Agenda and minutes

 

Apology for absence	Temporary Appointment
Councillor Neil Owen	Councillor David Wilmshurst

 

Councillor Lilly declared a personal interest in respect of Item 6 (Harwell Campus) in sofar as he was a joint local member for the application site.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2013 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2013 were approved and signed.

Speaker	Item
Dr John Sharp (East Hendred Parish Council) Terry Joslin Andy Staples (RSRL) Richard Lightowlers (RSRL) Kevin Gleeson (Agent for RSRL) Dr Matthew Clarke (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority) Councillor Iain Brown (Local Member)	) ) ) ) 6. Harwell Campus – )Application No. MW.0183/12 ) ) ) )
Robert Ryan (Viridor) Ginny Dalrymple (Architect, Viridor)	) 7. Ardley Landfill Site – Application ) MW.0139/12
Michael Robarts (Wroxton with Balscote Parish Council)	9. Wroxton Fields Quarry

 

 

Revocation of South East Plan 

 

The Committee were advised that a laid order in Parliament due to come into effect on 25 March 2013 would revoke the South East Plan and that effectively all policies after that date, except for some specific policies relating to the former Upper Heyford air base would cease to exist.  In the meantime all policies would remain a material consideration but that any weight attached to them when considering applications should be substantially decreased.

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) (PN6)

 

This application is for a new Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) storage facility at Harwell Oxford Campus, to provide temporary safe storage for the solid ILW arising from the decommissioning of RSRL’s facilities at Harwell (Oxfordshire) and Winfrith (Dorset) and the JET (Joint European Torus) facility at Culham (Oxfordshire) and is being reported to this Committee as objections have been received to the proposal.

 

The report describes why the proposals have been put forward, outlines the consultation responses to the application and sets out relevant planning policies along with the comments and recommendation of the Deputy Director (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) on the proposal.

 

The principle of locating an interim ILW storage facility at Harwell is supported by Government strategies and the emerging Oxfordshire Mineral and Waste Core strategy (OMWCS). The national need for ILW storage capacity coupled with the site’s location and minimum transportation constitutes the exceptional circumstances to locate this development in the AONB. Any potential impacts from the proposed development would not be significant and could be adequately controlled by conditions.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to a routeing agreement to ensure that vehicles related to this development follow specific routes proposed in the application that Application No. MW.0183/12 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) to include the following matters:

 

(1)               Complete accordance with approved plans;

(2)               Commencement within 3 years;

(3)               The ILW store shall be removed and the site restored by 2064.

(4)               The ILW store shall only be used for the storage of Intermediate Level Waste materials arising from Harwell, Culham and Winfrith;

(5)               No radioactive waste from Winfrith shall be brought to Harwell until a set amount of radioactive waste from Harwell has been moved to Sellafield;

(6)               No processing of waste on site

(7)               Construction operations (including the manoeuvring, loading or unloading of vehicles) shall only take place between the hours of:

·                    07:00 - 18:00 hours  Monday to Friday

·                    07:00 - 18:00 hours  Saturdays

·                    07:00 - 14:00 hours Sundays and Bank Holidays;

(8)               Measures to be taken to prevent the deposit of  mud and dust on the  highway;

(9)               All vehicles, plant and machinery operated within the site shall be fitted with and use effective silencers;

(10)          Submission of a scheme to deal with risks associated with the contamination of the site;

(11)          Submission of verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy;

(12)          No piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods;

(13)          No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground  from vehicle delivery areas;

(14)           No night working;

(15)          Submission of a detailed landscaping planting scheme prior to commencement of development;

(16)          No works of decommissioning until submission of an updated ecological survey;

(17)          Submission of a 5 year aftercare scheme for biodiversity enhancement within 1 year of commencement of development;

(18)          Submission of samples of all external materials for  ...  view the full agenda text for item 11/13

The Committee considered an application for a new intermediate level waste (ILW) storage facility at Harwell Oxford Campus for the temporary safe storage for solid ILW arising from the decommissioning of RSRL’s facilities at Harwell (Oxfordshire) and Winfrith (Dorset) and the JET (Joint European Torus) facility at Culham (Oxfordshire).

 

Taufiq Islam confirmed that capacity at Sellafield was sufficient only for waste produced at that site with not extra capacity for waste from Winfrith.  He referred to the addenda sheet which detailed amendments to paragraph 17 and Condition 19 and set out comments from the county’s arboricultural officer who, having considered the tree survey submitted by the applicant to be acceptable had raised no objection.

 

Dr Sharp confirmed that East Hendred Parish Council had not objected to the element of this application which referred to storage of waste produced in Oxfordshire but had, as indeed had other parish councils in the area and the CPRE, objected to the importation of waste from Winfrith. That seemed to be driven by financial interests as a consequence of which the storage complex at Harwell was larger than it needed to be. It was felt that there was spare capacity at Sellafield and the full implications of the proposal had not been fully addressed.  There was no direct benefit to be gained by the local community from this proposal which would have waste stored within its environs for the next 50 years.

 

Terry Joslin considered the proposal integral to the civic expansion of the campus site.  Waste had been stored very securely on site for a long time without serious incident and the proposal to transfer benign waste onto the site meant that other sites could revert to green field status.  In economic terms Harwell was a significant focal point for the region. In planning terms this application had been scrutinised by officers, received a lot of support but only 4 objections.  Harwell had been a high level site for 65 years and the fears which had been expressed were unfounded and the national interest would not be best served if the application was refused.

 

Kevin Gleeson advised that work on this project had been ongoing for 2 years and would allow for the decommissioning and development of the campus site.  Any potential impact would be subject to tight controls and he endorsed the view put forward in the officers report (paragraph 69) regarding a justifiable case for importing waste rather than building 3 separate storage units.  Planning conditions would limit import of waste. Impact on the AONB had been fully considered and a case had been made for exceptional circumstances to build within the AONB.  The case for importing waste had been fully considered and endorsed by the nuclear decommissioning authority.

 

Andy Staples advised that Sellafield would be used to some extent. However,  providing one store would enable the complete closure of Winfrith and other sites and represented the best use of the national infrastructure in order to deal with this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11/13

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

 

This is a ‘details pursuant’ application providing details required by a condition on an existing planning consent. Condition 33 on the planning permission for an Energy from Waste plant at Ardley landfill site requires that the applicant provide details of the external materials for the building, for approval by the Waste Planning Authority. The applicant has submitted samples of the materials that they intend to use. However, the material proposed for the roof has caused local concern and is not considered appropriate in the rural context. Therefore, it is recommended that the application is refused.

It is RECOMMENDED that Application MW.0139/12 be refused as inappropriate on a large building in the rural context of the application site contrary to the provisions of CLP policies C6 and C28, OMWCS policies C3 and C6, and the guidance with regard to good design set out in paragraphs 17 and 56 of the NPPF.

 

 

 

 

The Committee resumed following an adjournment for 5 minutes to allow Members of the Committee to view alternative roofing materials in an adjoining room.

 

The Committee then considered a ‘details pursuant’ application providing details required by condition on an existing planning consent granted by the Secretary of State for an Energy from Waste plant at Ardley landfill site. Condition 33 to that permission had required that the applicant provide details of external materials for the building for approval by the Waste Planning Authority. There was no statutory requirement to consult on such details but as the Ardley Energy from Waste plant had represented a major development it had been considered appropriate to do so and a consultation exercise was undertaken with local County Councillors and Parish Councils. Concerns had been raised locally regarding the appropriateness of the material proposed for the roof within the site’s rural context and these had in turn been brought to the Committee for consideration.

 

Robert Ryan and Ginny Dalrymple (Viridor) addressed the Committee.  Mr Ryan set out some of the history of the development and proposals for its future operational life.  He suggested that the uncoated material represented the best option and although it would shine at first it would weather over a period of 16 – 24 months. His company fully acknowledged local concerns regarding the proposed material and had provided alternatives for the Committee to examine.  It was an option to select a pre-weathered material but as the photomontages showed there was little difference between weathered and painted materials and he suggested the grey alternative would be the most suitable of those.

 

Ginny Dalrymple then took the Committee through each of the photomontages.

 

Mr Ryan and Ms Dalrymple then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Crabbe – there was no significant difference in cost between the various options.

 

Councillor Hayward – there had been general support for the greyer material option at other facilities.

 

Councillor Hannaby – there would be significant difference in maintenance between the stucco embossed option at zero maintenance and the painted option, which would require a maintenance regime with the paint finish guaranteed for 15 years. An annual clean would then be required and that would have inevitable health and safety consequences for maintenance operatives.

 

Councillor Mrs Fulljames pointed out that the word ‘green’ in line 2 of paragraph 10 of the report should have read ‘grey’.  She then referred to strong local concerns regarding the proposed material and confirmed that local councils had not had an opportunity to comment on the alternative  options. 

 

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Mrs Fulljames, seconded by Councillor Greene and carried unanimously) to defer consideration of Application MW.0139/12 to enable further consultation with local parish councils on available alternative roof materials/finishes for determination at the 15 April 2013 meeting of the Planning & Regulation Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deferred to enable further consultation with local parish councils on available alternatives and report back to the 15 April 2013 meeting of the Planning & Regulation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12/13

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

 

The report describes the proposed extension to this primary school in relation to its context and surrounding land uses as well as setting out the need for it. It lists the relevant policies including those raised by the sole objector, the City Council but concludes that the flat-roofed extension would not detract from the character of the area and is entirely appropriate within its context, and that it would not therefore, in officers’’ opinions, be contrary to these policies in the development plan.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be approved for Application R3.0158/12 subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) but to include the following:

 

1.         The development shall be carried out solely in accordance with details submitted with the application.

2.         Matching materials as specified.

3.         Construction in accordance with specification set out in the FRA.

4.         Protection of adjacent tree Root Protection Area.

 

 

Informative:

Contractor traffic movements, parking and deliveries will need to take account of the narrow and tight nature of residential streets and on-street parking restrictions in the vicinity of the School.  This is in the interest of safety for all highway users including the School.

 

 

The Committee considered (PN8) an application for a proposed extension to the school in the light of an objection from the City Council.

 

Councillor Tanner would have preferred to see a sloping rather than a flat roof in order for the building to complement the surrounding street scene.

 

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Stratford, seconded by Councillor Hannaby and carried by 11 votes to 4) that planning permission be approved for Application R3.0158/12 subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) but to include the following:

 

1.         The development should be carried out solely in accordance with details submitted with the application.

2.         Matching materials as specified.

3.         Construction in accordance with specification set out in the FRA.

4.         Protection of adjacent tree Root Protection Area.

 

 

Informative:

Contractor traffic movements, parking and deliveries would need to take account of the narrow and tight nature of residential streets and on-street parking restrictions in the vicinity of the School.  This was in the interest of safety for all highway users including the School.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved

Due notice having been given by Councillor George Reynolds under Standing Order 7(d) the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) will report orally.

The Committee considered a matter raised by Councillor George Reynolds under Standing Order 7(d) regarding the importation of over 40,000 cu metres of extraneous material to the Wroxton Fields Quarry.

 

Councillor Reynolds outlined the history regarding this matter and expressed concerns on several levels regarding the amount of material imported, secrecy, health hazards and planning aspects.  The secrecy aspect had been bound to give rise to local suspicion and although there had been undertakings given that there was no health hazard there was still a worry not least of which was that the material would contain heavy metals and consequently anything grown on that land could not be used for human consumption for some years. He asked for clarification as to whether the importation needed planning permission and if so why no application had been submitted and if not then it was imperative to offer some protection to local communities in these instances.

 

Michael Robarts  (Wroxton with Balscote Parish Council) advised that the material was extremely unpleasant and smelly and importation had been directly licensed by the Environment Agency with no reference to the planning authority and no local consultation undertaken.  There seemed to be an obvious gap in the planning system.  The restoration plan for the site, as approved by the Mineral Planning Authority in 2002 had not mentioned biosolids.  He questioned the motive for importation as expressed by Bennies who had stated it had been for soil enrichment although they had accepted payment for doing so.  He reiterated the comment by Councillor Reynolds that no crops could be grown on it for two years.  The Parish Council considered there should be safeguards against this sort of activity, particularly for this area bearing in mind the imminent consideration of the Shenington ROMP.

 

Mr Broughton confirmed that there was no record of any consultation by the Environment Agency and health issues were within that Agency’s remit.  With regard to planning issues it was possible that there had been a technical breach of conditions as one of the conditions attached to this site had concerned soil improvement with particular reference to artificial fertilisers.  He was not able to comment on the motive for importation but it seemed inevitable that there was some financial aspect involved and that technically planning permission was required.

 

There was general concern amongst members regarding the lack of consultation and that the matter should be taken up with the Environment Agency in the strongest terms.

 

RESOLVED: that officers be requested to write to the Environment Agency in the strongest terms expressing dismay at the lack of consultation on this matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Officers requested to write to the Environment Agency expressing dismay at the lack of consultation on this matter.