Agenda item

Cabinet considered a report that covered four separate but connected documents that related to the Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Mr John Taylor, Chairman of PAGE, representing 8 Parish Council’s in South Oxfordshire spoke on the process used for the Local Aggregate Assessment (LAA). In November 2013 they had been pleased to see the 10 year sales average restored as the basis for the LAA. This had then been in the public consultation. In August 2014 a new consultant had resulted in a flawed document no longer using only the 10 year sales average. There was a duty to co-operate but Oxfordshire Councils and communities had been ignored. The result was an increase of the LAA to 1.015tonnes. This was a 42% increase which represented a new gravel pit. He asked Cabinet to go back to the 10 year sales average as agreed last November.

Mr Ian Mason, BACHPORT, spoke against the LAA figure suggesting it was based on flawed logic and guesswork. He refuted claims that Oxfordshire was special or unique. Structural market changes had impacted on demand with use declining due to the increased use of recycled and marine aggregates. It was wrong to look at the position 10 years ago as at that time Oxfordshire had been a massive exporter of aggregate. Production needed to come down as demand dropped. He asked that Cabinet support a 10 year average.

Responding to a question from members Mr Mason stated that the figues were guesswork as they looked only for reasons to increase. The figures varied and were not robust.

Mr Arnold Grayson, CPRE, speaking against the LAA figures commented that the numbers used were arbitrary and were used by the consultancy to manipulate the arguments.

Mrs Julie Hankey, OUTRAGE, also spoke against the change to the basis of the LAA. She compared the actual sales in the past year to the figure proposed. She pointed out that there had been no further consultation on the changed basis and that nothing had changed in the Oxfordshire position since February 2014. As someone involved in the process over a long period of time she felt that there was an imbalance in the Council’s attitude to providers and to the communities concerned.

Councillor John Sanders, Shadow Cabinet Member for Environment, stated he was satisfied with the approach to the LAA as set out at paragraph 9 of the report. It took the 10 year average as a starting point but took into account reasonable expectations. In response to a query from Councillor Sanders expressing concern about the Core Strategy being in two parts, Bev Hindle explained the approach and gave an assurance that it would not be a problem going forward.

Councillor Purse, speaking as Vice-Chairman of the Minerals & Waste Cabinet Advisory Group stated that the Group although aware of the timetable to keep to had also been aware of the importance and impact of what they were being asked to consider. They had found it very tough. It was important to be sure that the right amount of gravel was being extracted because if not they would be doing a disservice to the people of Oxfordshire. She personally was concerned about digging in one county to send it to another. She commended the diagram in the report which gave a much clearer picture of how the various documents fitted together.

Councillor Mathew, speaking as a local councillor and CAG Member drew Cabinet’s attention to the importance of the annual audit of the LAA figure as it dictated the 7 year land bank to supply gravel and thus controlled planning permissions. He highlighted that the current figure was 153% above the last recorded figure and 78% above the 10 year average figure. He asserted that over provision gave control over site allocation to providers and impacted on the Council’s ability to limit environmental impact. He believed that the Plan would be rejected by the Inspector and queried whether the Council should take that risk.

Responding to a question from a member Councillor Mathew stated that the increased use of recycled and marine aggregates had impacted on the figures. However it was difficult to prove as there were no agreed figures for the annual production of such aggregates.

Councillor Lorraine Lindsay Gale, speaking as a local councillor referred to the huge number of people concerned about the LAA figure. CAG Members had not been comfortable with the figure and she could not understand why Gill Mill was not included. She believed that the figure was based on evidence which was shaky, indirect and hard to quantify.

Councillor Atkins, speaking as a local councillor and CAG member, felt that the new LAA figure had not been discussed at CAG. The 10 year average had been previously agreed and it was dropped late in the day without xplanation. She felt that her comments had not been properly taken into account and discussed at the meeting. She acknowledged that a follow up paper had been prepared but that this was not the same as a discussion. She supported the comments made about the lack of justification for the increased figures and felt that evidence had been chosen to support the view taken.

Councillor Nimmo Smith introduced the contents of the reports and with regard to the LAA highlighted the timetable and set the Plan in the context of the 10 year arc. He added that the Plan was also about waste. He referred to the Energy from Waste plant that was now fully commissioned. This had massively reduced land fill.

Bev Hindle responded to the points raised about the LAA indicating that other local factors were important in addition to the 10 year rolling average. The doubling of housing and increased growth were unique factors affecting supply. The figure was evidence based and he pointed out that the County Council was asked to create supply but did not ensure delivery.

Peter Day responded to points about the use of secondary aggregates. Natinally they provided about 30% of the total aggregate reqyuirement and this was true for Oxfordshire. When looking at this it was necessary to bear in mind the scope for any increase. Currently recycled was at a ceiling. They had lost the biggest producer locally with the loss of Didcot A. They had taken the use of secondary aggregates into account but still the majority of aggregate would come from a primary source.

Responding to a question from the Chairman about the likely result if they amended the LAA to a straight 10 year average Peter Day explained that the consultation with the Aggregate Working Party and neighbouring and other planning authorities had been on the basis of the draft LAA before Cabinet. It had received widespread support. There was a risk that to change it at this stage would lead an Inspector to conclude the County had not met its duty to co-operate. If this was the case the Plan would not get to Inspection stage.

During lengthy discussion members considered the issues raised by the speakers, the information from officers contained in the report and in person and agreed the recommendations (by 5 votes for and 0 against with 3 abstentions).