Agenda, decisions and minutes

7. Appleford Depot - Application MW.0109/17

Councillor Richard Webber declared a non-pecuniary interest insofar as he chaired the Sutton Courtenay Local Liaison Committee.  He advised that he had not expressed a view with regard to Application MW.0109/17 and therefore intended to take part in any discussion and voting.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2018 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2018 were approved and signed.

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN6).

This is an application to discharge obligations set out in existing Section 106 legal agreements linked to minerals and waste development at Finmere Quarry. There are seven relevant planning agreements. The applicant wishes to be released from obligations related to restrictions on the geographical source of waste (the hinterland) and the restoration bond.

This is not a planning application and the relevant consideration is whether the provisions continue to serve a useful purpose. In this case, it is considered that the bond does continue to serve a useful planning purpose to ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site and therefore these provisions should remain in place and so the legal agreements should continue to have effect without modification. It is considered that the waste catchment area is no longer necessary to achieve its purpose and therefore the provisions relating to this can separately be discharged through agreement with the applicant and any other parties to the legal agreements.  

It is RECOMMENDED that:

1.     Oxfordshire County Council do not enter into a deed of variation to amend the existing Section106 legal agreements with regards to the bond provisions, as applied for in application MW.0110/17 and that the S106 legal agreements continue to have effect without modification.

2.     The committee supports the removal of the hinterland provision from the S106 legal agreements and authorises the Director for Planning and Place to enter into negotiations with the applicant and any other parties to the legal agreements with regard to entering into a deed of variation to remove this requirement.

The Committee considered (PN6) an application to discharge obligations set out in existing Section 106 legal agreements linked to minerals and waste development at Finmere Quarry.

Mary Thompson presented the report together with the terms of a revised recommendation as set out in the published addenda. That revision followed an amendment to the application by the applicant withdrawing the requested modification and discharge of the provisions which related to the restoration bond. Therefore, the application now only related to the modification and discharge of the hinterland provisions. 

Councillor Ian Corkin speaking as local member supported the revised recommendation which now met his earlier concerns regarding the restoration bond.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Johnston, seconded by Councillor Lygo and carried unanimously) that amended application MW.0110/17 be approved and that the Director for Planning and Place be authorised to enter into a deed of variation to remove the obligations which related to hinterland restrictions on the source of waste to the site.

Report by Director for Planning & Place (PN7).

This is an application to amend a condition on an existing planning consent for an asphalt plant at Appleford Depot. The condition states that operations should take place between 6am and 6pm Mondays to Sundays and operations outside of these hours must be subject to prior notification and approval from the Minerals Planning Authority. The applicant has applied to amend the condition so that 24 hour working can take place on 180 days each calendar year with no need to obtain advance approval. The applicant has stated that the current condition wording is not practical because working outside of core hours is often required at short notice to supply asphalt for overnight road works.

There has been no objection from the District Council or the Environmental Health Officer. The site is located some distance from the nearest residential dwellings and a noise report submitted with the application concludes that noise limits will be within acceptable levels. However, there has been an objection from Sutton Courtenay Parish Council.

The report concludes that the proposed amended condition would be in accordance with development plan policy, subject to acceptable details of external lighting being provided.  

Subject to consideration of the further information with regard to the detailed external lighting proposals, it is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application MW.0109/17 be approved subject to the conditions set out in Annex 2 to the report PN7 as amended by Annex 1 also to that report.

The Committee considered an application to amend a condition to an existing planning consent for an asphalt plant at Appleford Depot. That condition stipulated that operations should only take place between 6am and 6pm Mondays to Sundays and that anything outside of those hours must be subject to prior notification and approval from the Minerals Planning Authority. The amendment now applied for would allow 24 hour working on 180 days each calendar year thereby obviating the need to obtain advance approval. The applicant had stated that the current condition was not practical because of the requirement to work outside the core hours, often at short notice, in order to supply asphalt for overnight road works.

Mary Thompson presented the report together with details of a lighting plan submitted by the applicant since the report’s publication. That had required an additional condition to be added to the officer recommendation as set out in the published addenda.

Councillor Webber referred to high levels of development in this area which in addition to local operations also included Didcot B and Milton Park. All of this had a high cumulative impact on the area and with this particular application, seeking to increase a current 10% limit for work outside core hours to 6 months out of each year that could only increase and it seemed to local residents that operators were not taking these pressures into consideration. That was apparent by a lack of early and meaningful engagement with the local liaison committee which was being bypassed with regard to such applications with operators appearing to ride roughshod over the views of the local community. He felt it was imperative that there should be worthwhile dialogue with operators at the earliest opportunity regarding these applications. With regard to this application he accepted that there were would be emergency situations when material was required but could see little justification for this level of increase.

Councillor Phillips expressed concern regarding potential noise levels and supported calls for greater involvement on the part of operators with the local community.

Ms Thompson confirmed that night time working had been going on for some years with no specific complaints received which related to this specific operation although complaints had been received regarding train movements in the area but that was a separate issue.

Mr Periam confirmed that engagement by operators at a local liaison committee could not be secured by condition but suggested an informative could be added to any permission to that effect.

Councillor Johnston agreed that operators needed to be reminded that realistic and early engagement with local communities was in their own interests.

Councillor Fox-Davies asked whether it was feasible to seek a figure between the current 10% and 180 days in order to mitigate any environmental impact.

Mr Periam advised that it wasn’t possible on the information received to conclude that an increase to 180 days was unreasonable and therefore hard to justify why that figure should be restricted.  There had been no previous limits  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12/18

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN8).

This is a planning application to allow a further period of time, up to 31 December 2018, year for the extraction of the mineral. The application area is within the overall permission for Shipton on Cherwell Quarry which had a range of uses on the site and currently includes waste recycling, land filling and restoration.  The report outlines the relevant planning policies, along with the comments and recommendations of the Director for Planning and Place.

The main issues with the application is the effect on the local amenity and the need to extract the mineral. It is felt that the effect on the local amenity can be controlled by conditions and that there is a need to remove the reserve rather than have it sterilised.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application No. MW.0001/18 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning and Place to include the Conditions set out in Annex 1 to the report PN8.

The Committee considered (PN8) a planning application to allow a further period of time, up to 31 December 2018, for the extraction of the mineral at this site.

Presenting the report Mr Broughton also referred to a lengthy submission from Shipton-on-Cherwell parish council received following publication of the report and which had been addressed in the published addenda.

Responding to:

Councillor Phillips he was not certain whether a Liaison Group existed or had existed but the applicant had indicated a willingness to be involved.

Councillor Fox-Davies – this was a complex site housing a number of different operations and the high number of conditions which related to the original application made back in 2008 needed to be incorporated once again.

Councillor Walker – it was conceivable that an application for a further extension could be made but the applicant expected to remove the material within a year. Vehicle movements were limited to 318 daily.

Councillor Walker then advised that, as a frequent user of the road through Bunkers Hill, he was aware that there was often a lot of mud on the road, bad drainage and numerous potholes and questioned whether adequate monitoring was being carried out.

Councillor Sibley – liaison groups were usually set up by the operator and chaired by the local county councillor. There were wheelwashing facilities on site.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Phillips, seconded by Councillor Johnson and carried by 12 votes to 1, Councillor Walker recorded as voting against) that planning permission for application No. MW.0001/18 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning and Place to include the Conditions set out in Annex 1 to the report PN8.and to an additional informative encouraging the applicant to use the Local Liaison Committee to promote local consultation and community involvement.

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN9).

This is a retrospective planning application to allow 7 lighting columns of 6m in height at a school car parking area. The application area is within an existing primary school site.

The report outlines the relevant planning policies, along with the comments and recommendations of the Director for Planning and Place.

The main issues with the application is the effect on the local amenity, and the local land scape. It is felt that the effect on the local amenity and local landscape is unacceptable and has not been justified.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application no. R3.0065/17 be refused on the grounds that:

1.      It would cause light pollution detrimental fo the local amenity contrary to saved policy ENV1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996; and

2.         It would have a detrimental effect on the local landscape contrary to policy ESD13 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2031.

Application withdrawn.

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN10).

The report updates members on an enforcement strategy for Elm Farm Quarry, Stratton Audley to secure the best long term restoration at minimum cost to the public purse that differs from the planning consent.

It is RECOMMENDED that the Committee:

(a)          note the report; and

(b)         endorse the carrying out of further ecological surveys to support the officers’ consideration of the expediency of taking enforcement action and the steps to be specified as required in a planning enforcement notice to be served no later than 31 December 2018.

The Committee considered (PN10) a report updating members on an enforcement strategy for Elm Farm Quarry, Stratton Audley.

Presenting the report together with further tabled information regarding costs Mr Hodgkinson then responded to questions from:

Councillor Reynolds – there had been some testing for leachate from the tip site in the late 90s but nothing found which affected this site.

Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor – no significant problems had been reported for the adjacent airfield.

Councillor Johnston – there had, as yet, been no engagement with other interested organisations. Negotiations were at an early stage with long term use yet to be established.

Councillor Corkin speaking as local member outlined the topography and features of this large site. Although on the outskirts of Stratton Audley it also had a significant bearing on a much wider area including Bicester.  Access to the site was difficult and whilst the community would not wish to see over development the ecology of the site was important and he felt there would be considerable support for the development of a community project. That would need to be both cost effective and appropriate to the long-term ecology of the site. Supporting the recommendations he looked forward to seeing improvements to the site.

Mr Periam confirmed there would be a further report to Committee after survey work had been carried out.

Councillor Webber pointed out that these conditions occurred at a number of locations countywide with an inevitable cost involved in perpetuity.

Responding to Councillor Webber Mr Hodgkinson confirmed that it was hoped to provide some rights of way and public access but it was private land. He confirmed that officers had attempted to engage with new owners but with no luck.  A decision regarding enforcement would need to be made within the year.

Referring to problems experienced at similar sites elsewhere in the county Councillor Johnston stressed the need for care regarding the type of access which might be granted.

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

(a)          note the report; and

(b)         endorse the carrying out of further ecological surveys to support the officers’ consideration of the expediency of taking enforcement action and the steps to be specified as required in a planning enforcement notice to be served no later than 31 December 2018.