Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Richard Webber (Deputy Chair), Councillor Felix Bloomfield, and Councillor Stefan Gawrysiak.

There were no Declarations of Interest.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 28 February 2022 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

There was one amendment to the minutes, as follows –

Item 7/22: Faringdon Quarry

Councillor Bennett noted that he had left the meeting before the Committee considered Agenda Item No. 7: Faringdon Quarry. Therefore, the number of votes in favour of approving the application, as set out on Page 8 of the minutes, should be 11 and not 12.

Subject to that amendment, the Committee approved the minutes of the meeting of 28 February 2022 and authorised the Chair to sign them as a correct record.

For hybrid meetings:

Members of the public who wish to speak at this meeting can attend the meeting in person or “virtually” through an online connection.  In line with current Government advice, those attending the meeting in person are asked to consider wearing a face-covering.

Normally requests to speak at this public meeting are required by 9.00 am on the day preceding the published date of the meeting. However, during the current situation and to facilitate “hybrid” meetings we are asking that requests to speak are submitted by no later than 9.00 am four working days before the meeting i.e., 9.00 am on DD MM 2022.  Requests to speak should be sent to:

cameron.maclean@oxfordshire.gov.uk

If you are speaking “virtually”, you may submit a written statement of your presentation to ensure that if the technology fails, then your views can still be considered. A written copy of your statement can be provided no later than 9 am 2 working days before the meeting. Written submissions should be no longer than 1 A4 sheet.

Representations had been received from the applicant and the applicant’s agent in respect of Item 6: Land at Quarry Farm North of Green Lane, Green Lane, Chipping Norton, Great Tew.

Report (PN5) by Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning

Application No: MW.0124/21

The modification of the approved restoration scheme through importation of inert soil material for nature conservation afteruses and the erection of 18 single storey holiday lodges with associated landscaping and car parking at Alkerton Quarry, Rattlecombe Road, Alkerton with Shennington, Oxfordshire.

Applicant: A.T. Contracting Ltd.

Parish: Wroxton (adjacent to Shennington with Alkerton)

Division: Wroxton and Hook Norton

RECOMMENDATION:

Subject to:

-        The final comments from the Environment Agency confirming they have no objection to the application; and

-        The applicant first entering into a Section 106 agreement and Routeing Agreement for the obligations set out in Annex 4;

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for MW.0124/21 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, to include those set out in Annex 1 [of the report].

The Committee considered a report by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning regarding the modification of the approved restoration scheme through importation of inert soil material for nature conservation afteruses and the erection of 18 single storey holiday lodges with associated landscaping and car parking at Alkerton Quarry, Rattlecombe Road, Alkerton with Shennington, Oxfordshire

Subject to:

(i)    The final comments from the Environment Agency confirming they have no objection to the application; and

(ii)   The applicant first entering into a Section 106 agreement and Routeing Agreement for the obligations set out in Annex 4; and

(iii) Subject to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, to include those set out in Annex 1 [of the report];

it was RECOMMENDED that planning permission for MW.0124/21 be approved.

Mary Hudson, Principal Planning Officer, Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, presented the report that was before the Committee.

In response to a Member’s question, Mary Hudson stated that, at the time of writing the report, the Environment Agency, which had objected to the application, had yet to submit a reply in response to additional information provided by the applicant.

David Periam stated that, if the Committee was minded to approve the recommendation set out in the report, the committee would be delegating authority to officers to issue the permission subject to the Environment Agency confirming that they no longer objected to the application. If the Environment Agency maintained its objection, officers would bring the application back to the Committee.

In response to a further question, Mr Periam stated that the application had been brought before the Committee because it had been called in by the local Member, and because the next scheduled meeting of the Committee was not until 6 June. Accordingly, the recommendation had been framed in such a way as to allow the matter to progress should the Environment Agency withdraw its objection to the application.

As there were no more questions for officers, the Chair asked if Members wished to debate the application. As there was no response from Members, the Chair asked if any member wished to move that the Committee approve the recommendation as set out in the report before the Committee.

Motion

That the Committee approve the recommendation as set out in the report.

Moved by Councillor Constance. Seconded by Councillor Edosomwan.

The votes cast were, as follows:

For:                    7

Against:              0

Abstentions:       0

RESOLVED: subject to -

(i)    The final comments from the Environment Agency confirming they have no objection to the application;

(ii)   The applicant first entering into a Section 106 agreement and Routeing Agreement for the obligations set out in Annex 4 [of the report]; and

(iii) Subject to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, to include those set out in Annex 1 [of the report],

to approve Planning Permission for Application MW.0124/21.

Report (PN5) by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning

Application Nos: MW.0100/21 and MW.102/21

1.   Extraction of limestone and deposit of imported clay to achieve an agricultural restoration (part retrospective) Land at Quarry Farm North of Green Lane, Green Lane, Chipping Norton, Great Tew, Oxfordshire; and

2.   Temporary Change of Use to Mineral Processing and Storage Area 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 date for restoration and allow the importation of inert material at Enstone Airfield North, Land at Enstone Airfield North, Banbury Road, Enstone, Oxfordshire.

Applicant: Great Tew Farms Partnership

Parishes: Great Tew and Enstone

Division: Chipping Norton

RECOMMENDATION: That applications MW.0100/21 and MW.0102/21 be approved. 

The Committee considered a report by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning RECOMMENDING that planning permission for Application No’s: MW.0100/21 and MW.102/21:

(i)    Extraction of limestone and deposit of imported clay to achieve an agricultural restoration (part retrospective) Land at Quarry Farm North of Green Lane, Green Lane, Chipping Norton, Great Tew, Oxfordshire; and

(ii)   Temporary Change of Use to Mineral Processing and Storage Area 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 date for restoration and allow the importation of inert material at Enstone Airfield North, Land at Enstone Airfield North, Banbury Road, Enstone, Oxfordshire;

be approved.

The report was presented by Matthew Case, Senior Planning Officer. Mr Case noted changes to the proposed conditions set out in the report.

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

(a)  During a monitoring visit in April of last year, it was noted that materials were being extracted from the area. Officers issued a “Temporary Stop Notice” and entered discussions with the applicant. Pursuant to those discussions, the applicant agreed to submit the present planning applications.

(b)  If the Committee was not minded to approve the applications, consideration would have to be given to taking appropriate enforcement action.

(c)   The applications had been made because officers were of the view that the activities of the applicant constituted unauthorised development.

(d)  The reasons for the delay in determining the applications included objections received in response to formal and informal consultation on various issues including archaeological, landscape, biodiversity, and transport elements of the application. In response to the objections, the applicant had amended the proposed restoration scheme and landscape assessment. In addition, there had been discussion on proposed conditions, including appropriate safety signage.

(e)  The Mullin development to build a large permanent motor museum on Enstone Airfield, south-east of the site of the current application, had been granted outline planning permission by West Oxford District Council. As the current application was for a temporary development which would be restored to an agricultural field, officers were of the view that they could not support a requirement for a bridleway as part of the Mullin development to make the current application acceptable.

(f)    Initial reservations by the Highway Authority about the application had been resolved by the inclusion of appropriate signage in the proposed conditions and officers were satisfied that it was not necessary to require a Routeing Agreement to make the impacts of the development acceptable.

(g)  The Transport Officer had approved the proposed signage as a condition of the planning approval which would be enforceable and subject to monitoring by officers carrying out site inspections.

(h)  Green Lane was a tarmac road with passing places that was part of the highway, and which was sufficiently wide to allow motorised and non-motorised users, including coaches and lorries from the quarry,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27/22

The Paper (PN7) sets out policies in relation to Items 5 and 6 and should be regarded as an Annex to each report.

NOTED