Agenda item

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

The proposal is to remove and modify planning conditions of an existing consent for development. The application does not involve any additional works that have not already been permitted by previous planning permissions but seeks not to comply with conditions 40 and 51 which state that the restoration and aftercare schemes are submitted within 12 months of the date of the permission.

The applicant proposes to amend the aftercare and restoration conditions to submit the schemes for approval to the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority within two years of the date of existing permission for Area A and within five years of the date of the existing permission for Areas B-D. By splitting the timescales of submission of restoration and aftercare schemes for Area A and Areas B-D, will allow the applicant to focus on restoring Area A in the short-term, which isn’t connected to the temporary industrial use in Areas B-C.

Fifteen letters/comments were received objecting to the application from third party representatives which relate to the site as whole and don’t appear to relate the application to vary conditions 40 and 51. An objection was also received from the Parish Council covering similar points unrelated to the application, stating the development was having major impact on the surrounding roads and site impact on local amenity. No objections were received from Natural England and the County’s Ecologist Planner.

It is RECOMMENDED that that planning permission for application MW.0046/16 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) including those set out in Annex 2 to the report.

The Committee considered (PN6) an application to remove and modify planning conditions of an existing consent for development in order to amend the aftercare and restoration conditions.

Having presented the report Mr Case and other officers responded to questions from:

Councillor Phillips – Mr Case advised that conditions relating to the car storage operation were not being amended.  Mr Broughton further confirmed that originally the intention had been to bring cars in by rail but as the site was not currently rail connected and cars had been brought in and out by lorry. Those movements would not increase.

Councillor Bartholomew – permission to work material beyond 2017 would require a further application.

Councillor Lilly – Mr Periam advised that anything which affected restoration of a mineral site made it a county planning matter.  Mr Case confirmed that the conditions now proposed retained all the details of existing conditions.

Councillor Sanders – Mr Case advised that car storage was permitted development as part of the interim restoration phase but was not happening yet.  He was unable to confirm what the future status of European Protected Species legislation would be following the Brexit vote but could confirm that the reason for delay had been because of the need for further discussion regarding a reptile mitigation scheme and restoration management plan. Mr Periam explained the term geological window.

Councillor Phillips – there was provision in the legal agreement to commission a traffic survey.

Councillor Mathew expressed concern regarding the constant need to regularly review conditions attached to planning permissions.  It seemed to him to always be for the benefit and interests of applicants alone and although officers had explained that the concerns of the parish council and other objectors in this particular case were not relevant to this application he disagreed on principle.

Councillor Lilly considered there was something of a paradox when considering the livelihood of birds at a site which was close to Oxford airport.

Mr Bowley for the applicants explained that these were relatively minor amendments which sought only to reschedule the submission of the detailed restoration and aftercare schemes for the site.  As one of the largest quarries in Oxfordshire Shipton on Cherwell had a long and complex planning history passing through different ownerships and derelict for over 20 years and despite many planning permissions being granted for development nothing had happened. Earthline had however made significant progress since it had purchased the site in 2012 which had included:

·      Extraction of remaining permitted limestone.

·      Demolition (almost completed) of the derelict cement works.

·      Commencement of restoration with inert fill.

·      Commencement of aggregates recycling.

·      General improvements including the upgrading of the access road 

The company had inherited a complicated planning position and needed to secure some amendments to make it fit for their operational purposes. That required submission of a number of applications both to amend planning conditions and discharge planning conditions and this was one such application.  Area A, at the western end of the quarry near to the site entrance, would be the first area to be restored.  That was not straightforward and needed to balance the interests of nature conservation, Oxford Airport (the site lay directly beneath the main flight path), water management, geology (part of the site was a SSSI) and factory flue dust that had been deposited in the area.  As restoration of the remainder of the site would not be commenced for several years and circumstances could well change during that time he emphasised that it would be sensible to defer submission of detailed schemes for these areas. In response to points raised by members he confirmed that bird strikes were a potential problem and although car storage was part of the existing planning permission Earthline was not in that business. He asked the Committee to support the officer recommendation.

He then responded to questions from:

Councillor Bartholomew – the applicants were working on an application to regularise restoration. With regard to existing permitted reserves he could not confirm if they would be worked by 2017 but if not then a separate application would be required.

Councillor Johnston – there was an extant permission for car storage but he could not say what the company’s intentions were with regard to that element nor was he able to confirm whether the company would take advantage of rail reconnection and although there had been some discussions in that regard there were heavy costs involved in establishing that.

Councillor Mathew – operations at this site had commenced in 1929 with quarrying scheduled to expire in 2017 and restoration by 2036.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Lilly, seconded by Councillor Johnston and carried by 12 votes to 0, Councillor Mathew recorded as having abstained) that planning permission for application MW.0046/16 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) including those set out in Annex 2 to the report PN6.