Agenda, decisions and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2015 were approved and signed.

Minute 55/15 - Minutes

Councillor Phillips advised that Hansons had now contributed towards improvements on Moreton lane, Northmoor.

The Chairman congratulated Smith & Sons of Bletchington who had received a national award for restoration work undertaken at Gill Mill, Ducklington.  The Committee also recorded its thanks to Mary Thompson (Environment & Economy) for her work on the project.

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

The report considers a proposed modification to the approved route for vehicles associated with the concrete batching operation at Dix Pit. The developer has implemented the consent (MW.0053/15) but found that journey times from the site into central Oxford are adversely affected by roadworks on the Wolvercote and Cutteslowe roundabouts, to the extent that concrete has been out of specification on arrival and has had to be returned.  Therefore, the developer has proposed an alternative route, using the B4449 and the B4044 to reach Oxford from the west. This route includes the B4449 through the village of Sutton, which is specifically protected from a significant increase in traffic intrusion by development plan policy.  The alternative route would only be used for the duration of the roadworks, only during off peak hours (9pm-3pm) and only by vehicles carrying concrete to the Westgate redevelopment in central Oxford. The applicant has also asked for agreement that the alternative route can be used for empty vehicles returning from the Westgate, however this is not considered to be justified.  

It is RECOMMENDED that the County Council enter into a deed of variation to the existing routeing agreement for application MW.0053/15 to allow off-peak HGV movements on the alternative route to Oxford for concrete mixer trucks travelling to the Westgate redevelopment in central Oxford only, until the completion of roadworks on the Cutteslowe and Wolvercote roundabouts.

The Committee had before it a report (PN6) which considered a proposed modification to the approved route for vehicles associated with the concrete batching operation at Dix Pit to enable the developer to meet delivery times to the Westgate redevelopment in central Oxford, which were being adversely affected by roadworks on the Wolvercote and Cutteslowe roundabouts to the extent that some deliveries of concrete had been out of specification on arrival and had had to be returned.  The proposed alternative route would use the B4449 and the B4044 to reach Oxford from the west and included the B4449 through the village of Sutton, which had been specifically protected from a significant increase in traffic intrusion by development plan policy.  The proposal was to use the alternative route for the duration of the roadworks, only during off peak hours (9am-3pm) and only by vehicles carrying concrete to the Westgate redevelopment in central Oxford.

Mary Thompson presented the report and confirmed that the alternative route would be a temporary variation during the redevelopment of Westgate and limited to off-peak hours and outward bound journeys only.  She referred to 3 late submissions which had been published with the addenda but which had raised no new issues in addition to those covered in the report and therefore no change had been proposed to the printed recommendation.

She then responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston – there would be on average 21 vehicles per day half of which would be returning vehicles.

Councillor Phillips – hours currently allowed were 7 am to 5 pm which were the standard hours of operation.

Councillor Mills – the variation was proposed only for those vehicles supplying the Westgate re-development.

Councillor Lilly – if the roadworks at the Wolvercote and Cutteslowe roundabouts were to finish earlier than planned then the temporary variation would end.

Councillor Mathew reminded the Committee that he had expressed grave concerns when this permission had been originally granted and subsequently when changes had been made to the terms of that permission and now the Committee were faced with more.  Traffic continued to increase and was getting worse which called into the question the decision not to retain the Sutton Bypass, particularly as the project would have been partly funded by local gravel operators. He queried the statement that 2 hours was not long enough to get this material into oxford as he understood that it was possible to add a retardant to the mix to lengthen its life.  Hansons also had an operational unit at Horspath only 2.9 miles away which could supply this development yet in the meantime lorries continued to travel through Sutton.  He had TV evidence that this had been going on for some time prior to this decision today and therefor this constituted a retrospective application. He advised that he had followed a lorry only that morning and that the practice was severely interfering with the lives of residents and in fact the Minerals and Waste Local Plan stated that if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64/15

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

The application considers removal of a condition on an existing consent for the crushing of reject blocks at Sutton Courtenay. The condition limits crushing activity to 6 weeks in any year and the removal of the condition would allow crushing to take place up to 52 weeks per year. There would be no increase in the amount of material permitted to be imported to the site, or to vehicle movements. The applicant has stated that the limitation to 6 weeks was the result of an error in the original application and it is not possible to crush the material which they are permitted to import in only 6 weeks per year.  The application is being reported to this Committee because of objections from Sutton Courtenay Parish Council,  Appleford Parish Council and one local resident. The objectors are concerned about a potential increase in throughput and vehicle numbers. The report considers the proposal to delete the condition against relevant planning policy relating to the protection of amenity.

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to the same conditions as permission MW.0129/11 (the original planning permission) amended as set out in Annex 1 and as may be otherwise necessary to reflect the approval of schemes previously required pursuant to conditions, that planning permission for application MW.0135/15 be granted.

The Committee had before it (PN7) an application which considered removal of a condition to an existing consent for the crushing of reject blocks at Sutton Courtenay which limited crushing activity to 6 weeks in any year. The removal of the condition would allow crushing to take place up to 52 weeks per year with no increase in the amount of material permitted to be imported to the site, or to vehicle movements. The limitation to 6 weeks had been the result of an error in the original application which made it impossible to crush the material which they were permitted to import in only 6 weeks per year. 

Having presented the report Mary Thompson confirmed that no complaints had been received regarding noise over the 3 years or so that the block crushing had been operational.  However, one representation had been received stating that the proposal would affect the ‘amenities of local residents’ which could be interpreted to include noise.

Councillor Webber advised that new housing planned for Appleford and Sutton Courtenay some of which would be within 300m of this activity and he questioned whether that had been taken into account when arriving at this recommendation. He was concerned that the original application had been an error and questioned how many other errors there were, how this one had come to light and why had it taken 2 years for it to come to light. He questioned whether the intention had in fact been to crush for 12 days rather than 6 which would explain the apparent error once crushing operations had been started and the need for more time discovered. He did not recal this issue ever being raised at any liaison committee and what confidence could local residents have that further errors would not lead to further increased activity. If agreed he asked how the new limits would not be breached and with that in mind it was important that the liaison committee was used correctly.

Endorsing the comments made by Councillr Webber Councillor Lilly felt that Hansons did not seem to be fully engaged with local issues which was why it was imperative that the liaison committee was fully involved.

RESOLVED:(on a motion by Councillor Greene, seconded by Councillor Tanner and carried by 11 votes to 0, Councillor Johnston recorded as having abstained) that subject to the same conditions as permission MW.0129/11 (the original planning permission) amended as set out in Annex 1 to the report PN7 and as may be otherwise necessary to reflect the approval of schemes previously required pursuant to conditions, that planning permission for application MW.0135/15 be granted.

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

The application is for the extraction of approximately 415,000 tonnes of sand from an area adjacent to the existing Duns Tew Quarry. The land would be restored to a mixture of woodland and nature conservation, with geodiversity benefits. Extraction would take place on a campaign basis for up to two months in each calendar year for a period of up to 17 years. It is also proposed to import aggregate to the site for blending and merchanting.

The application is reported to this Committee because it has an EIA and there have been three objections from local residents and concerns raised by the Parish Council and local County Councillor. Concerns raised include dust, air quality, proximity to dwellings, impact on rural roads and ecology. There have been no objections from other consultees.

The report considers the proposals against relevant planning policies with comments and recommendation of the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning).

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to:

(i)           a Section 106 legal agreement to cover the matters outlined in Annex 2 to the report;

(ii)          a routeing agreement to ensure that vehicle movements from the new development are covered by the existing routeing arrangements;

that planning permission for application no. MW.0036/14 be granted subject to:

(iii)        conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) to include the matters set out in Annex 3 to the report; and

(iv)        the Deputy Directorfor Environment and Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning)being authorised to refuse the application if the legal agreement referred to in (i) above is not completed within 10 weeks of the date of this meeting on the grounds that it would not comply with OMWLP policy PE13 and the guidance set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF (in that there would not be satisfactory provisions for the long term management of the restored site).

The Committee considered (PN8) an application for the extraction of approximately 415,000 tonnes of sand from an area adjacent to the existing Duns Tew Quarry. The land would be restored to a mixture of woodland and nature conservation, with geodiversity benefits. Extraction would take place on a campaign basis for up to two months in each calendar year for a period of up to 17 years. It is also proposed to import aggregate to the site for blending and merchanting.

Bryn Williams addressed the Committee as the resident of Blue Barn Farm the site presented major problems from dust, safety and ecology. Dust pollution was particularly bad as a strong south west wind prevailed throughout the year and to bring this operation closer would be overwhelming and in order to address his issues he suggested a number of measures to ameliorate the effects. He was not objecting specifically but wanted the operator to be more aware of the problems facing local people.

Tony Castle-Miller a resident of Duns Tew for 24 years endorsed the comments made by Mr Williams. Residents had learnt to live with the site but a bit more give from the operator would help everyone.  Increased operations meant increased numbers of lorries which were getting larger and whilst he appreciated the need for them to carry on their business there should be some consideration for local residents. He suggested they should restrict vehicles to 32 tonnes, contribute to measures to reinforce the side of roads and provision of passing bays.  There had been no accidents to date but larger vehicles would present a greater danger on narrow roads.

District Councillor Mike Kerford-Byrnes referred to concerns regarding dust and traffic. With regard to dust he welcomed the proposal to straighten out the eastern end of the boundary which would take working further away from Blue Barn Farm and suggested further restrictions to limit working if wind speed on the eastern boundary was above acceptable levels. On traffic it was imperative to route vehicles on the most suitable routes to the A4260 and clearly the route now used was the least suitable. The size, weight and frequency of vehicles had increased and the operator should therefore contribute to road repairs as a condition on the permission along with the change to the eastern boundary.

Mary Thompson confirmed that:

·                       implementation of proposed highway improvement works (condition 39)

·                       vehicle size and type (condition 10)

·                       limits to exported material (condition 9)

·                       dust management (condition 38)

were all covered by conditions as marked above.

The speakers then responded to questions from:

Councillor Greene – Councillor Kerford-Byrnes welcomed the straightening the eastern boundary to remove the dog-leg would be most welcome.

Miss Thompson added that a condition to amend the extraction boundary had not been recommended because the environmental work had shown that it was not necessary to do so in order to make the development acceptable. However, the Committee could if it wished choose to add such a condition and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66/15

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN9).

The applications seek an extension of time for the restoration of the quarry and an extension of time for the soil blending operation on the site. There has been local objection to the extension of time for the quarry because of concern that the applicants are keeping the development going to help achieve a future use at the quarry. The report assesses the need to restore the quarry and the implications for future development if the applications are approved.

It is RECOMMENDED that:

a)        planning permission for application no. MW.0134/15 be approved 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 strictly in accordance with the particulars of the development, plans and specifications contained in the application except as modified by conditions of this permission.

2)        No operations, including HGVs entering and leaving the site, other than water pumping or environmental monitoring, shall be carried out at the site except between the following times:

·       0700 and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0700 to 1300 hours on Saturdays;

No operations shall take place at any time on Sundays or recognised public holidays.

3)        No winning and working of mineral or sale of processed mineral shall take place. The site shall be completely restored by 30 September 2016 in accordance with the approved restoration scheme.

4)        Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, (or any Order amending, replacing or re-enacting that Order), the access to the development hereby permitted shall not be other than as shown as ‘new access’ on approved plan 010/4.

5)        All internal haul roads shall be maintained in a condition free from potholes.

6)        All buildings, plant, machinery or structures and their foundations and bases, together with any hard standing shall be removed from the site by 30^th September 2016.

7)        The operators shall insulate plant or machinery, silence vehicles and provide acoustic screening as may be necessary to ensure that noise levels or frequencies shall not exceed 55 dB(LAeq) (1hour) freefield during the hours of operation permitted under condition 2, at the facades of the nearest residential properties.

8)        Dust control measures shall be utilised as set out in paragraph 3.11.5 of the approved Planning Statement dated July 2014.

9)        No commercial vehicles shall enter the public highway unless their wheels and chassis are clean such that mud and dust are not deposited on the highway.

10)     All turf, topsoil, subsoil and overburden stripped prior to mineral extraction, or quarry waste or such similar materials presently stored on site shall be used for site restoration only.

11)     No storage or respreading of topsoil and subsoil shall take place unless the percentage moisture in the subsoil and topsoil to be moved is less than the percentage moisture at the plastic limit of each of the topsoil  ...  view the full agenda text for item 67/15

The Committee had before it (PN9) applications which sought an extension of time for the restoration of the quarry and an extension of time for the soil blending operation on the site.

Mr Broughton presented the report and drew the Committee’s attention to an amended restoration scheme as set out in the addenda.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Owen seconded by Councillor Johnston and carried by 10 votes to 0, Councillor Purse recorded as having abstained) that:

a)        planning permission for application no. MW.0134/15 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) but to include the following:

1)        The development should be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars of the development, plans and specifications contained in the application except as modified by conditions of this permission.

2)        No operations, including HGVs entering and leaving the site, other than water pumping or environmental monitoring, should be carried out at the site except between the following times:

·       0700 and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0700 to 1300 hours on Saturdays;

No operations should take place at any time on Sundays or recognised public holidays.

3)        No winning and working of mineral or sale of processed mineral should take place. The site should be completely restored by 30 September 2016 in accordance with the approved restoration scheme.

4)        Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, (or any Order amending, replacing or re-enacting that Order), the access to the development hereby permitted should not be other than as shown as ‘new access’ on approved plan 010/4.

5)        All internal haul roads should be maintained in a condition free from potholes.

6)        All buildings, plant, machinery or structures and their foundations and bases, together with any hard standing should be removed from the site by 30 September 2016.

7)        The operators should insulate plant or machinery, silence vehicles and provide acoustic screening as might be necessary to ensure that noise levels or frequencies should not exceed 55 dB(LAeq) (1hour) freefield during the hours of operation permitted under condition 2, at the facades of the nearest residential properties.

8)        Dust control measures should be utilised as set out in paragraph 3.11.5 of the approved Planning Statement dated July 2014.

9)        No commercial vehicles should enter the public highway unless their wheels and chassis were clean such that mud and dust were not deposited on the highway.

10)     All turf, topsoil, subsoil and overburden stripped prior to mineral extraction, or quarry waste or such similar materials presently stored on site should be used for site restoration only.

11)     No storage or respreading of topsoil and subsoil should take place unless the percentage moisture in the subsoil and topsoil to be moved was less than the percentage moisture at the plastic limit of each of the topsoil and subsoil respectively.

12)     The full depth of the restored topsoil and the top 0.15 metres of subsoil should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67/15

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN10).

This is a planning application for the erection of a flat roofed mobile unit to provide catering facilities for the school pupils of Clanfield Church of England Primary School. The application has been made due to a recent central government directive requiring the provision of school meals to primary schools. As present there is no accommodation available at the school for this facility.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application R3.0096/15 be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) to include the following:

    i.          The development to be commenced within a period of three years from the date of the permission.

   ii.          Development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted documents and plans.

 iii.          Translucent film being attached to the southern elevation windows and door to obscure views to the neighbouring boundaries.

 iv.          Access to the development during the construction phase to be solely via the northern access onto and from the access road to the east.

  v.          During the construction phase of the development the applicant shall provide adequate protection to the large Corsican Pine on the southern boundary.

 vi.          Soakage tests being carried out and the soakaway design submitted for approval prior to the operational phase of the development.

The Committee considered (PN10) a planning application for the erection of a flat roofed mobile unit to provide catering facilities for the school pupils of Clanfield Church of England Primary School in line with a recent central government directive requiring the provision of school meals to primary schools.

Mr Case presented the report and responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston – the building would be delivered in sections over 2 days after which smaller vehicles would be accessing the site.

Councillor Cherry – concrete pad foundations would be laid 150 millimeters deep which would be equivalent to the depth of the existing hard surface playground.

Councillor Mills – only lunchtime meals would be served so there would be no intensification of use.

Officers advised the school were happy with the area of playground which remained and that the building complied with heating requirements.

Councillor Mills felt all concerns had been addressed including traffic movements and he moved that the officer recommendation be approved. The motion seconded by Councillor Greene was put to the Committee and -

RESOLVED:(by 10 votes to 0) that planning permission for application R3.0096/15 be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) to include the following:

    i.          The development to be commenced within a period of three years from the date of the permission.

   ii.          Development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted documents and plans.

 iii.          Translucent film being attached to the southern elevation windows and door to obscure views to the neighbouring boundaries.

 iv.          Access to the development during the construction phase to be solely via the northern access onto and from the access road to the east.

  v.          During the construction phase of the development the applicant should provide adequate protection to the large Corsican Pine on the southern boundary.

 vi.          Soakage tests being carried out and the soakaway design submitted for approval prior to the operational phase of the development.

Report by the Chief Legal Officer and Head of Law & Governance (PN11).

An application was made by Mr Robert Stewart for registration of land at Humpty Hill, Highworth Road, Faringdon in Oxfordshire as a new town or village green under the Commons Act 2006. The landowner objected to this application and a public inquiry was held. The Council is the Commons Registration Authority and the Planning & Regulation Committee has delegated authority to determine such applications.

The matter was originally referred to the October meeting of the Planning & Regulation Committee (see minute 60/15 of Item PN3 of this agenda) but as a last minute submission was received from the objectors, which it was felt needed to be referred to the Inspector for an opinion, it was deferred.

The Inspector's report and officer's recommendation are therefore set out and the Committee is therefore requested to determine the application.

Having received the Opinion of the Inspector set out in Annexes 2 and 5 to this report, the Committee is RECOMMENDED to APPROVE the application for registration as a new Town or Village Green that plot of land known as Humpty Hill, Highworth Road, Faringdon in Oxfordshire that site being indicated clearly on the map included in the application submitted by Mr Robert Stewart on 19 April 2013.

The Committee considered (PN11) an application made by Mr Robert Stewart for registration of land at Humpty Hill, Highworth Road, Faringdon in Oxfordshire as a new town or village green under the Commons Act 2006. An objection had been received from the landowner and a public inquiry had been held. The Council was the Commons Registration Authority and the Planning & Regulation Committee had delegated authority to determine such applications.

The matter had been deferred at the October meeting of the Planning & Regulation Committee to enable the Inspector to consider a last minute submission received from the objectors.

Mr Goodlad presented the report and referred to further submissions from the objectors received after publication of the latest report. Responding to questions from members he confirmed that the latest submissions did not challenge new parts of the Inspector’s decision from the earlier submissions. Law & Governance had reviewed the latest submissions as far as possible in the time available and were satisfied that they did not raise points which made the Inspector’s recommendation unreliable.  As such the recommendation was to register and the landowner could, if they thought there were grounds to do so, challenge that decision in the High Court. He confirmed that if the case went to the High Court then there was the risk that costs could be awarded against the Council if the case was lost.

Councillor Heathcoat speaking as local member advised that she had resided in the area for 37 years and represented Faringdon town as a Town Councillor, District Councillor and since 1997 as County Councillor.  She knew the area well and had walked her dog twice daily in the field that had become known locally as Humpty Hill. She also advised that she knew the people who had been named in the report with regard to the application to register this land as a town or village green, the users of the field and the land owners. She confirmed that the land had most definitely been used on two separate occasions for cattle, hay baling when local children would play. No arable crops had been planted in the area. She referred to the “speculative” planning application by Gladman Development Ltd which had been rejected by the Faringdon Town Council Planning and Highways Committee and also by the Vale White Horse Planning and Development Committee following which a subsequent appeal against that refusal had been dismissed by the Secretary of State.  She confirmed that recreational activities had taken place in this field from the locals who lived on this side of Faringdon town.

Councillor Johnston considered the case had been made and he duly moved, Councillor Tanner seconding, that the officer recommendation be approved. The motion was then put to the Committee and -

RESOLVED:(by 10 votes to 0) that having received the Opinion of the Inspector set out in Annexes 2 and 5 to this report, the Committee is RECOMMENDED to APPROVE the application for registration as a new Town or Village Green that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69/15