Agenda item

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN6)

The application site has previously been worked (for sand & gravel extraction and subsequent infilling) but is now restored. The application area covers 3.3 ha including the existing permitted site to which variations of conditions are proposed, with the extension area covering 1.8 ha and includes the existing recycled aggregates plant and the field immediately to its north-west which is currently rough grassland.             The proposed extension area would be used to provide more space for the crushing and screening operations that are necessary to provide the full range of recycled products required by the applicant’s customers and to the high quality demanded. The proposed extension and amendments, including the importation of 20,000 tonnes per annum of road sweepings (5,000 tonnes) and waste asphalt and planings (15,000 tonnes), would not lead to any increase in the overall permitted throughput of 100,000 tonnes of waste imported per annum or vehicle movements. The site would operate between the hours of 7.00 am and 6.00 pm Mondays to Fridays and 7.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturdays as for the existing permitted development.   Should planning permission be granted, the applicant would expect it to be time limited in accordance with the existing planning permission i.e. 31st December 2029 for expiration and 31st December 2030 for restoration. 33.The key planning issues are whether the development complies with policy on waste and also with environmental and amenity policies. The application site is partly a green field site located in the open countryside. I consider that the key planning issues to be considered are whether it is consistent with planning policy with regard to waste development, green field development, the open countryside and local landscape, amenity and traffic impacts.        

It is RECOMMENDED that Application MW.0003/14 (14/0142/P/CM) be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

i)             The development would be partly on a restored mineral extraction and landfill site and in the open countryside. It would neither maintain nor enhance the countryside for its own sake, would not be on a currently operational mineral extraction or landfill site and would not be on previously developed land contrary to the provisions of saved policy W4 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1996, saved policy NE1 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, paragraph 4 of the National Planning Policy for Waste and draft policy C6 of the Draft Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy.

ii)           The development would have an adverse impact on the amenity of users of the adjoining fishing lake contrary to saved policies W3 c), PE3 and PE 8 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1996, saved policy BE2 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy for Waste and draft policy C5 of the Draft Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy.

The Committee considered (PN6) an application to extend an existing aggregates recycling facility at Dix Pit, Stanton Harcourt.

Mr Periam presented the report, updated it with an addendum and responded to questions from:

Councillor Handley – given the height of the proposed bunds it was unlikely there would be a problem of water run-off into the lake or onto the bridlepath.

Councillor Greene – paragraph 5 of the report set out the detail regarding proximity of properties to the site.

He then explained the tabled photomontages and advised that the County’s landscape advisers had confirmed that the proposed landscaping would not adequately screen the site. That had prompted a revised recommendation (ii) which had been set out in the addenda and below:

(ii)       The development would not be easily assimilated into the landscape and could not be satisfactorily screened by additional landscape planting. It would have an adverse impact and so harm to the local landscape character of the area contrary to the provisions of saved policy PE18 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1996, saved policies NE3 and BE2 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, paragraph 7 and Appendix B of the National Planning Policy for Waste, draft policy C8 of the Draft Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy and draft policy 17 of the Draft West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2012.

Mr Basil confirmed his family had been the nearest residents to the Dix Pit site for 15 years and so felt able to judge the negative visual, noise and traffic impacts of the site. Despite the decision to allow this site on appeal it seemed the Inspector had had some sympathy with the concerns of the County Council setting out a long list of restrictions and conditions to mitigate against  operations at the site and whilst not agreeing with that decision he had accepted there was a balance to be struck between public need for facilities and their impact on the local community as demonstrated by the constraints placed on it by the Inspector. Therefore, he considered it wholly inappropriate for Sheehans to now seek to double the size of their facility and upset that balance. There would be increased visual and noise impact, additional planting was ineffective and on past performance the company were unlikely to comply with conditions against which the only positive seemed to be for the operator by establishing a more profitable site. He urged the Committee to reject the proposal.

Mrs Coyne queried the accuracy of the report stating that the extra area involved was in fact 1.1 hectares. The current site had been accepted on appeal in the countryside as no alternative urban sites had been identified. Indeed similar operations in the county were also on greenfield sites and were encouraged by national planning policy. There was a definite need for this facility as shown by the decision of the Inspector, which had also indicated that the original reasons for refusal had not been sound. There would of course be impacts but these could be mitigated against and she tabled photomontages which demonstrated that screening would be adequate. One further positive would be that this highly sustainable development would protect land which could otherwise be used for mineral development.  She urged the Committee to approve the application on reasonable grounds of sustainability and good mitigation measures and avoid the need for yet another potential appeal.

Responding to a question from Councillor Johnston she confirmed the size of the application site had been reduced from 3.3 hectares to 1.1.

Councillor Bartholomew considered it regrettable that the agent had felt it necessary to suggest that the Committee should grant the application in order to avoid an appeal.

Councillor Mathew then spoke as a local resident, Chairman of Stanton Harcourt Parish Council and local County Councillor and outlined his concern  since the 2012 appeal at the unneighbourliness of Sheehans.  The original application had proposed tree planting along the bridlepath, which had not been done. Lighting had been installed in positions, which contravened the original application and timings ignored consistently over the three years since the permission had been granted.  The routeing agreement was not respected with traffic regularly going through Sutton, which was narrow and dangerous.  He was aware that the haul road, which was in the ownership of All Souls College had a clause in the original agreement which prevented it from being used in connection with future development. He supported the aims of the operation but felt the site was in the wrong place with major visibility issues, which seemed unlikely to be addressed on the basis of the photomontage evidence.  He urged the Committee to refuse.

He then responded to questions from:

Councillor Hudspeth – his concerns could have been minimised had the planning conditions under the original appeal been honoured.

Councillor Bartholomew – he was not personally involved in the issue with All Souls College although he was aware that there had been some discussions but no conclusions reached.

Mr Mytton stressed that that issue with All Souls College was not a planning matter.

Responding to Councillor Handley Mr Hodgkinson confirmed that action could be taken with regard to a breach of conditions provided a period of 10 years had not expired.

Councillor Owen confirmed he had visited the site and his first instinct had been that the extension was acceptable and he had heard nothing to suggest otherwise. Conditions could be imposed to help the one resident living close by and the objection from the neighbouring angling club had been withdrawn.  He accepted the site was in open countryside but in his view the application site was on a bog standard field and the development would be more acceptable there rather than a village or urban setting.

Councillor Tanner agreed with some of what Councillor Owen had said and whilst this type of operation needed to be encouraged conversely there needed to be good reasons to agree it in the open countryside and he felt that in this case they were not strong enough. The open countryside was made up of bog standard fields like this one but that was no reason to blindly accept this sort of development. He moved the officer recommendation as amended and set out in the addenda sheet.

Seconding the motion Councillor Bartholomew echoed the comments made by Councillor Tanner regarding the need for this type of operation but this was an open countryside site and the principle of protecting the open countryside was an important one. He also had concerns regarding the past record of the company.

The motion was put to the Committee and –

RESOLVED:(by 11 votes to 1) that Application  MW.0003/14 (14/0142/P/CM) be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

i)                The development would be partly on a restored mineral extraction and landfill site and in the open countryside. It would neither maintain nor enhance the countryside for its own sake, would not be on a currently operational mineral extraction or landfill site and would not be on previously developed land contrary to the provisions of saved policy W4 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1996, saved policy NE1 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, paragraph 4 of the National Planning Policy for Waste and draft policy W6 of the Draft Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy.

ii)               The development would not be easily assimilated into the landscape and could not be satisfactorily screened by additional landscape planting. It would have an adverse impact and so harm to the local landscape character of the area contrary to the provisions of saved policy PE18 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1996, saved policies NE3 and BE2 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, paragraph 7 and Appendix B of the National Planning Policy for Waste, draft policy C8 of the Draft Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy and draft policy 17 of the Draft West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2012.