Agenda, decisions and minutes

None declared.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 27 January 2020 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting  held on 27 January 2020 were approved and signed.

Minute 5/20 – Chairman’s Updates (Thrupp Farm and Thrupp Lane, Radley)

Officers confirmed no further information had been received from the operators/owners’ agent.

The Committee offered its congratulations to Mary Hudson (Planning Officer) on the birth of her son Elijah.

Report by Director for Planning & Place (PN6).

The report considers whether permission should be granted to vary conditions 1, 3 and 4 and delete conditions 2 and 13 in order to regularise the land form that has been created contrary to the approved land form under planning permission MW.0126/19, prior to the previously approved seeding and final planting being completed.

The application is being reported to Committee because an objection from the County Councillor Charles Mathew has been received and the County Council’s recent enforcement action in relation to the application site. Councillor Mathew is concerned about the request for a second revised landform when the first has not been implemented as previously approved, which was also a revision of the original restoration as approved. This was also the subject of the County Council’s recent, quashed enforcement action.

The report outlines further comments received and the recommendation of the Director for Planning and Place.

The development accords with the Development Plan as a whole and with individual policies within it, as well as with the NPPF. The proposal would not lead to any further engineering works or deposits of inert waste or top soils. The proposals are to regularise the contours as engineered prior to final seeding and planting to enable the site to be entered into the five-year after care period.

It is RECOMMENDED that the Director for Planning and Place be authorised to approve application no. MW.0126/19 subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning and Place including those set out in Annex 2 to the report PN6.

The Committee considered (PN6) an application to vary conditions 1, 3 and 4 and delete conditions 2 and 13 in order to regularise the land form that has been created contrary to the approved land form under planning permission MW.0126/19 prior to the previously approved seeding and final planting being completed.

The matter had been reported to Committee at the request of the Councillor Charles Mathew the local member who was concerned regarding the request for a second revised landform when the first had not been implemented as previously approved. That had also been a revision of the original restoration as previously approved.  The matter had also been the subject of recent enforcement action which had been quashed on the ground that the notice had not been served correctly on all owners/occupiers.

Emma Bolster presented the report and responded to questions from members.

Councillor Hudspeth – the site could be seen from the road but planting helped mitigate against that.

Susan Hughes spoke on behalf of the applicants explaining that the crux of this application was a disagreement over restoration levels in the southwest corner of the landfill site representing an area less than 4% of the whole site.  The difference between the existing contours and those approved in this small area was negligible and although the contours were higher, they could not be gauged by eye and required a topographical survey to identify the difference. Crucially, that difference did not cause any adverse landscape or visual effects and the resultant landform was as acceptable as the previously approved landform.  In view of this your landscape specialist had raised no objection and there had been no other objections, except from Councillor Mathew who was concerned that the application was a change to what had been previously approved.  However, the fact that the application was different to earlier restoration schemes was not a justifiable reason for refusal and there could be a variety of acceptable restoration solutions, not just one.  The planning system acknowledged that and provided a number of options to enable applications to amend planning permissions.  These rights are unfettered and unrestricted in legislation, with no limit as to the number of times an application to vary a proposal could be sought.

We all had opinions as to the whys and wherefores of how we got to this point but I agree with the conclusion in the report that closure was needed and granting this application was the best option available to achieve that and allow final seeding and planting to be undertaken whereas refusal would only lead to further delay, earthworks, unnecessary lorry movements and pollution, disagreements over site levels and a no better overall restoration. She clarified a question raised at the recent member site visit that materials used to restore the site had been approved by the Council so were not part of this application which related only to the acceptability of contours in the south west corner of the landfill.  I urge you to accept  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14/20