Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 20 October 2014 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 October 2014 were approved and signed.

Minute 33/14 – Chairman’s Updates

At the last meeting Mr Periam had undertaken to circulate to members of the Committee a breakdown of costs awarded against the Council following the successful appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission at the Sutton Courtenay Waste Management Site.  However, he had been unable to do so but would circulate the figures within the next week.

Councillor Bartholomew referred to recent problems regarding the notice given for site visits and suggested that an earlier indication could be given when officers circulated the draft agenda.

The Chairman confirmed that arrangements for visits were under review..

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

The application site has previously been worked (for sand & gravel extraction and subsequent infilling) but is now restored. The application area covers 3.3 ha including the existing permitted site to which variations of conditions are proposed, with the extension area covering 1.8 ha and includes the existing recycled aggregates plant and the field immediately to its north-west which is currently rough grassland.             The proposed extension area would be used to provide more space for the crushing and screening operations that are necessary to provide the full range of recycled products required by the applicant’s customers and to the high quality demanded. The proposed extension and amendments, including the importation of 20,000 tonnes per annum of road sweepings (5,000 tonnes) and waste asphalt and planings (15,000 tonnes), would not lead to any increase in the overall permitted throughput of 100,000 tonnes of waste imported per annum or vehicle movements. The site would operate between the hours of 7.00 am and 6.00 pm Mondays to Fridays and 7.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturdays as for the existing permitted development.   Should planning permission be granted, the applicant would expect it to be time limited in accordance with the existing planning permission i.e. 31st December 2029 for expiration and 31st December 2030 for restoration. 33.The key planning issues are whether the development complies with policy on waste and also with environmental and amenity policies. The application site is partly a green field site located in the open countryside. I consider that the key planning issues to be considered are whether it is consistent with planning policy with regard to waste development, green field development, the open countryside and local landscape, amenity and traffic impacts.        

It is RECOMMENDED that Application MW.0003/14 (14/0142/P/CM) be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

i)             The development would be partly on a restored mineral extraction and landfill site and in the open countryside. It would neither maintain nor enhance the countryside for its own sake, would not be on a currently operational mineral extraction or landfill site and would not be on previously developed land contrary to the provisions of saved policy W4 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1996, saved policy NE1 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, paragraph 4 of the National Planning Policy for Waste and draft policy C6 of the Draft Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy.

ii)           The development would have an adverse impact on the amenity of users of the adjoining fishing lake contrary to saved policies W3 c), PE3 and PE 8 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1996, saved policy BE2 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy for Waste and draft policy C5 of the Draft Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy.

The Committee considered (PN6) an application to extend an existing aggregates recycling facility at Dix Pit, Stanton Harcourt.

Mr Periam presented the report, updated it with an addendum and responded to questions from:

Councillor Handley – given the height of the proposed bunds it was unlikely there would be a problem of water run-off into the lake or onto the bridlepath.

Councillor Greene – paragraph 5 of the report set out the detail regarding proximity of properties to the site.

He then explained the tabled photomontages and advised that the County’s landscape advisers had confirmed that the proposed landscaping would not adequately screen the site. That had prompted a revised recommendation (ii) which had been set out in the addenda and below:

(ii)       The development would not be easily assimilated into the landscape and could not be satisfactorily screened by additional landscape planting. It would have an adverse impact and so harm to the local landscape character of the area contrary to the provisions of saved policy PE18 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1996, saved policies NE3 and BE2 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, paragraph 7 and Appendix B of the National Planning Policy for Waste, draft policy C8 of the Draft Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy and draft policy 17 of the Draft West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2012.

Mr Basil confirmed his family had been the nearest residents to the Dix Pit site for 15 years and so felt able to judge the negative visual, noise and traffic impacts of the site. Despite the decision to allow this site on appeal it seemed the Inspector had had some sympathy with the concerns of the County Council setting out a long list of restrictions and conditions to mitigate against  operations at the site and whilst not agreeing with that decision he had accepted there was a balance to be struck between public need for facilities and their impact on the local community as demonstrated by the constraints placed on it by the Inspector. Therefore, he considered it wholly inappropriate for Sheehans to now seek to double the size of their facility and upset that balance. There would be increased visual and noise impact, additional planting was ineffective and on past performance the company were unlikely to comply with conditions against which the only positive seemed to be for the operator by establishing a more profitable site. He urged the Committee to reject the proposal.

Mrs Coyne queried the accuracy of the report stating that the extra area involved was in fact 1.1 hectares. The current site had been accepted on appeal in the countryside as no alternative urban sites had been identified. Indeed similar operations in the county were also on greenfield sites and were encouraged by national planning policy. There was a definite need for this facility as shown by the decision of the Inspector, which had also indicated that the original reasons for refusal had not been sound. There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39/14

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

This application is for the construction of a two storey residential children's home on an area of farmland outside of Thame. The building would provide short term accommodation for up to six young people aged between 12 and 17 who are at risk of entering the care system. The development is one of four proposed new children's home to enable more 'looked after' children to be accommodated within the County.

Objections have been received from Thame Town Council and CPRE and South Oxfordshire District Council have expressed significant concern about the location of the development in the countryside outside the built limits of the town.

There is some conflict with development plan policies aimed at protecting the countryside. However, these must be weighed against the need for the development which is proposed to meet a specific need and which is best met by a site outside of a town. The development is considered to be acceptable in terms of design, protection of amenity and highways.

The report describes why the proposals have been put forward and outlines the relevant planning policies along with the comments and recommendation.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application no. R3.0086/14 be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) to include the matters set out in Annex 1 to the report PN7 and to the submission of a satisfactory landscaping scheme.

The Committee considered (PN7) an application for the construction of a two-story residential children’s home on an area of farmland near Thame.

Also in attendance to answer questions were Jeremy Flawn – planning consultant for OCC Property & Facilities; Daniel Ruaux – Service Manager (acting) Children Education & Families and Matthew Edwards – Corporate Parenting Manager Children Education & Families

Presenting the report Mary Thompson confirmed that Thame Town Council had now withdrawn its objection.

Responding to questions from:

Councillor Handley who had raised issues of concern regarding the siting of the home and its suitability with regard to issues of integration within the community she confirmed that there was a footpath link with Thame but the home itself would function as an assessment centre and not a mainstream home.

Councillor Purse – the adjoining development was a farmhouse and the site was not in the flood plain.

Councillor Tanner – information regarding alternative sites which had been considered had been available on the Council’s website and also available to view at the meeting.

Responding to Councillor Bartholomew Mr Periam confirmed that land to the east of the application site had been identified in the Thame Plan but that this site was a green field site not designated in the Thame Plan for any development.

Responding to Councillor Phillips Mr Ruaux confirmed plans for four sites to provide a good geographical spread across the county and in addition to the one at Thame permission had been obtained for a site in Didcot with a third identified for Eynsham.  It was hoped to site the fourth in Witney, although that was still undergoing a viability study.

Responding to Councillor Cherry Mr Flawn confirmed parking provision on site had been agreed with the highway authority.

Councillor Tanner had some reservations regarding this development in the open countryside particularly having just refused an application for development in the open countryside elsewhere on this agenda. He recognised there was a need for these facilities but was worried that this could set a difficult precedent and felt further efforts should be made to find a brownfield site.  He moved that the application be refused on those grounds.  There was no seconder and the motion fell.

Councillor Greene then moved that the recommendation as printed in the officers report be approved. Seconding the motion Councillor Bartholomew pointed out that there were differences between this application and the previous one insofar as this site was on the borders of a village and contiguous to the village.

Councillor Purse still had some concerns although they had been reduced by Thame Town Council withdrawing its objection.

The motion was put to the Committee and –

RESOLVED: (by 10 votes to 1, Councillor Purse recorded as having abstained) that planning permission for application no. R3.0086/14 be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) to include the matters set out in Annex 1 to the report PN7 and to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40/14

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

This report updates members on the regular monitoring of minerals and waste planning permissions and on the progress of enforcement cases for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 October 2014.

All sites with planning permission are regularly visited on a formal basis and a written report produced following a site visit which is shared with the site occupant. Where elements of non-compliance with a consent are identified this can result in subsequent compliance with matters that are outstanding or in a planning application being made to regularise unauthorised activities on site.

Of all the sites, 66 fall within the remit of Government Regulations that allow the council to charge a fee for conditions monitoring, in that they relate directly to the winning and working of mineral permissions or directly to land filling permissions. The remaining non-chargeable sites include scrap yards, recycling operations, waste transfer stations, sewage works and composting operations.

The routine monitoring programme benefits the county's environment by increasing compliance with planning conditions, and in identifying and rectifying matters where conditions are not being complied with on all mineral and waste planning permissions.

It is RECOMMENDED that the Schedule of Compliance Monitoring Visits at Annex 1 and the Schedule of Enforcement Cases at Annex 2 to the report PN8 be noted.

The Committee considered (PN8) an update on the regular monitoring of minerals and waste planning permissions and progress of enforcement cases for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 October 2014.

Noted that L.C. Hughes Scrap Yard, London Road should have read Blackthorn and not Bicester as printed.

Councillor Handley drew attention to problems at the B&E Skips operation at 115 Brize Norton Road, Minster Lovell (page 69) following further recent development and activity as early as 6 am.  He asked if the number of visits could be increased and whether some of those could be unannounced. Also problems were being experienced with material on the approach road to Burford Quarry (page 69)

With regard to B&E Skips Mr Hodgkinson undertook to let Councillor Handley have details in relation to the conditions imposed on the site with regard to noise and noise monitoring and confirmed that officers did from time to time make unannounced visits. He would also check the condition regarding wheel washing at Burford Quarry.

With regard to Cornbury Park (page 69) Mr Hodgkinson confirmed it was a small agricultural quarry producing a small amount of stone for specific usage and as such was visited once annually.

Councillor Bartholomew - he confirmed there would be increased monitoring of the Dix Pit site (page 69).

Councillor Johnston raised the issue of Waterstock Golf Course (Annex 2, page 75) in the context of an email he had received from the owners. They were seeking confirmation regarding the exact location of the waste and the release of previous reports allegedly prepared by officers. He also advised that the owners had alleged that neither of them had been contacted by Council representatives for several months

Mr Hodgkinson advised that this matter was being dealt with as a freedom of information request and therefore any enquiries should be directed to the Head of Legal Services.

Mr Hodgkinson then showed some photographs regarding the current position at:

·                       the Controlled reclamation site at Dix Pit, Stanton Harcourt where there had been evidence of significant overtipping. Enforcement action had been taken and compliance with this would be reported to Committee in due course but he confirmed that in the meantime the situation would be monitored during the compliance period of two years to try and progress the matter.

·                       Ferris Hill Farm – unauthorised deposit of waste.

With regard to Castle Barn Quarry (Page 79) Mr Hodgkinson confirmed that the operators had started importing waste for crushing and then export, which was outside the permitted use. He was expecting an application to extend operations to come forward to the Committee.

Responding to Councillor Phillips he explained processes involved in the routine monitoring programme, including information on how to process a complaint, which was contained on the web.  Monitoring reports were available on request but not as yet via the website although it was hoped that that would be achieved in the same way as for planning applications.

The Chairman confirmed that in her experience  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41/14

Report by the County Solicitor and Head of Legal Services (PN9)

An application was made by the St Ebbes New Development Residents Association for registration of land at Oxpens Meadow in Oxford as a new town or village green under the Commons Act 2006. The landowner objected to this application and further submissions were made by the parties and Counsel's opinions obtained. Before the matter could be comprehensively investigated however, a compromise was reached involving the application land being registered as a Jubilee Field and the parties have by agreement requested that this application is withdrawn. The Council is the Commons Registration Authority and the Planning & Regulation Committee has delegated authority to determine such applications. The officer recommendation is therefore set out and the Committee requested to determine the application.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to REJECT the application for registration of the Oxpens Meadow, Oxford as described in the application by Mr Colin Bridger on behalf of the St Ebbes New Development Residents’ Association dated 29 September 2008 as a new town or village green pursuant to the Commons Act 2006, by consent of the Applicant and the landowner of the application land.

The Committee considered (PN9) an application made by the St Ebbes New Development Residents Association for registration of land at Oxpens Meadow in Oxford as a new town or village green under the Commons Act 2006. The landowner had objected to the application and further submissions were then made by the parties and Counsel's opinions obtained. However, before the matter could be comprehensively investigated a compromise had been reached involving the application land being registered as a Jubilee Field and the parties had by agreement requested that the application be withdrawn. As the Commons Registration Authority the Council needed to determine such applications through the Planning & Regulation Committee which had delegated authority.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Greene, seconded by Councillor Johnston and carried unanimously) toREJECT the application for registration of the Oxpens Meadow, Oxford as described in the application by Mr Colin Bridger on behalf of the St Ebbes New Development Residents’ Association dated 29 September 2008 as a new town or village green pursuant to the Commons Act 2006, by consent of the Applicant and the landowner of the application land.