Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 21 October 2013 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 October 2013 were approved and signed.

A petition in the following terms was also presented by Louise Parker on behalf of residents of Elms Road, Botley in respect of Item 8.

“Thispetition isbeing presentedon behalfof theresidents ofElms Road to furthersupport thequestions submittedto theCommittee Chairmanon Friday 29th November which werein relationto theconcerns raisedthrough the responses tothe consultation process,regarding theplanning applicationfor the extensionto BotleySchool.

Theresidents arenot opposedto thetwo new classroomsbeing builtbut wouldlike the conditionslaid downin permittingthe planningto addresstheir issuesmore broadly and robustlythan currentlystipulated inthe recommendations,and tobe documented to ensureaction andimplementation. Whilstthere isa proposedrevised Travel Plan itis not possibleto commenton whetherthis adequatelymanages the concerns asit is not availablefor review.Therefore wewould likethe additional pointsto formpart ofthe conditions.

1.  Duringthe peakschoolstartand finish timesfor thetraffic wardensto ticket unauthorisedcars immediatelywhich initself allowsa '5minute'grace period, as opposedto the15 minutes currently beingallowed beforethe ticketing process isinitiated.

2.  Regularlyenforcement ofthe double yellowline and'Zig Zag' restrictionson the road

3.  Anew signto beerected atthe end ofthe roadto indicatethat isa no through road.

4.  Consultationwith themedical centre,Janet Goddenand theresidents to discuss useof thecar parkduring theschool dropoff and pick uptimes.”

Radley ROMP

Provisional public inquiry dates set for 18 and 19 March 2014. 

Shenington ROMP

Prohibition notice served but may need to be repeated.

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN6)

This application is for the extraction of approximately 1.86 million tonnes of sand and gravel from an area adjacent to existing workings at Caversham Quarry near Sonning Eye in South Oxfordshire. The land would be restored to agriculture and nature conservation using approximately 860,000 cubic metres of imported inert waste material. It is proposed that the extraction would take 15 years and the completion of the restoration works would take a further 2 years.   The application is being reported to this Committee as objections have been received to the proposal from local residents and Parish Councils. The main areas of concern are flooding and traffic. However, objections have also been received on grounds of nuisance and loss of amenity, impact on landscape, historic environment and wildlife, use of inert waste and the continuation of quarrying activity in this area.

The report describes why the proposals have been put forward and outlines the 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 (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) on the proposal.

The proposed development would be beneficial in terms of contributing towards the supply of sharp sand and gravel and it is considered that the concerns raised on issues including flood risk, transport, protection of amenity, restoration, landscape and archaeology can be adequately addressed through planning condition. There would be no increase in flood risk as a result of this development.

It is RECOMMENDED that:

(a)         the Planning and Regulation Committee indicates support for application no. MW.0158/11;

(b)  resolves that the application be forwarded to the Secretary of Stateto provide the opportunity for the application to be called in for his own determination, should he consider that to be necessary in view of the policy issue raised;

(c)         that in the event of the Secretary of State not intervening the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) be authorised to approve application no. MW.0158/11 subject to the applicant first entering into a Section 106 legal agreement to cover the funding and implementation of a 20 year long term management of the restored site and subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director (Strategy and infrastructure Planning) but in accordance with those set out below:

Heads of Conditions

1.            Complete accordance with plans

2.            Commencement within 3 years

3.            End date for extraction (12 years)

4.            End date for restoration completion (2 years from completion of mineral extraction)

5.            5 year aftercare period

6.            Submission of an aftercare plan including agricultural drainage

7.            Standard working hours

8.            Restriction of permitted development rights

9.            New access to be provided in accordance with plans to be approved

10.       Provision of vision splays on new access

11.       No export of mineral from new access

12.       Lorry sheeting

13.       No deposit of mud or dust on the highway

14.       Development in accordance with  ...  view the full agenda text for item 55/13

The Committee considered (PN6) an application to extract approximately 1.86 million tonnes of sand and gravel from an area adjacent to existing workings at Caversham Quarry and part restoration to agriculture and nature conservation using imported inert waste material.

Paul Brown spoke as a resident of 37 years and challenged the presentation to the Committee on the grounds that it had not adequately shown the proximity of the site to Sonning Eye.  He objected to the infill restoration proposals which could exacerbate current flooding problems and tabled a graph which indicated how many additional properties could be affected by a small rise in water levels.  This was a critically sensitive area at great risk.  Flooding occurred through the sub strata not river flow and the results could be catastrophic if modelling proved to be incorrect.

Mr Brown then responded to questions from:

Councillor Bartholomew – he confirmed he was speaking on behalf of residents of Sonning Eye whose objections were to the backfilling element and that residents were happy with the extraction proposals.

Councillor Tanner – he confirmed that as water flowed through the sub strata the backfilling element was critical. Residents’ concerns centred on removal of a large chunk of material with a certain permeability level and replacement with material which would not have the same permeability levels.

Ian Brazier set out his credentials in hydrology and spoke as a consultant on behalf of local residents of Sonning Eye, which  was an acutely sensitive area.  He had had exhaustive discussions with the Environment Agency and Oxfordshire County Council but the applicants had been unable to provide the information requested.  The National Planning Policy Framework was clear regarding development in high flood risk areas and the flood risk assessment in this case had been inadequate and fudged the main issues. There were unresolved matters and despite statements that there would be no loss of flood plain residents remained convinced that there would be increased risk of flooding due to backfill displacing flood water and reducing the ability for water to soak away.  All development should pass a sequential test and areas of flood plain 3 were the most sensitive.  The Atkins report had showed 5 alternative sites which had been ignored.  The landfill aspect was optional but it seemed clear that that was being pursued for purely commercial reasons.

Mr Brazier responded to questions from:

Councillor Greene – he confirmed residents would have been happier with an application which had not included proposals for backfill.

Councillor Bartholomew – he confirmed he was a qualified chartered surveyor.

Councillor Cherry – he was 100% certain that backfilling would result in an increased risk of flooding. Backfill would by its very nature be less permeable than the extracted material and he compared the end result to placing a brick in bucket.

David Woodward spoke for the Parish Council. Local opposition had exposed serious defects and dangers in this application. That had resulted in the undertaking of a sequential test to evaluate the site.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55/13

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

This report describes an application to allow part of the MRF building to be used for waste transfer operations. Waste collected from households would be brought to the building and transferred onto larger vehicles for transport to the Energy from Waste facility at Ardley. The building would also accept clinical waste and have some capacity for commercial and industrial waste.

The consultation responses and third party representations received are outlined in the report along with the relevant development plan policy implications and the views of the Deputy Director of Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) who recommends that the application be approved as the proposed development is in accordance with relevant planning policy relating to waste management and protection of amenity.

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to:

i)                   a Section 106 agreement to ensure that waste imports to the waste transfer operation are only from within the catchment area (Oxfordshire, West Berkshire, Reading, Wokingham and Bracknell) secured by the Section 106 agreement dated 4 November 2008 for the landfill site and that the total waste import to the MRF and WTS building is 200 000tpa and this is part of and not additional to the 600,000 tpa limit on the landfill; and

ii)                 a routeing agreement to ensure that vehicles associated with the development are routed via the A4130 and A34 as for other developments on the site,

application MW.0136/13 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) but in accordance with those set out at Annex 3 to the report.

The Committee considered (PN7) an application to allow part of the MRF building at the Sutton Courtenay waste management centre to be used for waste transfer operations. The Committee also noted 2 late representations which had been set out in the tabled addenda.  The application had been refused at the September meeting but then modified to overcome the objections raised and resubmitted.

Sally Furze reiterated her previous objections from the September meeting still stood.  There were no visible signs of flood prevention work.  Bunds at the site were higher and yet there was still light spillage. Smells were horrendous and it remained an example of planning creep.  She could not accept that waste being brought in to the site in small vehicles and then loaded onto bigger vehicles to be transported away again was sustainable or efficient.

Robin Draper supported the Committee’s previous decision to refuse permission which had been based on a step to far and on flawed statistics in a Minerals and Waste Strategy which was having to be rewritten as a result.  He hoped the Committee would sustain that view. It was true the amended version was a considerable improvement but it left questions unanswered as to future applications. It was imperative that the 2030 end date was treated as definitive and honoured by both FCC and Oxfordshire County Council, particularly in view of FCCs record of layering planning application on application and extending its activities and  the landfill site end date from 2012 to 2021 and now currently to 2030. This application was for a change of usage to meet an OCC contract and permission should therefore be restricted to meeting the terms of that contract from within the county and not from imports from across the so called catchment area. To allow that could only increase pressure for further applications. He considered the recommendation weak and that it should specifically refer to the Waste Transfer Facility and the 50,00tpa and 10,000limits, reinforcement of the 2030 deadline and  minimising the risks of FCC expanding the envelope of its activities further by deleting reference to the catchment area, and restricting its activities to transferring Oxfordshire’s waste.  He also suggested that conditions should be determined by the Chairman of the Planning Committee in conjunction with the Deputy Director. Clinical waste breached the non-hazardous waste status of the landfill site, which had been robustly defended in the past. That should be maintained and he could not accept the rationale for setting up a clinical waste transfer site to facilitate just one vehicle in and one out a fortnight, when that could go straight to the Maidenhead facility, unless the intention was to build on that by seeking to import more clinical waste in future. To protect the local community no extension of the hours of work to Bank holidays should be permitted although the increase of hours on Saturdays following a Bank holiday seemed reasonable. He urged that the application be rejected or at least deferred until the County  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56/13

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN8).

This is a planning application for two extensions at an existing primary school. The report is being put before committee because of the objections raised from local residents to parking issues on Elms Road which is the road leading to the school.  The report also assesses other policy and material considerations, such as the general; presumption in favour of such development and the effect on the local amenity.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be approved for Application R3.0061/13 subject to the following conditions:

·              Detailed Compliance with approved plans and details

·              Development to be carried out within three years

·              School Travel Plan to be updated prior to occupation.

·              Construction Management Plan to be approved prior to the development taking place, and then implemented.

·              Drainage scheme to be agreed.

The Committee considered (PN8) an application for two extensions at Botley County Primary School.  The Committee also noted further representations from the local member, Councillor Janet Godden and Miss Louise Parker, a resident of Elms Road who had also submitted an 11 signature petition from fellow residents (see Minute 53/13 above for the specific terms of reference of the petition).

Mr Broughton outlined in detail the points raised by Miss Parker, in particular measures to mitigate exacerbation of traffic problems; inadequacies of the consultation process; inadequate signage to show Elms Road was a dead end; the inexplicable links between the congestion issues and the development and the apparent passing of responsibility to the school and residents to try and overcome these issues.  He also addressed the issues raised in the petition namely responsibility for traffic wardens and enforcement of double yellow lines and zig zag restrictions; new signing and future consultation.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Johnston, seconded by Councillor Cherry and carried 8 votes to 0)that planning permission be approved for Application R3.0061/13 subject to the following conditions:

·              Detailed Compliance with approved plans and details

·              Development to be carried out within three years

·              School Travel Plan to be updated prior to occupation.

·              Construction Management Plan to be approved prior to the development taking place, and then implemented.

·              Drainage scheme to be agreed

·              Provision of an additional no through road sign to be funded by the school.

Informative – that the school consults with the medical centre, local County Councillor and residents to discuss use of the car park during the school drop off and pick up times

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN9).

This is a planning application to consolidate the existing school facilities, provide a school hall and better external play areas and comes before Committee because of objections on traffic grounds, aesthetics, potential flooding and potential noise disturbance.  The report also assesses other policy and material considerations, such as the general; presumption in favour of such development, and the effect on the Conservation Area.

It is RECOMMENDED that application R3.0110/13 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) but to include the following:

1.                  Development to be commenced within 3 years of the date of permission.

2.                  Development to be built in accordance with the plans and details of the development.

3.                  Within one year of the date of this permission a School Travel plan to include within it provision for disabled parking and management of the use of the School Lane access.

4.                  Prior to the development taking place a drainage scheme to be submitted and approved.

5.                  Prior to commencement of the development a Construction Traffic Management Plan to be submitted and approved.

6.                  That the MUGA shall only be used as a school play area, and only during normal school times.

7.                  Prior to the commencement of the development. details of the polytunnel to be submitted for approval

The Committee considered (PN9) an application to consolidate existing school facilites by providing a school hall and better external play areas.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Lilly, seconded by Councillor Handley and carried nem con) that application R3.0110/13 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) but to include the following:

1.                  Development to be commenced within 3 years of the date of permission.

2.                  Development to be built in accordance with the plans and details of the development.

3.                  Within one year of the date of this permission a School Travel plan to include within it provision for disabled parking and management of the use of the School Lane access.

4.                  Prior to the development taking place a drainage scheme to be submitted and approved.

5.                  Prior to commencement of the development a Construction Traffic Management Plan to be submitted and approved.

6.                  That the MUGA should only be used as a school play area, and only during normal school times.

7.                  Prior to the commencement of the development. details of the polytunnel to be submitted for approval