Agenda and minutes

 

 

Apology	Temporary Appointment
Councillor Alan Armitage Councillor Stewart Lilly	Councillor Anne Purse Councillor Charles Mathew

 

 

Councillor Mathew had been asked to leave the meeting at 2.04am due to the Chairman’s insistence that Councillor Mathew’s lateness meant he was disqualified from attending as a substitute. This edict was later rescinded on advice from the clerk to the meeting and Councillor Mathew had been retrieved by him from elsewhere in the building to resume his role as substitute for Councillor Lilly as previously arranged and noted by the clerk on the addenda papers. The Chairman offered his apologies and said there were ‘new rules’ and he had been mistaken as he often had been subject to disqualification in this manner in the past. Councillor Mathew apologised for being slightly delayed for the start of the meeting.

Councillor Mrs Fulljames declared a disclosable pecuniary interest with regard to Item 6.  At a previous meeting and with regard to an item at Ardley she had accepted the advice of legal officers that she had had a personal and prejudicial interest by reason of proximity. After making representations as local member she intended leaving the meeting and taking no part in the substantive discussion or voting thereafter

 

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 28 May 2012 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 May 2012 were agreed and signed.

 

Minute 31/12 - Ashgrove Farm, Ardley 

 

Councillor Mrs Fulljames advised that meetings of the Liaison Committee were ongoing with regard to issues of smell.  The recent spell of wet weather had seen a decrease in the number of reports although some were still being reported.

 

Minute 33/12 – Sutton Courtenay Landfill Site

 

At the suggestion of Councillor Greene the clerk to the Committee undertook to record precisely the name of a public speaker when they responded to questions from members of the Committee

 

Speaker	Item
David Reeves Hazel Watt Chris Thornton Chris Herbert	) ) 6. Ardley Leachate Treatment Plant ) )
Alex Facy	7. St. Andrew’s School, Chinnor

 

Mr Dance advised as follows:

 

Waterstock Golf Course

 

There had been a further High Court hearing on Thursday 5 July 2012 regarding the lack of removal of any waste or a detailed specification for doing so.  A judgement was expected later this week.

 

Thrupp Lane, Radley

 

All matters had now been resolved.  The old plant had now been removed and the consent issued.

 

Sutton Courtenay Landfill Site

 

A drainage scheme had been submitted which was acceptable to Oxfordshire County Council and the Environment Agency but not Sutton Courtenay Parish Council. FCC were being given the opportunity to provide one further bit of information in order to satisfy the Parish Council’s concerns.

 

Members Training and Seminars

 

Reported recent visit to Harwell and Winfrith. 

 

Two further seminars planned for September 2012.  The first on 13 September (morning session) would be to consider how the County Council used planning conditions. The second on 26 September (morning session) was an invitation from the Oxfordshire Minerals Producers Group on “Recycling”. Mr Dance undertook to confirm the venue for the latter with members

 

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN6)

 

This report describes a planning application submitted by Viridor for development at Ardley Landfill Site. It is proposed to use the leachate treatment plant for leachate imported from other landfill sites. This was permitted under a previous consent but the current landfill permission has a condition preventing importation of leachate due to local concern about links to drainage and pollution problems. This is a retrospective application as the importation of leachate has been ongoing since the implementation of the new consent which prevents it. The application is being reported to this Committee as objections have been received to the proposal. 

The report describes why the proposals have been put forward 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 is considered acceptable as there has been no objection from the Environment Agency or Thames Water in terms of drainage or pollution and it accords with planning policy relating to the location of waste development. The plant already processes leachate generated onsite and the importation would not lead to an increase in vehicle numbers above the total limit for the site.

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to a routeing agreement to ensure that vehicles associated with this development follow the same route as waste vehicles associated with the EfW and landfill (avoiding Middleton Stoney) that planning permission be approved for application MW.0084/12 to continue importing leachate for treatment at Ardley Leachate Treatment Plant at Ardley Landfill Site subject to conditions to be determined by the deputy Director for environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) but to include the matters listed below:

 

Heads of Conditions

1.                  Complete accordance with application

2.                  End date for importation to coincide with the end of the treatment of leachate generated onsite

3.                  Standard working hours for deliveries

4.                  Maximum annual import of 180 000 tonnes, as proposed

5.                  Leachate to be delivered in sealed tankers only

6.                  White noise on reversing bleepers

 

Informative

Conditions 3 and 4 of permission 08/02472/CM sets out annual and daily maximum tonnages of waste to be imported to this site. Imported leachate permitted under this consent is included in those totals.

 

 

 

The Committee considered an application submitted by Viridor for development at Ardley Landfill Site to use the existing leachate treatment plant, which currently had permission to treat leachate generated by the adjacent landfill site, to treat leachate imported from other landfill sites.  There was no condition to prevent this under a previous landfilling consent.  However, the energy from waste consent issued by the secretary of State (SOS) did contain a specific condition preventing import.  This was a retrospective application as the importation of leachate had been ongoing since the implementation of the SOS permission which had specifically prevented it and was being reported to Committee as objections had been received to the proposal. 

 

The Committee also had before it an amended recommendation as set out in the published addenda.

 

Mr Reeves could not recall problems with flooding during his 60 years as a resident of Bucknell until recently. However, since 2007 there had been 4 incidents when the problem had been so severe he had had to hire equipment to deal with the fall out.  Thames Water had showed little concern regarding flooding. He was convinced that these problems had been caused as a result of the additional treatment of imported leachate and he urged that the application be refused and Viridor instructed to abide by the decision of the Inspector at the Public Inquiry and cease importing leachate.

 

Hazel Watt referred to Condition 38 forbidding the import of leachate onto the Ardley site. That condition had been imposed after a long, rigorous and expensive public inquiry in 2010 and included for practical and environmental reasons. The Secretary of State had supported that line in February 2011, when he refused Viridor’s request for the ban on the import of leachate to be lifted. To annul Condition 38 now, would show flagrant disrespect to both the Secretary Of State and the Planning Inspectorate. The papers for today’s meeting made scant reference to the flooding and sewage overflow experienced in Bucknell and despite several attempts no official body has yet attempted to solve and/or discuss those problems. It was true that there had been no flooding nor sewage overflow since the end of 2010 and residents had concluded that this was because of lower than average rainfall between 2009-2011 although it could be because of more regular drain clearance by Thames Water Board’s Contractors. There was local concern that this was only a temporary solution and would not survive further import of leachate, in addition to that produced when the incinerator was fully operational. The report also referred to an email from Thames Water to Viridor which suggested that there had been a failure in establishing a link between the leachate discharge and the flooding.  This should not be considered to mean that there wasn’t a link and it was considered that that investigation had been flawed and that another line of inquiry should have been pursued to substantiate the findings. It was not even clear whether treated or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43/12

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN7)

 

The report describes an application to change the hours of use and installation of safety light at the Chinnor Community swimming pool at St Andrew’s school, sets out the detail of the proposal, outlines the objections and other responses received to the application along with relevant planning policies and comments and recommendation of the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth and Infrastructure).

 

It is RECOMMENDED that application R3.0071/12 be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth and Infrastructure) but in accordance with those set out at Annex 1 to the report.

 

The Committee considered an application to change the hours of use and installation of safety light at the Chinnor Community swimming pool at St Andrew’s school.

 

Mr Facy confirmed that the pool had been operating for many years and it was only recently that complaints had been received.  It was well used outside school hours but under strict controls.  The roof would help reduce operating costs.

 

Mr Islam reported that a further 22 representations in support of the application had been received since the report had been published.

 

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Nimmo-Smith, seconded by Councillor Mrs Fulljames and carried nem con) that application R3.0071/12 be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth and Infrastructure) but in accordance with those set out at Annex 1 to the report PN7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved