Apologies for absence had been received from the following Members of the Committee: Cllr Yvonne Constance OBE, Cllr Felix Bloomfield, Cllr David Rouane, Cllr Ian Snowdon, and Cllr Les Sibley. Cllr Constance had observed the meeting via remote video link but did not participate in the debate or vote on any item on the agenda.

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the last meeting.

It was RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting on 6^th June 2022 be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

Members of the public who wish to speak at this meeting can attend the meeting in person or “virtually” through an online connection.

To facilitate “hybrid” meetings we are asking that requests to speak are submitted by no later than 10.00 am Friday on 15^th July 2022.  Requests to speak should be sent to:

jack.latkovic@oxfordshire.gov.uk

If you are speaking “virtually”, you may submit a written statement of your presentation to ensure that if the technology fails, then your views can still be considered. A written copy of your statement can be provided no later than 9 am 2 working days before the meeting. Written submissions should be no longer than 1 A4 sheet.

In respect of Item 6 on the agenda: Serving of the Prohibition Order for The Review of the Mineral Planning Permission (ROMP) at Thrupp Farm and Thrupp Lane, Radley, representations were received from Nick Dunn (on behalf of H Tuckwell & Sons, who are preparing the ROMP), Cllr Bob Johnston (Kennington and Radley Division, Oxfordshire County Council) and Richard Dudding (on behalf of Radley Parish Council).

The Chair advised that the ROMP application item was being considered prior to the Progress Report on Minerals and Waste Site Monitoring and Enforcement item.  This took into account that there were speakers addressing the Committee.

As resolved at the meeting of the Planning and Regulation Committee on 6th September 2022, the report provides an update on the progress with regard to the work on the application and Environmental Statement for the review of conditions for the ROMP areas DD1 and DD2.  It is recommended that the Planning and Regulation Committee’s conclusion from its meeting on 9th September 2019 (Minute 39/19) that mineral working on the Radley ROMP site has permanently ceased be updated to reflect new information demonstrating an ongoing intention to continue mineral working on the Radley ROMP site and that the unserved Prohibition Order is revoked.  Further, that officers be instructed to seek an agreed date for the submission of the ROMP Application.

As resolved at the meeting of the Planning and Regulation Committee on 6^th September 2022, the Committee considered a report providing an update on progress with regard to the work on the application and Environmental Statement for the review of conditions for the ROMP areas DD1 and DD2.  It was recommended in the report that the Planning and Regulation Committee’s conclusion from its meeting on 9^th September 2019 that mineral working on the Radley ROMP site had permanently ceased be updated to reflect new information demonstrating an ongoing intention to continue mineral working on the Radley ROMP site and that the unserved Prohibition Order was revoked.  It was also recommended that officers be instructed to seek an agreed date for the submission of the ROMP application.

David Periam, Development Management Team Leader, stated at the meeting that it had previously been expected that the ROMP application would have been submitted by now.  However, evidence had been provided by H Tuckwell & Sons of the work undertaken on the site prior to submitting an application and Environmental Statement and this was reflected in the report.

Mr Dunn, on behalf of H Tuckwell & Sons, commented that there had been three legal opinions received which did not support a full or partial prohibition order for the Radley ROMP site.  It was also the second time that a recommendation had been made in relation to the site that the prohibition order should be rescinded.  There was a genuine intention to extract minerals from the site and progress an environmental impact assessment.  H Tuckwell & Sons were currently working on the quarry design.  There was no legal justification to pursue a prohibition order.  The current plan was to submit the ROMP application in early 2023.  Mr Dunn added that the threat of a prohibition order should not hang over the efforts to progress the application.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Mr Dunn made the following points:

a)    Ecological surveys had been restarted in Spring 2022 and these would continue to the Autumn.  Once these were completed, he would be in a position to complete the environmental impact assessment which was likely to take place in February 2023. If the ROMP application was delayed beyond this time, he would be willing to submit a report setting out progress and what still needed to be done.

b)    In respect of a planning application received by the Vale of White Horse District Council from Terra Firma Roadways Ltd relating to land within the ROMP permissions DD2 area being part of the Curtis’s Yard, where there were concerns the planning application would conflict with the restoration conditions of the ROMP permissions, Mr Dunn expressed the view that the ROMP area was a defined planning boundary.  The legal advice he had received was that if Terra Firma’s planning permission was granted, the areas would be removed from the ROMP.  He was seeking to improve the whole ROMP area in lieu of a decision from the Vale  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39/21

The report recommends that the Schedule of Compliance Monitoring Visits in Annex 1 and the Schedule of Enforcement Cases in Annex 2 be noted.

The Committee received a report providing a summary of the work undertaken by the County’s planning monitoring and enforcement team. It gave updates on the schedule of compliance monitoring visits for the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022 and on the progress of planning enforcement actions.

Neal Richmond, Senior Enforcement Officer, gave a presentation at the meeting and clarified the following in response to questions from Members regarding the work of the Monitoring and Enforcement Team. 

a)    The Monitoring and Enforcement Team were commended for the work they undertook, and the level of monitoring and enforcement of sites that they achieved.  This was especially so, given the number of facilities existing and taking into account the team’s limited resources.  Mr Richmond and Mr Periam advised that there had been rare cases of enforcement notices being appealed and costs being awarded against the County Council by the Planning Inspectorate.  There were many more instances of enforcement notices being upheld in the Council’s favour.

b)    Mr Richmond was asked whether the limited resources of the Monitoring and Enforcement Team could be used more effectively in terms of visits.  He replied that the schedule was reviewed annually and sometimes events led to more visits at a specific location.  There was still some catch up in the monitoring of sites following the Covid Lockdown period.

c)     Members were advised that the vast majority of monitoring visits by the Team were pre-announced.  A lot of the sites were well run and the County Council was keen that the sites’ representatives were available for the visits.

d)    It was confirmed that the Monitoring and Enforcement Team was unable to charge a fee for monitoring an unauthorised site which was not part of an existing facility.  The Team was also unable to charge a fee for the recycling sites that were monitored. 

e)    The Team could not steer or direct people towards providing recycling sites.  Any planning applications were considered on their own merits and were subject to planning policies.

f)      The Team had an awareness of when sites were required to be restored and a period of aftercare was required after the planning permission ended. 

RESOLVED: that the Schedule of Compliance Monitoring Visits and the Schedule of Enforcement Cases be noted.