There were no apologies for absence, and no temporary appointments were made by the Committee.

There were no Declarations of Interest.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2021 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The Committee approved the minutes of the meeting of 29 November 2021 and authorised the Chair to sign them as a correct record.

The following matter arose out of consideration of the minutes.

Page 2: Item 26/21 Minutes [of the meeting of 6 September 2021]

Paragraph 2: “Minute 21/21 – Serving of the Prohibition Order for the Review of the Mineral Planning Permission (ROMP) at Thrupp Farm and Thrupp Lane, Radley.

David Periam, Development Management Team Leader, Strategic Infrastructure & Planning, stated that, in response to requests by Radley Parish Council (“the Parish Council”) for further discussions with Council officers, the Chair had replied to say that the Council was not willing to enter discussions as the matter would be the subject of further consideration by the Committee in July 2022.

Mr Periam noted that, following the reply by the Chair to the Parish Council, there had been further correspondence from the Parish Council about the legal complexities of the matter and a request that the Council reconsider the Parish Council’s request for discussions with officers.

Mr Periam stated that, as the position had not changed since the Chair’s reply to the Parish Council (PC), it was his recommendation that a response be sent informing the PC that its request had been raised with the Planning & Regulation Committee (“the Committee”) but the Committee’s position remained the same as set out in the Chair’s reply to the PC.

The Clerk to the Committee stated that no Petitions or Requests to Address the Committee had been received.

[The Clerk subsequently corrected himself and stated that a request had been received from Mr Antony Cook of David Jarvis Associates to address the Committee on Agenda Item 6: Castle Barn Quarry].

There were no updates by the Chair.

Report (PN6) by Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning.

1.     Application 1: MW.0057/21

Importation of inert material for use in restoration of the site

2.     Application 2 MW.0058/21

Section 73 application to continue the development of limestone quarry extension permitted by 18/02008/CM (MW.0027/18) without complying with condition 1, condition 2, condition 8 and condition 26 in order to amend the approved restoration scheme, extend the end date for restoration and allow the importation of inert material

RECOMMENDATION

That applications MW.0057/21 and MW.0058/21 be refused. 

The Committee considered a report by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning recommending that the following applications be refused –

i.       MW.0057/21: importation of inert material for use in restoration of the site; and

ii.      MW.0058/21: Section 73 application to continue the development of limestone quarry extension permitted by 18/02008/CM (MW.0027/18) without complying with condition 1, condition 2, condition 8 and condition 26 in order to amend the approved restoration scheme, extend the end date for restoration and allow the importation of inert material.

Matthew Case, Senior Planning Officer, Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, presented the report that was before the Committee.

Representations on Behalf of the Applicant

Mr Antony Cook of David Jarvis Associates Ltd gave a presentation in support of the applications.

In response to questions by Members of the Committee, Mr Cook provided the following information.

(a)  Regarding the amount of construction waste generated within the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) vis-à-vis what would be imported from outside, Mr Cook stated that the volume [of inert waste] proposed was 118,000 m³. However, he had no further information on the volume of waste being generated.

(b)  Referring to the consented scheme, Mr Cook stated that the quarry had been overworked and there wasn’t sufficient material on the site for restoration purposes, and there was no consent to import material to the site.

[Mr Periam confirmed that the current consent did not provide for the importation of any material].

(c)   Concerning the number of lorry movements, Mr Cook stated that 58 lorry movements per day were permitted during the operation of the quarry and the same number of lorry movements were being sought for the proposed additional 18 months working.

(d)  Mr Cook stated that, for the purposes of the restoration, the application was for a three-year extension comprising 18 months of importation of materials and 18 months completing the restoration work.

(e)  In response to a question by the Chair, Mr Cook stated that Earthline Exchange Ltd [the potential infilling operator] had subsequently confirmed that, if they were to be carry out work at the site, they would operate within a much closer radius of the site as it was not cost-effective to haul inert materials long distances, particularly given increasing fuel costs.

The applicant stated that if the infilling operator had Castle Barn Quarry within their portfolio, they would focus on developments within Chipping Norton, Stow on the Wold, and nearby towns to ensure they could generate the material within a locally sourced area and were not hauling materials great distances.

(f)    Regarding the biodiversity net gain and who would create, manage, and monitor the scheme, and how this would be assured if the scheme was approved, Mr Cook stated there was an expectation there would be a Planning Condition requiring a detailed restoration and after-care scheme which would set out a five- or 10-year monitoring period. In addition, it was proposed that there would be annual monitoring of the scheme, in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6/22

Report (PN7) by Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning.

SUMMARY

Section 73 application to continue the development permitted by planning permission P16/V2331/CM (MW.0117/16) (Amend the working of phase 1a; Amend the restoration of the site; Amend lighting details; Change the site name and signage details to “Faringdon Quarry”) without complying with condition 2 to extend the dates for completion of mineral extraction to 31/12/2034 and completion of restoration to 31/12/2035.

RECOMMENDATION

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for MW.0142/21 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director of Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, to include those set out in Annex 1.

The Committee considered a report by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning recommending that planning permission for MW.0142/21 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director of Strategic Infrastructure and Planning as set out in Annex 1 of the report.

The application comprised a Section 73 application to continue the development permitted by planning permission P16/V2331/CM (MW.0117/16) (Amend the working of phase 1a; Amend the restoration of the site; Amend lighting details; Change the site name and signage details to “Faringdon Quarry”) without complying with condition 2 to extend the dates for completion of mineral extraction to 31/12/2034 and completion of restoration to 31/12/2035.

The application was presented by Emma Bolster, Planning Officer.

In response to questions by Members of the Committee, officers provided the following information.

(a)  Regarding landbank statistics and the time it would take to extract the mineral reserves, it was reported that there was 16 years supply of soft stand and 11 years supply of sharp sand and gravel. Therefore, it was proposed that planning permission be maintained for the extraction of minerals already included in the landbank figures, where there was a minimum requirement of at least seven years.

(b)  Regarding objections in relation to non-compliance with the two routeing agreements, officers clarified the requirements of the current agreements, noting that there had been alleged breaches of concrete batching plant’s agreements.

It was noted that consideration had been given to installing cameras to monitor vehicles. However, given there were Planning Obligations in place, it was proposed that the existing routeing agreements could not easily be amended to include monitoring cameras.

The Legal officer confirmed that there may be some legal impediments to amending the agreement, as well as possible financial costs to the Council. In addition, there were practical difficulties in carrying out monitoring at locations that were some distance from the site of the quarry.

(c)   Regarding the use of a portable monitoring camera to ensure compliance with the routeing agreements, the Legal officer advised that there were restrictions on the use of surveillance cameras. Accordingly, it would be necessary to ensure that any use of a monitoring camera to enforce the routeing agreements would have to comply with any statutory provisions.

Mr Periam advised that officers look at the possibility of using a monitoring camera or cameras to enforce the existing routeing agreements but that he had no money in the Development Management Team’s budget to pay for such equipment.

At this stage in the proceedings, Councillor Constance moved that the recommendations, as set out in the report of the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, be approved. The motion was seconded by Councillor Edosomwan.

In the subsequent debate on the motion, it was proposed that a condition be added to the Planning Permission that each year the applicant provide information on the amounts of materials that had been extracted.

Councillor Constance amended her motion to include the proposed condition that the applicant be required to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7/22

Report (PN8) by Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report sets out the detail of a Dust Management and Monitoring Scheme which has been submitted for approval pursuant to conditions on three planning consents relating to Tarmac Trading Ltd.’s site in Banbury. The report also sets out the consultation responses received. There have been no objections to the submission from technical consultees and therefore it is considered that the scheme adequately protects amenity, in accordance with the purpose of attaching the conditions. Therefore, it is recommended that the submission is approved.

RECOMMENDATION

That the scheme submitted and registered as MW.0006/22, MW.0007/22 and MW.0008/22 is approved.

The Committee considered a report of the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning setting out the detail of a Dust Management and Monitoring Scheme which had been submitted for approval pursuant to conditions on three planning consents relating to Tarmac Trading Ltd.’s site in Banbury. The report also sets out the consultation responses received.

There had been no objections to the submission from technical consultees and, therefore, it was considered that the scheme adequately protected amenity in accordance with the purpose of the attached conditions.

It was RECOMMENDED that the scheme submitted and registered as MW.0006/22, MW.0007/22 and MW.0008/22 be approved.

The report was presented by Mary Hudson, principal Planning Officer, Strategic Infrastructure and Planning.

In the subsequent discussions it was noted that Banbury Town Council had requested that a timely response be sent to anyone who makes a complaint to the operator under the Complaints Procedure set out in the submission.

In response to a question by a Member of the Committee about where the monitoring would take place in relation to the nearby housing estate, Ms Hudson, referring to a satellite photograph of the site, identified the locations where it was proposed that monitoring would take place.

Councillor Bloomfield, seconded by Councillor Constance, moved that the Committee approve the recommendations set out in the report.

There was no debate on the motion, and it was the unanimous decision of the Committee to approve the report’s recommendations.

RESOLVED: That the scheme submitted and registered as MW.0006/22, MW.0007/22 and MW.0008/22 is approved.

The paper (PN9) sets out policies in relation to Items 6 to 8 and should be regarded as an Annex to each report.

The Committee had before, for information, it a paper by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning setting out the policies that were relevant to the applications that were before the Committee.

NOTED