Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 24 April 2017 and 16 May 2017 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meetings held on 24 April 2017 and 16 May 2017 were approved subject to:

24 April 2017 - amending paragraph 11 of Minute 17/17 to read “Councillor Lily – the existing noise limit for the pump was set at 51 decibels”

16 May 2017 - amending Minute 18/17 to read “RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor George Reynolds and carried by 7 votes to 6) that Councillor Sibley be appointed Chairman for the ensuing council year”

Report by Director of Planning and Place (PN6)

The proposed extension area is located immediately north and west of the existing Bridge Farm Quarry, which is located 1km  east of Sutton Courtenay and 150 metres west of Appleford.  The quarry lies to the north of the Sutton Courtenay minerals and waste management complex. Planning permission is required for the development. The existing sand and gravel reserves at Bridge Farm Quarry are running low and the applicant has identified that the sand and gravel reserves (approximately 500,000 tonnes) in the adjacent fields could be worked as an extension to their current operation, and processed by their existing plant. They have said that if this reserve is not worked as part of their existing operations, it is unlikely to be viable and the reserve would effectively be sterilised. The application is supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and an Environmental Statement (ES) was submitted along with the application. This covers the key environmental impacts of the proposal. Further information was requested from the applicant under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (EIA Regs) on two occasions.

The report considers the development against relevant planning policies and other material considerations.  

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to:

(i)              the further response of the Environment Agency;

(ii)             completion of a section 106 legal agreement to provide for the submission and implementation of a bird management plan; and

(iii)            to a supplementary routeing agreement;

it is RECOMMENDED that Application  MW.0127/16 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning and Place including those set out in Annex 2 to the report.

The Committee considered (PN6) an application for a proposed extension to the north and west of the existing Bridge Farm Quarry.

Presenting the report Mr Periam drew the Committee’s attention to the tabled addenda sheet setting out amendments to the officer report following the withdrawal of their objection by the Environment Agency.

Officers then responded to questions from:

Councillor Reynolds – Sue Lawley confirmed that ecological conditions covering movement of small animals represented best practice.

Councillor Fox-Davies felt the application was hardly a small extension and in view of its potential commercial value wondered whether the applicants might be persuaded to consider extending the management plan.

Mr Periam confirmed that the applicants had been disinclined to accept an extension to the 20 year management plan but had accepted extending proposals for aftercare from the normal 5 years to 7.

Thanking officers for a comprehensive report Mr Duncan commended the recommendations. Responding to Councillor Fox Davis he added that although the area appeared to be large in size the deposits of material scheme were shallow. Also the existence of paleochannels meant that extraction costs would be high although that ultimately would benefit restoration to agriculture. There were also issues with the landowner regarding after management.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Johnston, seconded by Councillor Lygo and carried unanimously) that subject to:

(i)               completion of a section 106 legal agreement to provide for the submission and implementation of a bird management plan; and

(ii)             to a supplementary routeing agreement;

that Application MW.0127/16 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning and Place including those set out in Annex 2 to the report PN6 and as revised in the published addenda.

Report by Director of Planning & Place (PN7)

This report covers an application for a replacement asphalt plant for that existing at the Appleford Sidings in the same general location. The asphalt is required because the existing plant is over 30 years old and needs replacement. The proposed asphalt plant would have a chimney stack height approximately 10 metres higher than the plant to be replaced.

The application is being brought to committee because concern has been raised by Sutton Courtenay Parish Council that the plant is acceptable but should be removed in line with the cessation date for the surrounding landfill site.

The report assesses the proposals against relevant planning policy and material considerations.

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to the completion of a routeing agreement requiring all vehicles to access and egress the site to and from the A4130 Didcot northern perimeter road, application MW.0005/17 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning and Place including those set out in Annex 2 to the report PN7.

The Committee considered a report (PN7) setting out proposals for an asphalt plant at Appleford Sidings to replace the existing plant which was over 30 years old and in need of replacement.

Mr Periam introduced the report and then responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston -  he was unaware of proposals to electrify the sidings at Appleford nor any implications, which might arise from that work for security at the site itself

Councillor Matelot – he confirmed that although the new plant would be in the same general location the chimney stack would, at its highest point, be 10m higher than the current site.

Councillor Webber – the pylon adjacent to the site would be 15 metres higher than the proposed plant.  Mr Mottram added that although there had been some concerns regarding visibility of the plant over the existing tree cover that had been considered acceptable as the impact was not severe.

Councillor Webber - the proposal was closely associated with the sidings, which was currently used to bring in hard rock. That seemed to imply a specific reason why the plant was being proposed at this site.

Councillor Fitzgerald O’Connor –the neighbouring BOAT (Byway Open to All Traffic) was currently used by HGVs and that would not change.

Councillor Gawrysiak – he confirmed that the development would cease in 2030 in line with the main requirements of the landfill permission  However, as the remainder of the industrial site and the sidings was not subject to any restoration requirement that industrial use would continue  .

Councillor Stratford – the routeing agreement would be the same as currently existed.

Mr Duncan explained there were 2 plants in the County at Banbury and Sutton Courtenay. Both had significant strategic and long term importance hence the need for permanent permissions. Both were sited near rail sidings. With regard to the Sutton Courtenay site the surrounding land which was now domed because of landfill offered good screening.

He then responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston – as the cost of the plant was £7m he considered it unlikely that there would be any risks to its security or viability from any proposals to develop the sidings.

Councillor Phillips – although the proposed site although was not exactly in the same position the footprint between the two differed by one metre. The chimney stack was higher in order to meet environmental standards for emissions.

Mr Periam confirmed that the Vale of White Horse district council had not responded.

Councillor Webber mentioned the work undertaken by the Sutton Courtenay Local Liaison Committee over many years. It had been instrumental in helping to promote the smooth transition of numerous applications and he felt their work should be recognised.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Johnston, seconded by Councillor Lygo and carried unanimously) that subject to the completion of a routeing agreement requiring all vehicles to access and egress the site to and from the A4130 Didcot northern perimeter road, application MW.0005/17 be approved subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25/17

Report by Director of Planning & Place (PN8)

Drayton Highways Maintenance Depot is located approximately 1.25km to the east of Drayton village and approximately 1.25km to the west of Sutton Courtenay village, in the Abingdon-on-Thames and Oxford Fringe area of the Vale of the White Horse. The proposed development would take place in the southern part of the depot site and the proposed salt barn would be erected in the south-west corner. The depot is accessed via its north-west corner from Milton Road. The site has been used for the existing asphalt plant use for more than 30 years. The applicant states that the existing asphalt plant has reached the end of its operational life. This application seeks to maintain longer term asphalt production at the same site with no change to existing throughputs of around 300,000 tonnes of asphalt per annum and no increase in traffic. It would continue to provide employment for six people. All coarse aggregate would continue to be imported by rail via the adjacent rail head. All end products would continue to leave the site by lorry, either articulated lorry of up to 30 tonnes load or more typically or 8 wheel tippers. Lorry numbers therefore fluctuate with sales volume. Sales destinations can be anywhere up to about a 30 miles radius. Where practical, the applicant uses a return load method of delivery utilising recycled aggregate planings (RAP) and secondary aggregates in substitution for primary aggregates in the asphalt production process. The site location and plant layout has been designed so that as far as reasonably possible one-way routeing is provided with full turning circles thus minimising the need for reversing and the use of lorry mounted alarms.

The report considers the development against relevant planning policies and other material considerations.  

It is RECOMMENDED that application R3.0030/17 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning and Place including those set out in Annex 2 to the report PN8.

The Committee considered (PN8) an application for the erection of a salt barn and ancillary development at the Drayton Highways Maintenance Depot.

Emily Catcheside presented the report together with the tabled addenda sheet which contained a revised condition regarding landscaping.

She then responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston – the south west boundary was to be planted with a mix of holly, yew and the eastern boundary with scots pine, maple, willow and oak.

Councillor Stratford – the colour of the building could be submitted for approval.

Councillor Roberts – she was unable to confirm whether tree cover on the south boundary would need to be maintained on order to avoid powerlines.

Councillor Reynolds – the current site was operational 24 hours a day and already lit for safety purposes. The salt barn building was not proposed to be lit but lighting towers were proposed in order to light the hardstanding and wash down areas.  The proposed lighting would be LED which would keep any light over the horizontal of the light source to a minimum.

Councillor Webber – screening would be the best available in order to adequately screen the site from future development in the area. Mrs Crouch confirmed that it was legally acceptable for an authority to consider its own application.

Councillor Fox-Davies – the building needed to be a certain height in order to accommodate machinery.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Stratford, seconded by Councillor Lygo and carried unanimously) that application R3.0030/17 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning and Place including those set out in Annex 2 to the report PN8 as revised in the published Addenda.