Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Lynda Atkins (new member) and Councillor John Sanders (replacing Councillor John Tanner) both of whom had been appointed by Council at its annual meeting on Tuesday 17 May.

With regard to item 7 – Great Tew Ironstone Quarry – Application No MW.0078/15 Councillor Cherry advised that in early 2000 he had worked at the Great Tew estate. That was no longer the case and he did not consider that that affected his ability to participate impartially in the discussion and voting on the application.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 11 April 2016 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 April 2016 were approved and signed. 

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

This application seeks an extension of time to December 2020, to complete mineral extraction beneath the plant site. The time for restoration would consequently be extended to December 2022.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application no. MW.0158/15 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 solely in accordance with details submitted with the application unless modified by the conditions of this permission. The details submitted consist of:

a.      Application form dated 23/11/15

b.     Covering Letter dated 23/11/2015

c.      Email dated 04/12/15

d.     Drawing W92m/130 - S73 application Plan dated March 2011

e.      Drawing W92m/127a - S73 application dated November 2010

f.       Drawing 001-OX Proposed New sand and gravel processing plant dated 26/07/89.

g.     Drawing 011-OX Proposed weighbridge and accommodation dated 08/11/89

h.     Drawing 6010/0/1 - Key plan ( for junction) dated April 1984.

i.       Drawing 6010/0/2 - Plan and profiles for the proposed junction dated April 1984

j.       Aftercare scheme dated 04/01/95.

k.      Aftercare scheme dated 21/02/95.

l.       Aftercare scheme dated 22/03/95.

m.    Aftercare scheme dated 12/04/95.

n.     DrawingW92a/l0- Revised advanced screening proposal dated February 1984.

o.     Drawing W92e/15a - Restoration of Working stages 1- 4.

p.     Drawing W92e/16c - Operational plan dated August 1988

q.     Drawing W92m/22a - New processing plant, location and details dated November 1989.

r.       Drawing 3 (ref CHS 458/83) - Working plan

s.      Drawing W92m/25 - Restoration proposals dated August 1994

t.       Drawing W92m/27a - Working arrangements following archaeological dig dated March 1995

u.     Drawing W92m/42a - Working arrangements stage 5-9 sailing lake dated November 2000

v.      Drawing W92m/43 - Stages 10-12 working arrangements dated January 2001

w.     Drawing Wgzm/44 - Stages 10-12 restoration concept (as modified on approval) dated January 2001

x.      Drawing W92m/133 – Composite Restoration Scheme

y.      Cassington Quarry Stage 10 Five Year Aftercare Scheme dated 12/3/2012

z.      Drawing W93/92c

2.            No excavations shall be undertaken or continued after 31 December 2020.

3.            All restoration shall be carried out and completed not later than 31 December 2022.

The Committee considered (PN6) an application for Cassington Quarry which sought an extension of time to December 2020 in order to extract mineral from beneath the plant site and to December 2022 for restoration.

Presenting the report Mr Broughton referred to additional information regarding the duties of the Local Planning Authority under the Conservation of Species & Habitats Regulations 2010 with regard to European Protected Species both of which had been tabled along with a revised recommendation set out in the addenda sheet. He then answered questions from:

Councillor Bartholomew – confirmed the 2 years referred to in the revised Condition 41 was from the date of any permission and not from the start of the works. Work was expected to be completed by 2020 and plant removed by 2018.

Councillor Johnston – confirmed the workings were 500m from the two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (as set out in paragraph 3).

Councillor Sanders – the applicants had indicated a link between the application and the new Mineral and Waste Core Strategy but they had also indicated that they wanted to dig the material which was a significant amount.

Councillor Cherry – although he did not have a specific number for hgv movements they were likely to be significant but needed to be considered in the context of access and egress onto the A40 which was an advised lorry route.

Professor Smith addressed the Committee on behalf of the Eynsham Society Their concerns centred on three areas namely after-use requiring a comprehensive plan for the whole site with realistic time scales.  The first master plan had been drawn up as far back as 1996 but had repeatedly slipped. Secondly lines of responsibility and funds needed to be identified with a regular budget set aside and a clear professional plan. Thirdly safety particularly the silt lagoons, which required full remediation and not just fencing and signing. Environmental work had, to date, been at best spasmodic and at worst amateurish. The future of the site needed to be secured in order to prevent it degenerating into an industrial wasteland and he asked that a decision be deferred to allow these issues to be addressed properly.

He then responded to questions from:

Councillor Cherry – the silt lagoons over time acquired a surface crust and although appearing to be safe could be like quick sand.

Councillor Phillips – the site had been unused since 2008 and was effectively an industrial wasteland and although the plant looked derelict he supposed it could be made to work. He stressed the need to improve security at the site and that was done here would represent an important precedent for future sites.

Councillor Johnston – there were bits of disused equipment all over the site.

Phillip Duncan spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He confirmed that he had been involved in this site for many years. The application was about achieving a complete and orderly exit and confirmed that the applicants would be able to get the plant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20/16

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

The proposal is to allow the brown ironstone quarry extension containing approximately 700,000 tonnes of mineral over a 21 year period. In exchange revocation of existing consented mineral in area labelled ‘Clay Bank’. Also wish to export clay extracted from the extension (approx. 300,000m³), construct both temporary and permanent landforms, and retain an existing overburden store to the south of the existing quarry. As well as relocate the consented stone saw shed, construct a new four storey office building, construct a new multi-purpose agricultural building and construct a new shooting store.

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to a legal agreement to secure that the mineral permitted under the “clay bank” is not further worked and a 20 years long term management plan that planning permission for application MW.0078/15 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) including those set out in Annex 3 to this report.

The Committee considered a report PN7 setting out a proposal to extend working to the west of the existing ironstone quarry over a 21 year period but excluding the extraction of part of the consented phase 3 in the existing quarry including part of the clay bank. The development also proposed retention of an area of overburden store outside the consented existing planning permission to the south of the quarry which was currently unauthorised; export of extracted clay (approx. 300,000m³), construction of both temporary and permanent landforms, relocation of the consented stone saw shed and construction of new buildings including a four storey office building, multi-purpose agricultural building and new shooting store.

Presenting the report Mr Case drew the Committee’s attention to additional information and revised plan as set out in the tabled addenda.

He responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston – some clay was currently used on site as restoration material.

Councillor Cherry – there had been 3 consultations which had resulted in a series of very comprehensive conditions to cover the amount of overburden to be removed in order to get to the ironstone.

Councillor Heathcoat – he confirmed that younger trees would be planted due to a high failure rate in mature trees and so screening would not be immediate. With regard to vehicle movements there would be an average of 8 movements per day in connection with the extraction of stone and 22 per day (110 per week) in connection with the export of clay although there would be no exportation of that material between August and October.

Mr Periam explained that the applicant was giving up some of the ironstone reserves under woodland which would then be preserved. However, there was no guarantee that an application to work that material would not be submitted in the future but added that there were considerable reserves of ironstone elsewhere on the site.

Responding to Councillor Johnston Tamsin Atley confirmed that an area was to be segregated for ‘no noisy working’ affording some protection for woodpeckers.

Councillor Webber having visited the site considered it was well sited and hidden but expressed some concern that past unauthorised work was being sanctioned.

Mr Periam confirmed that if the Committee were minded to refuse the application then enforcement proceedings would be instigated with regard to past unauthorised work.

Nicholas Johnston the applicant addressed the Committee and thanked members for visiting the site which he explained was the only block ironstone quarry in the country. He had hoped to get the application considered earlier and that that delay had given rise to the work carried out for which he apologised. It was a large but well organised site and the proposed buildings were required to accommodate everyone on one site.  The site had been operating for 20 years with a lot of local support and benefits to the local economy. He was not aware of any historical objections and bearing in mind its good record asked the Committee to support  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21/16

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 September 2015 to 31 March 2016. All sites with planning permission are regularly visited on a formal basis with a written report produced following a site visit and 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, 45 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 in Annex 1 and the Schedule of Enforcement Cases in Annex 2 to this report be noted.

The Committee considered a report (PN8) updating the Committee on the regular monitoring of minerals and waste planning permissions and on the progress of enforcement cases for the period 1 September 2015 to 31 March 2016.

RESOLVED: that the Schedule of Compliance Monitoring Visits in Annex 1 and the Schedule of Enforcement Cases in Annex 2 to the report PN8 be noted.