Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2020 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2020 were approved for publication.

Minute 27/20 – Swannybrook Farm, Kingston Bagpuize, Abingdon

Officers advised that although all further investigation work requested by Committee in July had been done it had not been possible to complete all the analysis work. That had included the independent traffic survey, which had only been concluded recently and, therefore, it had not been possible to bring a report back to this meeting. A report would be made to the October meeting.

This Planning & Regulation Committee will be held virtually in order to conform with current guidelines regarding social distancing.  Normally requests to speak at this public meeting are required by 9 am on the day preceding the published date of the meeting.  However, during the current situation and to facilitate these new arrangements we are asking that requests to speak are submitted by no later than 9am four working days before the meeting i.e. 9 am on Tuesday 1^st September. Requests to speak should be sent to graham.warrington@oxfordshire.gov.uk together with a written statement of your presentation to ensure that if the technology fails then your views can still be taken into account. A written copy of your statement can be provided no later than 9 am 2 working days before the meeting (Thursday 3^rd September).

Where a meeting is held virtually and the addressee is unable to participate remotely their written submission will be accepted.

Written submissions should be no longer than 1 A4 sheet.

Report by the Assistant Director For Strategic Infrastructure And Planning (PN6).

This is a report to bring to Committee the issue of the serving of the Prohibition Order for the Review of the Mineral Planning Permission (ROMP) at Thrupp Farm and Thrupp Farm, Radley which was resolved to progress at the meeting of the Planning & Regulation Committee on 9 September 2019. The report sets out the issue to be considered which is whether the recent submission of a related planning application for a processing plant, conveyor and Bailey bridge for the removal of the mineral from part of the ROMP site and additional information provided with regard to the progression of the application for the review of mineral conditions on the ROMP planning permissions DD1 and DD2 changes the Committee’s previous decision as to whether mineral working from the ROMP has permanently ceased or not and therefore the duty to serve a Prohibition Order or not.

It is RECOMMENDED that the Planning & Regulation Committee’s previous conclusion from its meeting on 9 September 2019 (Minute 39/19) that mineral working on the Radley ROMP site has permanently ceased and that there is a duty to serve a Prohibition Order is not rescinded but that the service of the Prohibition Order is held in abeyance pending:

i)          the progression and determination of application no. MW.0075/20 for processing plant, a conveyor and a Bailey Bridge for the removal of mineral extracted from part of the ROMP permission areas DD1 and DD2; and

ii)        H. Tuckwell and Sons Ltd providing an update, accompanied by documentary evidence, on progress with regard to the work on the application and Environmental Statement for the review of conditions for the ROMP permission areas DD1 and DD2 to the meeting of the Planning & Regulation Committee on 8 March 2021.

The Committee considered (PN6) a report on the issue of the serving of the Prohibition Order for the Review of the Mineral Planning Permission (ROMP) at Thrupp Farm and Thrupp Farm, Radley and setting out whether or not the recent submission of a related planning application for a processing plant, conveyor and Bailey bridge for the removal of the mineral from part of the ROMP site and additional information provided with regard to the progression of the application for the review of mineral conditions on the ROMP planning permissions DD1 and DD2 changed the Committee’s previous decision as to whether mineral working from the ROMP had permanently ceased or not and therefore the duty to serve a Prohibition Order or not.

Mr Periam presented the report. He and other officers responded to questions from members.

Councillor Johnston – Mrs Crouch advised that a Freedom of Information request had been received relating to the release of the Operator’s Counsel’s opinion and assessed as being supplied as confidential legal advice. A further request to review that decision was currently being considered.

Councillor Roberts referred to a suggestion from the parish council that there was an area not covered by any mineral extraction but is part of the ROMP.  Would it be possible to continue with the prohibition Order on just that section.

Mr Periam advised that the areas shown on the map were covered by the two relevant permissions and if a ROMP application came forward then that would have to relate to the whole area.

Roger Thomas spoke on behalf of the Friends of Radley.  He referred to the Committee’s decision in June 2020 to consider the future of the prohibition order in the light of counsel’s opinion which had been received on behalf of the operator.  That had not been made publicly available and, in his view, made it almost certainly unlawful to make a decision on the basis of a secret submission by the applicant.  He did not agree with the decision not to release the document. The question facing the Committee now was mineral working likely to resume.  A year ago the Committee had concluded that it was felt that it wouldn’t but it was now being suggested that it might at a future date. The Committee were being told a lot about Tuckwells and what they may do regarding a planning application and ROMP application but Tuckwells were not the landowner.  Curtis were the landwoners and extraction would only take place if Curtis wanted it to but what we have seen from them is 30 years of prevarication and obfuscation.  He felt the real truth lay in a statement made under oath by the Managing Director of Curtis in 2007 that all extraction at Radley had been completed and reserves exhausted in 1990. Tuckwells have said they need an uninterrupted supply of gravel for their business but lack confidence that any extraction would resume at Radley to the extent that they are preparing 4 separate applications for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31/20

Report by Assistant Director For Strategic Infrastructure And Planning (PN7).

This is a report to bring to committee for determination an application for the extraction of sand and gravel for the creation of a marina on land at Whitecross Farm, Reading Road, Cholsey. The report set outs the issue to be considered in the determination of the application which are the development plan and any other material considerations and concludes that there are a number of reasons why the application is contrary to the development plan and should be refused planning permission.

Subject to no additional material comments being received by the completion of the consultation period, it is recommended that application no. MW.0033/18 for Planning Application to allow the development of an offline River Thames marina basin with fixed and floating pontoon moorings for approximately 280 boats, slipway, secure and public car parking, refuelling and pump-out dock, refuse and recycling area, marina office and café, toilet and shower block and laundry facilities, boat hire building, picnic and barbeque area, open water area, circular footpath, boat workshop, new footbridge and creation of new grazing marsh, grassland, pond, reedbed and wet woodland habitat with a construction phase involving the extraction and processing of sand and gravel, the importation of inert fill and the construction of new site accesses, landscaping and screening bunds be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1)     There is no identified need for a 280 berth marina of which 80% of the moorings would be for permanent moorings. The development is therefore contrary to saved policy R9 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, policy CSS1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2012 and policy ENV4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2034.

2)     The proposed development would constitute a dramatic land-use change that is both discordant with the landscape character of the area and detracts from the open and undeveloped countryside setting of the River Thames and Chilterns AONB. It is therefore contrary to policies CSEN1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2012, C4 and C8 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Part 1 Core Strategy and C3 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

3)     The development would harm the setting of listed buildings and the public benefit of the development is not considered to outweigh that harm. It is therefore contrary to policies CON5 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, CSEN3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2012 and C9 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Part 1 Core Strategy and Section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990.

4)     The development is not considered to be a well-designed place and does not accord with policies D1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 or policy CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2012.

5)     There would be a loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land  contrary to policy C6 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Part 1 Core Strategy.  ...  view the full agenda text for item 32/20