Agenda and minutes

Cllr Charles Mathew declared an interest as Councillor for Eynsham.

A request has been received to call in the decision for scrutiny.

The following Councillors have requested the decision be called in for

scrutiny:

Councillor Charles Mathew

Councillor Anne Purse

Councillor Melinda Tilley

Councillor Roger Belson

Councillor Michael Badcock

Councillor Iain Brown

Councillor Stewart Lilly

Councillor Marilyn Badcock

Councillor Neil Owen

Councillor Bill Service

Councillor Pete Handley

The decision was:

"RESOLVED:          

(a)              To adopt the locally derived figures for aggregates supply requirement in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the report as the basis for the County Council’s preferred spatial strategy approach for mineral working.

(b)       to agree the County Council’s preferred spatial strategy approach for mineral working for consultation is:

i.           sand and gravel – concentration of working in existing areas of working, at Lower Windrush Valley, Eynsham/ Cassington/Yarnton, Sutton Courtenay, Cholsey and Caversham;

ii.    soft sand – working in three existing areas: south east of Faringdon; Tubney/Marcham/Hinton Waldrist; and Duns Tew;

iii.   crushed rock – working in three existing areas: north of Bicester to the east of the River Cherwell; south of the A40 near Burford; and south east of Faringdon.

(c)        to agree that consultation on the preferred spatial strategy approach for mineral working be combined with consultation on a preferred waste spatial strategy, in June/July 2011. 

(d)       the Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure to write to the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the       Planning & Regulation Committee to state that under the Coalition Government’s Localism agenda we now         endorse this as the emerging M3 figure when consideration is given to any application from this date onward."

The reasons given in the call-in request are:

The decision by the Cabinet on 16^th February 2011 Agenda Item 8 b(i) is contrary to the interests of Oxfordshire residents primarily due to insufficient consideration of the issue of sustainability, which would naturally lead to a hybrid solution in the interests of all parties; this implies that too little emphasis has been placed on the problems of crossing the River Thames, since the larger needs for gravel south of the Thames at Grove, Didcot, Harwell and the like should be administered from pits in their local vicinity. This is supported by secondary issues, which together merit reconsideration of the spatial strategy approach, such as spreading the onus, aftercare and infrastructure.

A copy of the report to Cabinet (CA8) is attached.

The Scrutiny Committee had before it the report of the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) to Cabinet on 18 February 2011 together with the draft minutes of that meeting.

Ms Julie Hankey (Chair of Outrage) spoke in support of the call in being referred back to Cabinet for further consideration. Ms Hankey felt that the decision had not taken into account the cumulative impact of gravel extraction at existing sites and urged the Committee to consider the impact on small village communities near the sites. In response to a question from Cllr Nicholas Turner, Ms Hankey confirmed that she had spoken on this subject to the Scrutiny committee on 6 October 2010 and had circulated a note in advance of the Cabinet meeting on 18 February. In response to a question from Cllr Don Seale, Ms Hankey re-stated that the impact would be felt in a small number of communities and that Cabinet should have considered more carefully spreading the extraction and impact across the County.

Dr Wright spoke in support of the call in being referred back to Cabinet for further consideration. He felt that the current proposal did not properly take into account that most gravel demand will be in the South of the County and so would increase the amount of heavy traffic needing to cross the Thames. Dr Wright confirmed that he had sat on the Working Group on this issue and that this issue had previously been discussed by the working group.

Cllr Steve Good (West Oxfordshire District Councillor and Northmoor Parish Councillor) spoke in support of the call in being referred back to Cabinet for further consideration. Cllr Good felt that the current proposal did not fully address the issue of crossing over the Thames. Cllr Good also felt that the current tonnage requirement is too high. In response to a question from Cllr Nicholas Turner, Cllr Good confirmed that he had fed this back to Cllr Mathew who attends the Working Group meetings. In response to a question from Cllr Handley, Cllr Good felt that more enforcement of routing agreements would mitigate the situation slightly.

At this point the Chairman called Cllr Ian Hudspeth (Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure) to the table. The Chairman indicated that the focus of the committee’s discussion should be if there were any material concerns over the Cabinet decision, based on examining the evidence that Cabinet had before it.

Cllr Charles Mathew spoke in support of the call in being referred back to Cabinet for further consideration as he has material concerns about the policy decision. Cllr Mathew felt that the policy is unsustainable as it concentrates extraction on the North of the River Thames, when most need for gravel will be in the South of the County. Cllr Mathew stated that he understood the need for gravel extraction, but that concentrating extraction in the areas proposed would have too great an impact to be considered sustainable.

Cllr Anne Purse spoke in support of the call  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4/11