Agenda, decisions and minutes

During discussion on Item 8 other sites in the Faringdon area had been referred to and Councillor Heathcoat declared that those sites were in her division.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 8 March 2021 (PN3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 March 2021 were approved for publication.

This Planning & Regulation Committee will be held virtually in order to conform with current guidelines regarding social distancing. To facilitate new arrangements during the current situation we are asking that requests to speak are sent to graham.warrington@oxfordshire.gov.uk no later than 9am Tuesday 13 April 2021 together with a written statement of your presentation. The statement can, however, be provided at a later date but no later than 9 am 2 working days before the meeting (Thursday 15 March). That statement is made available to members of the Committee to ensure that if there are connection issues preventing your participation in the meeting then your views can still be considered.

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.

There were no Chairman’s updates.

The Chairman took the opportunity to thank the outgoing Chairman Councillor Jeannette Matelot for her work on the Committee and also to members of the Committee past and present who were standing down as Councillors at the May elections.

Report by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure & Planning (PN6).

The report sets out the detail of an application seeking permission to widen and upgrade the existing site access onto the public highway at Grimsbury Green, including the provision of a new footpath into the site at the eastern side of the access, re-surfacing, and alterations to drainage. The proposals intend to segregate HGV movements from non-motorised users and to formalise the T-junction to prevent vehicle conflict and so that HGVs do not cut the corner. Existing palisade fencing would be relocated to the new boundary at the eastern edge of the access, although the western edge would remain unfenced. In addition to the works to the access, the application also proposes to fund the provision of a new 2m wide footway to the south of Grimsbury Green along with a central refuge crossing point.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application MW.0011/21 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, to include those set out in Annex 1 to the report PN6.

The Committee considered a report (PN6) setting out the detail of an application for permission to widen and upgrade the existing site access onto the public highway at Grimsbury Green, including the provision of a new footpath into the site at the eastern side of the access, re-surfacing, and alterations to drainage. The proposals also intended to segregate HGV movements from non-motorised users and to formalise the T-junction to prevent vehicle conflict and HGVs cutting the corner. Existing palisade fencing would be relocated to the new boundary at the eastern edge of the access, although the western edge would remain unfenced. Additionally, the application also proposed to fund the provision of a new 2m wide footway to the south of Grimsbury Green along with a central refuge crossing point.

Mary Hudson presented the report together with an addendum setting out further responses from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and the Environment Agency.  The responses referred to Application MW.0011/21 (Item 6) and Applications MW.0012/21, MW.0013/21 and MW.0014/21 (Item 7). Neither had raised objections and no changes were being recommended to the conditions. A further letter of representation had also been received which had not raised any additional concerns over and above those already raised and addressed in the report.

Responding to questions from members of the Committee she:

Confirmed that no routeing agreement would be required for this particular application.

The period for commencement of works was the standard 3 years and  responding to concerns that improvements to the access should be completed before the development proposed in the 3 applications for consideration at Item 7, that could be tied in with the those applications.

Confirmed that the applicants had chosen to present the applications in this way. The first application related to access and the applicants wanted that done regardless of the outcome of the applications at Item 7. Conditions could be attached to this application in respect of the others if the Committee so wished noting that members of the Committee had suggested that the local member needed to be fully involved in these issues going forward

Approval of Application MW.0011/21 would not bind the Committee to the 3 applications at Item 7.

Councillor Banfield then spoke as local member.  Waterworks Road was a very busy road and so the improvement works at the access were welcome but also considered that that application had been submitted in order to distract attention away from the 3 applications at Item 7. She had grave concerns for the health of residents in her division who lived close to the site and others whose properties backed onto Hennef Way where readings were already double safe and legally recommended limits.  If all 4 applications were granted then HGV movements would increase from a current daily total of 80 to 348 and all would have to drive through Waterworks Road and enter onto Hennef Way. Safe access to the site was important but was it right to consider this sort of increase in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13/21

MW.0012/21: Demolition of existing concrete batching plant and stock bays and provision of new permanent aggregate storage bay area and weighbridge and associated lorry turning area and widening of internal access road;

MW.0013/21: Provision of new relocated RMX concrete plant and associated works including reconfigured storage bay area, new weighbridge, expanded car parking area and new office/welfare facility; and

MW.0014/21: Provision of temporary stock-bay area and weighbridge to accommodate additional aggregate deliveries associated with construction of HS2.

Report by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning (PN7).

The report sets out three applications for the proposed redevelopment of Tarmac’s existing site in Banbury. The site forms part of an operational rail head which is used for the processing, storage and distribution of aggregate, concrete, and asphalt to the local construction industry. The railhead as a whole contains an operational asphalt plant, concrete batching plant, aggregate storage bays, areas of hardstanding and car parking, office, and associated infrastructure with a total operation land-take of around 2.8ha.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application MW.0012/21 be approved subject to no objection being received from the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency, the applicant first entering into a routeing agreement and to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, to include those set out in Annex 1 to the report PN7.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application MW.0013/21 be approved subject to no objection being received from the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency, the applicant first entering into a routeing agreement and to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, to include those set out in Annex 2 to the report PN7.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application MW.0014/21 be approved subject to, no objection being received from the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency, the applicant first entering into a routeing agreement and to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, to include those set out in Annex 3 to the report PN7

MW.0012/21: Demolition of existing concrete batching plant and stock bays and provision of new permanent aggregate storage bay area and weighbridge and associated lorry turning area and widening of internal access road;

MW.0013/21: Provision of new relocated RMX concrete plant and associated works including reconfigured storage bay area, new weighbridge, expanded car parking area and new office/welfare facility; and

MW.0014/21: Provision of temporary stock-bay area and weighbridge to accommodate additional aggregate deliveries associated with construction of HS2.

The Committee considered a report (PN7) setting out three applications for the proposed redevelopment of Tarmac’s existing site in Banbury which formed part of an operational rail head used for the processing, storage and distribution of aggregate, concrete, and asphalt to the local construction industry. The railhead as a whole contained an operational asphalt plant, concrete batching plant, aggregate storage bays, areas of hardstanding and car parking, office, and associated infrastructure with a total operation land-take of around 2.8ha.

Mary Hudson presented the report together with an addendum setting out further representations as reported under Item 6 on the agenda.  She confirmed that HGV routes set out in the 1992 routeing agreement ensured that HGVs used only approved routes through Banbury and a new agreement would be used to ensure that HGVs associated with this site continued to use those routes.

Responding to questions she confirmed that the routes as set out in 1992 agreement were still acceptable and as a permitted route there would be no limit on vehicles travelling south.

County Councillor Banfield speaking as local member reiterated the same concerns as she had raised under Item 6 with regard to the health and welfare of residents living in her division. She again expressed misgivings regarding  long-term plans for the site and fully expected the company to seek to retain the plant infrastructure after the application period had expired.

Councillor Johnston left the meeting at 3:20.

Malcolm Lawer for the applicants.  Tarmac’s site in Banbury had supported local infrastructure projects, as well as nationally significant projects, over the past 30 years, such as works to the M40 and more recently HS2. In order to support the construction of vital infrastructure in the most efficient and sustainable way possible it had become clear that the Banbury plant would be required to play an important role over the next 5 years and, therefore, investment was being made now to support this.  Part of that investment involved HS2 which was looking to utilise and maximise the use of existing rail connections as part of the delivery process to minimise carbon emissions that would otherwise be generated if all deliveries were made by road. The existing rail siding at Banbury was a key element of that strategy. The applications before the Committee were looking to alter the current layout to make more effective and safe use of the site and increase the efficiency of rail offloading and HGV movements, as well as providing additional temporary storage for materials associated with HS2.  Tarmac appreciated there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14/21

Report by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning (PN8).

The quarry has identified a need for the provision of a wider range of aggregate products within the local area and proposes to meet this demand by providing the local community with a wider range of aggregate products.  Planning permission is therefore being sought for the importation, handling and resale of 10,000tpa of aggregates within a small section of New Barn Farm Quarry. It is anticipated that 30% of the imported aggregates would be secondary and/or recycled and would largely comprise compost soil blend with the proportion of secondary and/or recycled aggregates is expected to increase as more supplies become available. 

Subject to a supplemental routeing agreement first being entered into planning permission MW.0114/20 be APPROVED subject to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning to include those set out in Annex 1 to the report PN8.

The Committee considered (PN8) an application from Grundon Sand & Gravel Ltd for provision of a wider range of aggregate products from its operation at New Barn Farm to the local community. Planning permission was, therefore, being sought for the importation, handling and resale of 10,000tpa of aggregates within a small section of the Quarry. It was anticipated that 30% of the imported aggregates would be secondary and/or recycled and would largely comprise compost soil blend with the proportion of secondary and/or recycled aggregates expected to increase as more supplies became available. 

Having presented the report Mr Periam confirmed that the configuration of the site access prevented any right turn out of the site.

Stuart Darby who had been due to speak had been unable to attend. A copy of his submission had been made available to members prior to the meeting in case of connectivity problems and so members of the Committee were aware of the grounds of Mr Darby’s objection.

Councillor Pete Sudbury addressed the Committee and also spoke on behalf of Mr Stuart Darby.  Outlining a number of main objections to this application he first advised that one of those concerns regarding potential loss of trade for other local suppliers seemed to have now been addressed following confirmation from local merchants that it was no longer an issue of concern for them. Other objections and concerns included what he referred to as the “bridgehead problem” where development could be allowed on the outside of the line of the Wallingford bypass in addition to the significant development already taking place inside the line of the road. That could lead to more traffic congestion and further erode the purpose of the bypass to keep traffic away from the centre of Wallingford.  It was clear from the Grundon application that this proposal was aimed at creating a significant retail operation and any development allowed outside the line of the road meant that other applications including ones for residential development would be hard to resist. The coalescence of areas such as Brightwell and Wallingford was not the way forward and if that was allowed to happen then the bypass would become a through road with lower speed limits, more local traffic and more traffic encouraged to cut through Wallingford exacerbating current air quality issues in the town centre  As a major route from Didcot to the south and Henley the A4130  pre-Covid had already been congested at peak times and current levels of traffic were neither indicative or representative of what we might return to. Future residential development both locally and in Didcot meant this road should be regarded as a future pinch point and he did not accept that the extra traffic generated would be trivial as indicated by modelling assumptions but continue to be busiest at peak times and not spread out equally through the day. Access to the site was unsuitable for non-commercial traffic with the potential for accidents and tailbacks whereas the access to Highcroft had an extensive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15/21