Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 23 May 2016 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 May 2016 were approved and signed.

Planning application no: MW.0078/15 - Proposed extension of ironstone extraction, revocation of existing consented mineral extraction, export of clay, construction of temporary and permanent landforms, retention of an existing overburden store, relocation of consented stone saw shed, replacement quarry, farm and estate office building, erection of a new shoot store and multi-purpose building.

On 23 May 2016 the Planning & Regulation Committee had granted permission for this development which had included an extension to the existing Great Tew Ironstone Quarry. That permission had been subject to securing a Section 106 agreement preventing the working of mineral permitted under the “clay bank” together with a 20 year long-term management plan. Under that agreement it had been intended that a geological feature showing an exposed rock face should be retained with public access by appointment. Unfortunately, that had been omitted from the proposed working and restoration scheme and not realised at the time of the committee meeting. However, a minor correction has since been made to four plans reinstating that small area and these have been submitted as amendments to the application to ensure this obligation is carried forward into the new agreement.

The original application did have an Environmental Impact Assessment attached and as it had been felt that the creation and retention of the geological exposure did not have any additional environmental effects which would require further assessment officers were suggesting with the Committee’s approval that the new permission could be issued with the amended plans showing the geological exposure once the S.106 Agreement had been completed. If not then the Committee had the option of receiving a full updated report at its next meeting in September.

Officers had concluded that as there was a resolution to approve the application and given the minor nature of this change, which was beneficial it would in their view be extremely difficult for anyone to justify seeking to overturn the decision on the basis of this minor change. Therefore, they had requested that the Committee confirm issue of the planning permission with the amended plans included as part of the approved documents.

On a motion by Councillor Lilly, seconded by Councillor Johnston the Committee agreed unanimously that the planning permission be issued with the amended plans.

Barford Road Farm update on permission and S278 agreement.

Officers advised that it was now possible to grant the planning permission for Barford Road Farm in advance of the Section 278 agreement being granted. This would enable planning conditions on all other matters to be enforced while still requiring the highway works.

Noted.

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

The proposal is to remove and modify planning conditions of an existing consent for development. The application does not involve any additional works that have not already been permitted by previous planning permissions but seeks not to comply with conditions 40 and 51 which state that the restoration and aftercare schemes are submitted within 12 months of the date of the permission.

The applicant proposes to amend the aftercare and restoration conditions to submit the schemes for approval to the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority within two years of the date of existing permission for Area A and within five years of the date of the existing permission for Areas B-D. By splitting the timescales of submission of restoration and aftercare schemes for Area A and Areas B-D, will allow the applicant to focus on restoring Area A in the short-term, which isn’t connected to the temporary industrial use in Areas B-C.

Fifteen letters/comments were received objecting to the application from third party representatives which relate to the site as whole and don’t appear to relate the application to vary conditions 40 and 51. An objection was also received from the Parish Council covering similar points unrelated to the application, stating the development was having major impact on the surrounding roads and site impact on local amenity. No objections were received from Natural England and the County’s Ecologist Planner.

It is RECOMMENDED that that planning permission for application MW.0046/16 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 2 to the report.

The Committee considered (PN6) an application to remove and modify planning conditions of an existing consent for development in order to amend the aftercare and restoration conditions.

Having presented the report Mr Case and other officers responded to questions from:

Councillor Phillips – Mr Case advised that conditions relating to the car storage operation were not being amended.  Mr Broughton further confirmed that originally the intention had been to bring cars in by rail but as the site was not currently rail connected and cars had been brought in and out by lorry. Those movements would not increase.

Councillor Bartholomew – permission to work material beyond 2017 would require a further application.

Councillor Lilly – Mr Periam advised that anything which affected restoration of a mineral site made it a county planning matter.  Mr Case confirmed that the conditions now proposed retained all the details of existing conditions.

Councillor Sanders – Mr Case advised that car storage was permitted development as part of the interim restoration phase but was not happening yet.  He was unable to confirm what the future status of European Protected Species legislation would be following the Brexit vote but could confirm that the reason for delay had been because of the need for further discussion regarding a reptile mitigation scheme and restoration management plan. Mr Periam explained the term geological window.

Councillor Phillips – there was provision in the legal agreement to commission a traffic survey.

Councillor Mathew expressed concern regarding the constant need to regularly review conditions attached to planning permissions.  It seemed to him to always be for the benefit and interests of applicants alone and although officers had explained that the concerns of the parish council and other objectors in this particular case were not relevant to this application he disagreed on principle.

Councillor Lilly considered there was something of a paradox when considering the livelihood of birds at a site which was close to Oxford airport.

Mr Bowley for the applicants explained that these were relatively minor amendments which sought only to reschedule the submission of the detailed restoration and aftercare schemes for the site.  As one of the largest quarries in Oxfordshire Shipton on Cherwell had a long and complex planning history passing through different ownerships and derelict for over 20 years and despite many planning permissions being granted for development nothing had happened. Earthline had however made significant progress since it had purchased the site in 2012 which had included:

·      Extraction of remaining permitted limestone.

·      Demolition (almost completed) of the derelict cement works.

·      Commencement of restoration with inert fill.

·      Commencement of aggregates recycling.

·      General improvements including the upgrading of the access road 

The company had inherited a complicated planning position and needed to secure some amendments to make it fit for their operational purposes. That required submission of a number of applications both to amend planning conditions and discharge planning conditions and this was one such application.  Area A, at the western end of the quarry near to the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28/16

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

The application is to vary existing permission to remove the need for passing bays and so delete the condition. A covering letter and Vehicle Conflict Analysis report has been provided with the application.

The existing planning permission 14/02055/CM was granted to enable the exportation of 72,000 tonnes of crushed rock for a temporary period of 12 months in 2015. At the time to allow the application, the Transport Development Control officer (TDC) recommended the construction of passing bays at two locations along a minor road to the A361. The existing condition states:

“No crushing shall be carried out and no further removal of crushed mineral shall occur until the proposed passing bays on the lane leading to the A361 have been constructed and approved by the highways authority in accordance with specification approved under the Section 278 Agreement.”

The conclusion would be an increase of no more than two percentage points on any section of the approved route with the additional quarry traffic and there would be no justification to require the passing bays as the likelihood of HGV traffic meeting would be small. The TDC Team commented on the proposal to remove the passing bays with the additional analysis completed and has no objection to the application providing restrictions are made on daily HGV traffic movements. We received one objection from the parish council stating the minor road is only single track road and the quarry traffic is reasonably busy.

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure) including those set out in Annex 2 to the report PN7 that planning permission for application MW.0071/16 be approved.

The Committee considered (PN7) a report setting out the terms of an application to vary an existing permission granted to enable the exportation of 72,000 tonnes of crushed rock for a temporary period of 12 months in 2015 by deleting a condition requiring provision of passing bays at two locations along a minor road from the site to the A361 recommended at that time by the Transport Development Control officer.  However, a Vehicle Conflict Analysis report had since concluded that there was now no justification for such a requirement as the likelihood of HGV traffic meeting would be small and in the light of that the Transport Development Control Team now had no objection to the application providing restrictions were made on daily HGV traffic movements.

Having presented the report Mr Case and other officers responded to questions from:

Councillor Mills – he understood that 3 people were employed on site and the total movements would be 44 plus tractor movements.

Councillor Bartholomew – the passing bays had not been constructed yet and this review had been undertaken following the conflict analysis document.

Councillor Cherry – Mr Rossington confirmed that the vehicle conflict analysis had only considered the number of vehicles and it had to be accepted that there could be some damage to verges during for example bad weather.

Councillor Phillips – Mr Rossington confirmed that when provision of bays had  first been considered the information now set out in the vehicle conflict analysis had not been available and officers had felt that they might be required but in t light of further information as set out in the analysis that had changed.

Councillor Mathew – the analysis had been received but not circulated with the report.

Councillor Purse – Mr Rossington confirmed forward visibility was very good at the access to the site and no doubt if passing bays were there they would be used but evidence now showed that they were not required.

Responding to a request from Councillor Purse Mr Periam advised that it would not be possible to attach a condition requiring traffic going to and leaving the site behave in a reasonable manner but an informative could be attached to that effect.

Responding to a further request from Councillor Matthew he advised that a condition could be attached requiring the applicants provide quarterly statements with regard to lorry movements to and from the site and tonnages involved.

Nicholas Johnston explained the nature of work at the quarry and the concerns expressed by a number of residents regarding the passing bays. It had seemed a substantial investment for a short permission and as the concerns expressed had now been addressed it seemed sensible to carry on with things as they were. However, he gave an undertaking that if the need for bays needed to be reconsidered then that would be done.

Responding to Councillor Bartholomew he confirmed that the site was not in their ownership and a further application would be needed if they wished  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29/16

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

This is a planning application for the construction of a single storey building to provide 6 new classrooms and a flexible teaching space. The proposed development is on an existing school site within Cumnor. The report is being brought before committee because it was requested by the local member, and because of local objections relating to the massing of the building and shadowing of properties.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application no. R3.0023/16 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) to include the following:

    I.          Detailed compliance.

   II.          Permission to be implemented within 3 years.

 III.          A construction transport management plan.

IV.          An updated school travel plan.

The Committee considered an application for the construction of a single storey building to provide 6 new classrooms and a flexible teaching space on an existing school site within Cumnor.

Presenting the report Mr Broughton highlighted amendments to Condition iii (as set out in the resolution below), tabled an improved plan showing the new build and responded to issues raised by:

Councillor Sanders and Councillor Cherry - he advised that he would take back concerns regarding the need to break the side elevation of the new build  and seek advice on tree planting to help eliminate potential problems regarding shading on solar panels.

Councillor Mathew – he confirmed that the new build did not impact on playing field space.

Ian Carr for the school commended the recommendation. The school had been oversubscribed for several years with pressure on numbers continuing to increase. Highlighting the benefits to students as a result of improved facilities and to families in the local community the school had been mindful of neighbours’ concerns and had worked closely with them when revising plans.

Councillor Godden confirmed that she had requested that the application be considered by the Committee. The need for the school to expand was not in dispute and Mathew Arnold had involved the local community in the process.   Cumnor parish council was satisfied that the school had done all it could to improve the scheme and meet local concerns but it was imperative that construction traffic should be managed by securing lorry access via Arnolds Way and Cumnor Hill and not via residential roads

Responding to Councillor Sanders regarding the south side of the building Claire Williams (Architects) confirmed that it was in fact a rear elevation and that the neighbours concerned having considered alternatives had expressed a preference for the finish as proposed.

Councillor Mathew moved that the recommendation be approved with the changes as outlined to Condition iii and with an additional condition securing removal of the temporary car park on completion of the building. The motion seconded by Councillor Bartholomew was put to the Committee and –

RESOLVED: (by 11 votes to 0) that planning permission for application No. R3.0023/16 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) to include the following:

    I.          Detailed compliance.

   II.          Permission to be implemented within 3 years.

 III.          That no development should take place until a Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan (CPTMP) had been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. That CMPTP should include the routeing of HGVs west from the school site along Arnold’s Way directly onto Cumnor Hill.

IV.          An updated school travel plan.

  V.          The temporary car park to be removed on completion of the building.