mineral
extraction. The application is being
reported to Committee as objections have been received to the proposal. The
report sets out why the proposals and outlines objections and other responses
to the application. Relevant planning
policies are included along with the comments and recommendation of the Deputy
Director for Environment & Economy (Growth and Infrastructure) on the
proposal which conclude that the proposed development could be beneficial in
providing a locally situated processing facility for a mineral reserve, which
already has permission to be worked. It provides a way for the ongoing
processing activities to be brought under planning control through the use of
conditions and removal of the existing plant. Replacement with new temporary
plant will result in less visual impact. There would be no increase to HGV
traffic on Thrupp Lane and there would be the
potential for a reduction in lorry movements. It is RECOMMENDED that subject to: (a)
prior completion of an
agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in terms to be
agreed by the County Solicitor to secure removal of the existing processing
plant by 30 September 2012; (b)
the Applicant
withdrawing his CLEUD application for existing processing plant before this
planning permission is issued; that Application No. MW.0001/12
be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director
(Growth & Infrastructure) to include the following matters: 1. Development carried out in complete
accordance with approved plans. 2. Commencement within 5 years. 3. No new fixed plant, machinery or
structures to be erected on the land. 4. Stockpiles within the flood plain
shall be sited so as not to impede flow of flood water. 5. Sheeting of any lorries leaving the
site except those carrying stone in excess of 500mm. 6. Reversing bleepers shall use white
noise. 7. Control of external lighting. 8. Standard operating hours (0700-1800
Mondays to Fridays, 0700-1300 Saturdays and additionally 1300-1800 Saturdays
for plant maintenance only). 9. Retention and maintenance of trees. 10. Dust control measures. 11. Submission of a detailed restoration
plan, supported by a full ecological and photographic survey. 12. Removal of material, buildings and
plant when no longer required, or before the completion of restoration. 13. Implementation of restoration
including permissive right of way. 14. Timescales for restoration – within 5
years from the date of consent or within 1 year of the completion of gravel
extraction on the ROMP site. 15. 5 year aftercare of restored site in
accordance with a detailed management plan to be submitted and approved. 16. Submission of details of the conveyor
across the site and receiving hopper. 17. No material to be imported by road to
processing plant for processing, only material from the ROMP site to be
processed, to be brought by conveyor. 18. Submission ... view the full agenda text for item 24/12 Minutes: The Committee considered an application (PN8) for the use of a sand and gravel processing plant to wash and grade material extracted from a nearby area which had planning consent for mineral extraction. Mark Baker advised that the CPRE did not object to the recommendation to approve but did feel that an opportunity was being missed to rationalise access. Thrupp Lane was a country lane and wholly unsuited to this sort of traffic with a more appropriate access available via Barton Lane. Expected revenue from the operation justified development of that route and any approval should recognise that. Responding to Councillor Hudspeth it was not for him to speculate on whether
provision of an alternative route via Mike Wilson advised that the Thrupp Lane Residents Association objected to the number
and size of HGVs on Dr Basil Crowley for Radley Parish Council expressed support for the application, which, with conditions, offered significant benefits. However, the Parish Council had significant concerns regarding uncertainty over the future use of Thrupp Lane and felt that in reality, and in the absence of reliable data, the view that traffic levels would not increase was both unsupported and unverifiable. The Parish Council had asked for a condition effectively limiting lorry traffic resulting from the ROMP to at least current levels attributed to the existing business but that had been declined. The ROMP determination could restrict extraction rates but it would not necessarily control traffic, although an option could be for the ROMP to proceed as quickly as possible with material stockpiled and exported at a slower rate by condition under this permission. The County Council needed to consider traffic impacts carefully to prevent the situation becoming worse than it already was. Responding to Councillor Mathew he confirmed that Thrupp Lane was part of a national cycle route. Councillor Fatemian endorsed earlier comments and supported the principles of the application. The site was a mess in planning terms and this presented an opportunity to move things forward. However, he felt that information in the report regarding vehicle movements and Section 106 finance was a little misleading and 38,000 to 75,000 represented a considerable increase. Thrupp Lane was in a desperate state of repair and an independent assessment of traffic numbers was needed in order to get a clear view of the current situation. Implementation should be suspended pending determination of the ROMP. Responding to Councillor Mathew
he confirmed that the Liaison Committee had discussed the option of |
||||||||||
|
Shipton-on-Cherwell Quarry Importation, storage and processing of inert
construction and demolition waste, and operation of an aggregate recycling
facility on land at Shipton-on-Cherwell Quarry, Shipton-on-Cherwell, Oxfordshire. Retention of the
existing weighbridge, site office and wheelwash to
facilitate the operation of the proposed recycling facility – Application
No. MW.0119/11. Continuation of development without complying
with condition 6 (importation of waste by road) and with the variance of
conditions 1 (Time Limits) and 7 (volume of waste imported) of planning
permission 10/00360/CM (comprehensive restoration and redevelopment of Shipton-on-Cherwell Quarry), dated 17 June 2010 –
Application No, MW.0120/11. Report by Deputy Director for Environment
& Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN9) This report describes 2 planning applications
relating to Shipton-on-Cherwell Quarry north of Kidlington. The
quarry is located within the Oxford Green Belt.
One application seeks consent to establish an aggregate recycling facility
in the quarry for a period of 10 years and the second to vary conditions
attached to an existing planning permission to undertake a comprehensive
redevelopment and restoration of the quarry.
The main variations proposed relate to a change to the phasing plans (to
take account of the recycling facility), variation of a condition to allow road
imports of waste for a period of 10 years (the existing permission allows road
imports for 3 years), and variation of a condition removing the restriction on
the total volume of imports to the site by road. The applications have generated a number of
objections from local residents which are outlined in the report along with
responses from both statutory and non-statutory consultees
along with relevant Development Plan policies and government guidance. It is RECOMMENDED
that: (A)
subject to: (a)
the Secretary of State deciding not to call in the
application (as a departure from the Development Plan); (b)
amendments to the existing Legal Agreements
attached to the existing planning permission to take account of the aggregate
recycling facility; (c)
a routeing agreement; that planning
permission be granted for Application No. MW.0119/11 (aggregate recycling
facility) subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for
Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) to include the
following matters: 1.
Detailed
compliance – as per approved plans. 2.
Temporary consent – recycling facilities and road
imports limited to 10 years. 3.
Details of working plan to show stockpiles and
location of plant as landfill progresses. 4.
Demolition of derelict cement buildings within one
year of aggregate recycling. 5.
Restriction on vehicle movements. 6.
Working hours to be agreed. 7.
Noise from aggregate recycling not to exceed
permitted levels. 8.
Noise restrictions during site preparation for
final restoration. 9.
Dust management plan to be submitted and agreed. 10.
Details of surface and foul water drainage to be
submitted and agreed. 11.
No damage to designated rock faces. 12.
No waste processing or storage directly in front of
designated rock faces. 13.
Submission of an Ecological Management Plan. 14.
Updated reptile surveys to be undertaken prior to works
commencing; Informatives · Environment Agency and Thames Water advice relating ... view the full agenda text for item 25/12 Minutes: Importation, storage and processing of inert
construction and demolition waste, and operation of an aggregate recycling
facility on land at Shipton-on-Cherwell Quarry, Shipton-on-Cherwell, Oxfordshire. Retention of the
existing weighbridge, site office and wheelwash to
facilitate the operation of the proposed recycling facility – Application
No. MW.0119/11. Continuation of development without complying
with condition 6 (importation of waste by road) and with the variance of
conditions 1 (Time Limits) and 7 (volume of waste imported) of planning
permission 10/00360/CM (comprehensive restoration and redevelopment of Shipton-on-Cherwell Quarry), dated 17 June 2010 –
Application No, MW.0120/11. The Committee considered two applications (PN9). The first sought consent to establish an aggregate recycling facility in the quarry for a period of 10 years and the second to vary conditions attached to an existing planning permission to undertake a comprehensive redevelopment and restoration of the quarry. Councillor Hallchurch had no objection to the applications and welcomed proposals to restore the site. He enquired as to the status of proposals for the provision of the railhead and the footpath around the wildlife area. Mr Flavin confirmed all conditions from the previously agreed permission would be carried forward and the railhead would be constructed where the old works were currently sited. Councillor Armitage was concerned that it appeared that the Company were being given another 7 years in which to provide a railhead while in the meantime there would be 320 vehicles a day accessing the site. He sought confirmation as to whether one application could be approved and not the other and, in the terms set out in the addenda sheet, whether the applicants were being allowed 5 years in which to demolish the buildings. Mr Flavin confirmed that it would be possible to approve one application without the other but failure to agree both could limit the movement of waste by road after 3 years. Work to commence demolishing the old buildings would need to commence within one year with completion in 5. RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Hudspeth, seconded by Councillor Hallchurch and carried by 10 votes to 1) that: (A) subject
to: (a) the Secretary of State deciding not to call
in the application (as a departure from the Development Plan); (b) amendments to the existing Legal Agreements
attached to the existing planning permission to take account of the aggregate
recycling facility; (c) amendments to the existing routeing agreement
to take account of the aggregate recycling facility; that planning permission be granted for Application
No. MW.0119/11 (aggregate recycling facility) subject to conditions to be
determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth &
Infrastructure) to include the following matters: 1.
Detailed compliance – as per approved
plans. 2.
Temporary consent – recycling facilities
and road imports limited to 10 years. 3.
Details of working plan to show stockpiles
and location of plant as landfill progresses. 4.
Restriction on vehicle movements. 5.
Operating hours (0700-1800 Mondays to
Fridays; 0700-1300 Saturdays; no working on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays) |