Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor George Reynolds deputised for Councillor Matelot as Deputy Chairman for the meeting.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 27 November 2017 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 November 2017 were approved and signed subject to amending Councillor Matthew in line 6 of paragraph 6 Minute 48/17 to read Councillor Mathew.

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN6).

This application seeks to increase the maximum tonnage permitted to be imported to Ardley Energy Recovery Facility from 300,000 tonnes per year to 326,300 tonnes per year and is being reported to the Planning & Regulation committee because it is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment and there has been an objection from Bucknell Parish Council who object to the principle of changing conditions on the consent and the fact that an increased tonnage would exacerbate existing impacts from the plant.

There have been no objections from other parish councils or consultees and no third-party representations received.

The proposed increase to the tonnage is considered to accord with development plan policy and other material considerations. Impacts arising from the development are controlled by conditions on the consent.

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to a supplementary legal agreement to ensure that the provisions of the existing Section 106 and routeing agreements are carried forward that planning permission for Application  MW.0085/17 be approved subject to conditions as on consent MW.0044/08 amended as set out in Annex 1 to the report PN5.

The Committee considered (PN6) an application to increase the maximum tonnage permitted to be imported to Ardley Energy Recovery Facility from 300,000 tonnes per year to 326,300 tonnes per year

Mary Thompson presented the report.

Chris Herbert commended the proposal and responded to questions from:

Councillor Phillips – the application was more about flexibility in tonnage now that the plant was fully operational and consistency with the maximum tonnage of 326,000 as allowed on the environmental permit.

Referring to the concerns expressed by Bucknell Parish Council and the views of many who still considered that the plant should not have been sited in this location at all Councillor Reynolds recognised that the increase was small and so moved the officer recommendation as set out in the report. Councillor Johnston seconded the motion which was then put to the Committee and -

RESOLVED: (unanimously) that subject to a supplementary legal agreement to ensure that the provisions of the existing Section 106 and routeing agreements were carried forward that planning permission for Application  MW.0085/17 be approved subject to conditions as on consent MW.0044/08 amended as set out in Annex 1 to the report PN6.

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN7).

This application is to increase the amount of waste imported to the existing Dix Pit Recycled Aggregates Facility from 100,000 to 175,000 tonnes per calendar year through a variation of condition 6 of planning permission no. 16/04166/CM (MW.0140/16). No other changes to the existing conditions are proposed.

The update report to this Committee follows deferral of the application at its meeting on 27 November 2017 to allow for further negotiation with the applicant.

The development accords with the Development Plan as a whole and with individual policies within it, as well as with the NPPF. It is considered to be sustainable development in terms of environmental, social and economic terms. The proposed development would be beneficial in terms of contributing towards Oxfordshire’s supply of secondary aggregate and it is considered that any potential impacts can be adequately addressed through planning conditions and the routeing agreement which prohibits HGVs associated with the site passing along the B4449 through Sutton during peak hours which will continue to apply.

The Planning & Regulation Committee is RECOMMENDED that:

(a)       Application MW.0073/13 be approved subject to:

(i)         the existing conditions including the amendment made under Non-material amendment application no. MW.00889/1 to condition 6 reading as follows:

          No more than 175,000 tonnes of waste shall be imported to the site in any calendar year. Records of imports, sufficient to be monitored by the Waste Planning Authority shall be kept on site and made available to the Waste Planning Authority's officers on request. Separate records shall be kept on site of any topsoil or other soil materials imported solely for use in the restoration of the Controlled Reclamation Site permitted subject to planning permission no. MW.0141/16 (16/04159/CM); and

(ii)       an additional condition requiring that the operator’s records of heavy goods vehicle movements to and from the site including daily traffic numbers and tracking details for those vehicles controlled by the operator be provided to the Waste Planning Authority on a quarterly basis.

(b)       that the Chairman of the Planning & Regulation Committee write to the Cabinet Member for Environment advising that provision of the Sutton Bypass has been raised by Councillor Mathew in commenting on this application and advising of the applicant’s expression of interest in working with other parties to help secure it.

The Committee considered PN7 an application to increase the amount of waste imported to the existing Dix Pit Recycled Aggregates Facility from 100,000 to 175,000 tonnes per calendar year through a variation of condition 6 of planning permission no. 16/04166/CM (MW.0140/16). No other changes to the existing conditions had been proposed.  This matter had been deferred at the 27 November 2017 meeting to allow further negotiation with the applicant.

Mr Periam presented the report together with the addenda sheet tabled at the meeting.

The Committee also noted a late submission from the residents of Deans Farmhouse, Evergreen Cottage, Tudor Cottage and The Green all objecting to any increase in the already high volume of HGVs on a road which they considered not fit for that type of traffic.

Responding to Councillor Johnston Mr Periam confirmed that the applicants had not been prepared to consider a staged approach to the proposed  increase in vehicle movements to the site for the reasons set out in paragraph 2 of the officer report.

Mr Salmon for the applicants advised that the application supported Council policy on recycling, production of secondary aggregates and maximum diversion of waste from landfill. The route to the site followed a designated lorry route and a recent traffic consultancy report had shown that impact on Sutton village from this increase would not be as severe as had been suggested. Although there were currently over 3,000 daily movements on the road the predicted number of additional vehicles to or from Dix Pit as a result of this application would equate to one every ¼ hour with none of the extra vehicles in any event travelling through Sutton. Similarly, as the number of vehicle movements resulting from the application were considered insignificant the applicant felt any need to agree a staged increase was impractical.  Sheehans were happy to comply with conditions requiring information and notification of any breaches of the routeing agreement every 3 months and had also agreed a contribution of £5,000 towards a feasibility study to determine the most effective way to improve highway safety. Contrary to what had been suggested Sheehans took its role regarding local amenity and safety seriously. They were accredited under the Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme and trained their drivers to a high standard. They had an exemplary safety record and adhered to the routeing agreement to avoid Sutton during peak hours despite the alternative route requiring a 20 mile diversion, which was both time consuming and environmentally costly and not required by other operators who used the site. Sutton village was not a typical village centre but had 24 residences spaced out on both sides of the road, over a distance of 600 meters, and set well back from the road itself. It had a 30 mph speed limit with adequate signing and 2 HGVs were able to pass each other. The County Council’s own highways department considered the road acceptable as a local lorry route. Therefore, bearing in mind that the application supported Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5/18

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN8).

This is for two planning applications at and near to existing waste operations in the Green Belt at Worton, near Yarnton and Cassington. One proposal (MW.0091/17) seeks to remove part of a bund on land within the existing waste recycling permission to create car parking. The second proposes the permanent retention of a temporary skip storage operation.

Both applications are in the Green Belt and therefore have to be reported to this committee because they are departures from the development plan.

The report outlines the relevant planning policies along with the comments and recommendation of the Director for Planning and Place.

The main issue with the applications are their Green Belt location. In the case of MW.0091/17 it is considered that very special circumstances exist for the application and therefore the recommendation is to approve. However, in the case of MW.0090/17 it is not considered that very special circumstances have been shown and the recommendation is to refuse.

It is RECOMMENDED that:

(a)         planning permission for application no. MW.0091/17 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning and Place to include the following:

-               Detailed Compliance

-               Development to be carried out within 3 years.

-               Details of landscaping to be approved.

-               Details and location of at least two bat and bird boxes to be approved.

-               Drainage details to be approved.

-               Permitted development rights removed.

(b)         planning permission for application no MW.0090/17 be refused. It would be inappropriate development in the Oxford Green Belt and no very special circumstances to justify making an exception had been demonstrated. The application would therefore be contrary to policy C12 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, policy ESD 14 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2031 and National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 87, 88 and 90.

The Committee considered two planning applications at and near to existing waste operations in the Green Belt at Worton, near Yarnton and Cassington. One (MW.0091/17) sought to remove part of a bund on land within the existing waste recycling permission to create car parking. The second proposed the permanent retention of a temporary skip storage operation.

Mr Broughton advised on an amendment to the plan at page 59 and then presented the applications.

Application MW.0091/17

On behalf of the applicants Mrs Coyne welcomed the officer recommendation for approval but not the proposed removal of permitted development rights, particularly as that had not been recommended in 2007. There was no clear justification now to recommend its removal which she considered would be unlawful and advised that the applicants would appeal that decision if agreed. She had raised this issue with officers in July 2017 but had received no response. There were in any event limitations and controls on what could be built and the principle of the development could not be changed, which is why removal was being opposed.

Mr Mytton advised that officers considered removal of the permitted development rights condition met the 6 tests as set out in the NPPF and it was incorrect to suggest that because this condition for removal hadn’t been attached before that it couldn’t be now on the basis of what might have changed. It was the officer view that the proposed bund removal and car parking constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt and removal of permitted development rights would not materially alter the development.

Mrs Coyne then responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston – there was case law on this point and in the applicant’s view the removal of permitted development rights condition fundamentally changed the development and there was no justification for it.

Councillor Fox-Davies – she confirmed that the applicants were satisfied with conditions 1 – 3 but not 4.

Councillor Reynolds – her clients were doing a good job in managing the recycling operation at this site and a proposed extension was urgently required in order to maintain those levels of excellence.

Councillor Reynolds felt that it would be open to the applicant to apply separately for the necessary permission and on that basis moved the revised recommendation as set out in the addenda sheet.  Councillor Johnston seconded the motion.

Councillor Sames did not consider the proposed changes constituted inappropriate development.

Councillor Gawrysiak accepted the legal advice given by county officers.

Councillor Webber reminded members that the threat of appeal was not a material planning consideration.

The motion was then put to the Committee and carried by 8 votes to 5. See resolution (a) below.

Mr Broughton then presented application MW.0090/17.

Suzi Coyne referred to the email that she had sent to members of the Committee prior to the meeting explaining that the application for the storage of skips was an essential part of the waste recycling operation at this site. In the normal course of things there would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6/18