Agenda, decisions and minutes

With regard to Item 6 (Land at Greenacre, Stanton Road, Harcourt Hill) Councillor Johnston advised that although he was a member of the Vale of White Horse district planning committee and had visited the site in that capacity the matter had not yet been discussed by that committee and as he had not yet expressed a view on it intended to take part in any discussion and voting on the item.

With regard to Item 8 the Chairman informed the Committee that the Deputy Chairman would take the chair for the duration of Item 8.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2015 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2015 were approved and signed.

There were no matters arising.

The Marshes, Yarnton

Mr Periam advised that a decision by the County Council to refuse permission for the erection of waste recycling and transfer facility and access improvements at this site had been upheld by the Inspector on appeal. He had found that there were no special circumstances to allow the development to take place in the Green Belt at this particular site and dismissed the appeal.

Radley Romp

Mr Broughton advised that the 31 March 2015 date to re-serve the prohibition order had not been achieved although it was hoped that that might now happen before the next meeting. There were a number of permissions on this site and officers wanted to ensure that the case was as robust as possible before re-serving.  He would keep the local member informed.

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

This is a planning application to dispose of approximately 100m3 of subsoil and topsoil by spreading it on the application site to a depth of approximately 10cm. The waste arose from the digging of the foundations for the houses on the adjoining site. The site would  be restored as a wildflower meadow.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application no. MW.0021/15 be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

 i.          The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which Very Special Circumstances have not been shown. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy GS3 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan, policy CP13 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan Consultation Draft, policy W7 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, policy W5 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document and paragraph 6 of the National Planning Policy for Waste.

ii.          The proposal would result in disposal of waste on a green field site and other than at an existing landfill site. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies W5 and W6 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document ,  policy W7 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan and paragraph 4 of the National Planning Policy for Waste.

The Committee considered (PN6) an application to dispose of approximately 100m3 of subsoil and topsoil which had arisen from the digging of foundations for houses on an adjoining site by spreading it to a depth of approximately 10 cm and restoration to a wildflower meadow.

Introducing the report Mr Broughton highlighted a number of amendments; two of which had been highlighted on the addenda sheet and another in paragraph 14, line 1 where West Oxfordshire District Council should have read Vale of White Horse District Council.

He also referred to 2 late submissions. One from Lesley and Karim Sekkat and a second from Phillip Massey.

He then addressed a number of issues which had been raised including harm to the Green Belt from inappropriate development and the very special circumstances needed to be overcome in order to allow such development to take place. He had considered that those very special circumstances for a landfill development even on a small scale had not in this case been met.

He then responded to questions from:

Councillor Greene – the waste currently on site was the subject of enforcement action by the district council who were waiting on a decision with regard to this application before proceeding further.

Councillor Johnston – he was not certain of the size of the lorries which were intended to be used but suggested they would likely be the usual 15 tonne vehicles.

Councillor Bartholomew – he did not know the exact details of the enforcement action but it related to the existing bunds of spoil from the housing site. Councillor Johnston confirmed that the enforcement was unrelated to the matter currently before the Committee.

Councillor Handley – he confirmed that the application constituted development under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

Outlining the development Lynne Horn confirmed that the bund material had not come from the basement development neither had it been the intention to leave the material there. However, at a later date it had seemed reasonable to propose to spread the material in order to lessen disruption caused by its removal and also provide an opportunity to increase bio-diversity by planting a wildflower meadow.  The area of spread amounted to 10% of their field and any stones in the material would be used as part of the new build.  She recognised the need to protect the sanctity of the green belt but did not consider this to be inappropriate development nor a departure from the development plan and being small scale did not feel it would adversely affect the real purpose of the green belt nor cause harm to it. She did not consider approval would set a bad precedent as each application was different and should, in any event, be considered on merit and as the development would be for her and immediate members of her family she felt that guaranteed stewardship of the site.

She then responded to questions from:

Councillor Cherry – vehicles would be required to dispose of the material in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20/15

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

Condition 31 of planning permission no.  08/02472/CM (MW.0044/08) required the submission for approval of details of the external lighting to the Ardley Energy from Waste (EfW) site. The detailed scheme was approved by the Planning and Regulation Committee at its meeting on 12th May 2014. Part of the approval was that the scheme should be reviewed in November 2014. Further to this, a members’ site visit was carried out on the evening of 19th March 2015 in order to inform members’ consideration of the review of the external lighting. The purpose of this report is therefore to invite those members who attended the site visit to report back on what they saw and for the Committee to discuss and advise officers what aspects, if any, of the external lighting scheme approved pursuant to condition 31 they believe should be taken back to the site operator for review. Whilst the purpose of the site visit was to inform the review of the external lighting scheme, there was light spillage from within the EfW building. This does not form part of the approved external lighting scheme and so does not fall within the review approved as part of that. Nonetheless, observations with regard to this will also be taken back to the operator for consideration.

It is RECOMMENDED that members discuss what was seen at the site visit on 19^th March 2015 and advise officers:

i)           What, if any, aspects of the external lighting scheme for the Energy from Waste facility approved pursuant to condition 31 of planning permission no.  08/02472/CM (MW.0044/08) they believe the site operator should review;

ii)         Whether there are any concerns about  the impact of the internal lighting of the Energy from Waste facility that they would wish to be drawn to the attention of the site operator whilst recognising that strictly this is not controlled by the permission.

Condition 31 of planning permission no. 08/02472/CM (MW.0044/08) had required submission for approval of details of the external lighting at the Ardley Energy from Waste (EfW) site. The detailed scheme had been approved by the Planning & Regulation Committee on 12 May 2014 with part of that approval requiring that the scheme should be reviewed in November 2014. Further to that, a members’ site visit had been carried out on the evening of 19 March 2015 in order to inform members’ consideration of the review of the external lighting.

The purpose of the report now before the Committee (PN8) was to invite those members who had attended the site visit to report back and for the Committee to discuss and advise officers on what aspects, if any, of the external lighting scheme approved pursuant to condition 31 should be taken back to the site operator for review. The opportunity had also been taken to consider complaints regarding light spillage from within the EfW building and although that did not form part of the official review of the approved external lighting scheme any observations would be taken to the operator for their consideration.

Taking the chair for the duration of this item Councillor Owen thanked Viridor for their welcome and co-operation during the March site visit.

Introducing the report Mr Periam reminded the Committee that only the external lighting at the site could be the subject of review under condition 31 and that Viridor were under no obligation to address any issues which might be raised regarding light spillage from inside the facility.

Councillor Mrs Fulljames thanked those members who had been able to visit the site in March and although on that visit members had witnessed the external lights being turned down locally people had seen little difference. She referred to 3 submissions received from residents in Buckland, Middleton Stoney and Ardley and presented photographic evidence of the intrusion into the local landscape during both daylight hours and at night.  When the scheme had first been proposed it had been promised that a facility would be provided on the lines of the one at Colnbrook but the Ardley site was in a completely rural setting and had not been assimilated at all into the local setting.  External lighting was not being dimmed or lowered at all and internal light spillage through the multi-coloured panels increased the illumination at night-time as seen from the photographs.  That was unacceptable and Viridor should be asked to consider action to minimise that. She stressed that this was huge problem for residents and efforts were needed now to try and improve the situation.

Councillor Greene and Councillor Owen supported calls for Viridor to reduce the levels of external lighting and to find a solution to reduce light spillage at night.

Councillor Handley pointed out that planting to mitigate against the facility was still in its infancy and in say 10 years the situation could be expected to improve considerably.

Responding to Councillor Lilly Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21/15