Agenda item

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

This is a planning application to dispose of approximately 100m3 of subsoil and topsoil by spreading it on the application site to a depth of approximately 10cm. The waste arose from the digging of the foundations for the houses on the adjoining site. The site would  be restored as a wildflower meadow.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application no. MW.0021/15 be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

 i.          The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which Very Special Circumstances have not been shown. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy GS3 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan, policy CP13 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan Consultation Draft, policy W7 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, policy W5 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document and paragraph 6 of the National Planning Policy for Waste.

ii.          The proposal would result in disposal of waste on a green field site and other than at an existing landfill site. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies W5 and W6 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document ,  policy W7 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan and paragraph 4 of the National Planning Policy for Waste.

The Committee considered (PN6) an application to dispose of approximately 100m3 of subsoil and topsoil which had arisen from the digging of foundations for houses on an adjoining site by spreading it to a depth of approximately 10 cm and restoration to a wildflower meadow.

Introducing the report Mr Broughton highlighted a number of amendments; two of which had been highlighted on the addenda sheet and another in paragraph 14, line 1 where West Oxfordshire District Council should have read Vale of White Horse District Council.

He also referred to 2 late submissions. One from Lesley and Karim Sekkat and a second from Phillip Massey.

He then addressed a number of issues which had been raised including harm to the Green Belt from inappropriate development and the very special circumstances needed to be overcome in order to allow such development to take place. He had considered that those very special circumstances for a landfill development even on a small scale had not in this case been met.

He then responded to questions from:

Councillor Greene – the waste currently on site was the subject of enforcement action by the district council who were waiting on a decision with regard to this application before proceeding further.

Councillor Johnston – he was not certain of the size of the lorries which were intended to be used but suggested they would likely be the usual 15 tonne vehicles.

Councillor Bartholomew – he did not know the exact details of the enforcement action but it related to the existing bunds of spoil from the housing site. Councillor Johnston confirmed that the enforcement was unrelated to the matter currently before the Committee.

Councillor Handley – he confirmed that the application constituted development under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

Outlining the development Lynne Horn confirmed that the bund material had not come from the basement development neither had it been the intention to leave the material there. However, at a later date it had seemed reasonable to propose to spread the material in order to lessen disruption caused by its removal and also provide an opportunity to increase bio-diversity by planting a wildflower meadow.  The area of spread amounted to 10% of their field and any stones in the material would be used as part of the new build.  She recognised the need to protect the sanctity of the green belt but did not consider this to be inappropriate development nor a departure from the development plan and being small scale did not feel it would adversely affect the real purpose of the green belt nor cause harm to it. She did not consider approval would set a bad precedent as each application was different and should, in any event, be considered on merit and as the development would be for her and immediate members of her family she felt that guaranteed stewardship of the site.

She then responded to questions from:

Councillor Cherry – vehicles would be required to dispose of the material in accordance with the detail of the application but there would be no movements required on the major road network.

Councillor Purse – confirmed they would undertake stewardship and monitor the site for at least 5 years in accordance with the terms of the application.

Councillor Phillips – as the land and terrain as it was retained a strong value they would be unlikely to pursue the wild meadow option if the application was refused.  However, one of the advantages of spreading the waste was that it offered an opportunity to achieve some biodiversity so was something they were not discounting completely.

Mr Mytton advised that a question by Councillor Bartholomew regarding current enforcement was not relevant.

Councillor Godden considered the application did not conform to green belt policy and would set an unhealthy precedent.  The waste was unsuitable for the proposed use and should have gone to landfill.  It was clear that neighbouring residents would all prefer to see it removed and any perception that leaving the waste in situ would be of any benefit to them was misguided.   There had been a long history in this locality in fighting against illegal deposit of waste and the County Council needed to be consistent and refuse permission in this case as well.  Removal would only take a few months and a wildflower meadow could be created without this permission

. 

She then responded to questions from:

Councillor Bartholomew – it was a fair point to make that as the applicants would be the ones enjoying the view over the proposed meadow they could be expected to safeguard its future vigorously but there was no certainty that the applicants would be living in or on all of the site.  Mr Broughton advised that after-care would be something that the County Council would monitor.

Councillor Johnston considered it set a dangerous precedent. There was no compelling reason to allow this in the green belt and he referred to the saga of the Hinksey golf course. He was very much against it and confirmed it would be relatively easy to create a wildflower meadow by other means and he saw this as an attempt to subvert regulations for landfill.  He had seen 24 tonne vehicles delivering to the site without any trouble so therefore removal would be less onerous than suggested. He supported the recommendation and urged the Committee to do the same.

Councillor Bartholomew questioned whether permission would set a precedent. There was a de-minimis consideration here and therefore a reasonable case to treat this application as an exception. He could not see that there would be any negative after effect.  .

Councillor Owen could see the benefits of the application but felt that ultimately the green belt should, when and where possible, be protected.

Councillor Phillips concurred that at first sight the application seemed like common sense but planning policy said otherwise and that needed to be supported.

Councillor Purse shared the concerns expressed regarding precedent and also the need for care when trying to establish a wildflower meadow.

Councillor Handley accepted that when an application was in the green belt special circumstances needed to be applied but he considered this a minor application and should therefore proceed.

Councillor Cherry was aware that this practice happened frequently in the building trade but as green belt the line taken by officers should be supported.

Mr Broughton confirmed in response to Councillor Lilly who had expressed some sympathy for the applicant that the application process had been instigated by the applicants themselves and to Councillor Greene that if the application was rejected then the matter of the existing bunds would be referred to the enforcement team.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by the Chairman, seconded by Councillor Johnston and amended further by him with her consent as the mover of the motion) that:

(a)       planning permission for application no. MW.0021/15 be refused for the following reasons:

                 i.          The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which Very Special Circumstances have not been shown. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy GS3 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan, policy CP13 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan Consultation Draft, policy W7 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, policy W5 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document and paragraph 6 of the National Planning Policy for Waste.

               ii.          The proposal would result in disposal of waste on a green field site and other than at an existing landfill site. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies W5 and W6 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document ,  policy W7 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan and paragraph 4 of the National Planning Policy for Waste.

(b)       the Deputy Director for Environmental Services (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) be authorised to secure the removal of the existing bunds on the application site.