Agenda item

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN7).

This application is to increase the amount of waste imported to the existing Dix Pit Recycled Aggregates Facility from 100,000 to 175,000 tonnes per calendar year through a variation of condition 6 of planning permission no. 16/04166/CM (MW.0140/16). No other changes to the existing conditions are proposed.

The update report to this Committee follows deferral of the application at its meeting on 27 November 2017 to allow for further negotiation with the applicant.

The development accords with the Development Plan as a whole and with individual policies within it, as well as with the NPPF. It is considered to be sustainable development in terms of environmental, social and economic terms. The proposed development would be beneficial in terms of contributing towards Oxfordshire’s supply of secondary aggregate and it is considered that any potential impacts can be adequately addressed through planning conditions and the routeing agreement which prohibits HGVs associated with the site passing along the B4449 through Sutton during peak hours which will continue to apply.

The Planning & Regulation Committee is RECOMMENDED that:

(a)       Application MW.0073/13 be approved subject to:

(i)         the existing conditions including the amendment made under Non-material amendment application no. MW.00889/1 to condition 6 reading as follows:

          No more than 175,000 tonnes of waste shall be imported to the site in any calendar year. Records of imports, sufficient to be monitored by the Waste Planning Authority shall be kept on site and made available to the Waste Planning Authority's officers on request. Separate records shall be kept on site of any topsoil or other soil materials imported solely for use in the restoration of the Controlled Reclamation Site permitted subject to planning permission no. MW.0141/16 (16/04159/CM); and

(ii)       an additional condition requiring that the operator’s records of heavy goods vehicle movements to and from the site including daily traffic numbers and tracking details for those vehicles controlled by the operator be provided to the Waste Planning Authority on a quarterly basis.

(b)       that the Chairman of the Planning & Regulation Committee write to the Cabinet Member for Environment advising that provision of the Sutton Bypass has been raised by Councillor Mathew in commenting on this application and advising of the applicant’s expression of interest in working with other parties to help secure it.

The Committee considered PN7 an application to increase the amount of waste imported to the existing Dix Pit Recycled Aggregates Facility from 100,000 to 175,000 tonnes per calendar year through a variation of condition 6 of planning permission no. 16/04166/CM (MW.0140/16). No other changes to the existing conditions had been proposed.  This matter had been deferred at the 27 November 2017 meeting to allow further negotiation with the applicant.

Mr Periam presented the report together with the addenda sheet tabled at the meeting.

The Committee also noted a late submission from the residents of Deans Farmhouse, Evergreen Cottage, Tudor Cottage and The Green all objecting to any increase in the already high volume of HGVs on a road which they considered not fit for that type of traffic.

Responding to Councillor Johnston Mr Periam confirmed that the applicants had not been prepared to consider a staged approach to the proposed  increase in vehicle movements to the site for the reasons set out in paragraph 2 of the officer report.

Mr Salmon for the applicants advised that the application supported Council policy on recycling, production of secondary aggregates and maximum diversion of waste from landfill. The route to the site followed a designated lorry route and a recent traffic consultancy report had shown that impact on Sutton village from this increase would not be as severe as had been suggested. Although there were currently over 3,000 daily movements on the road the predicted number of additional vehicles to or from Dix Pit as a result of this application would equate to one every ¼ hour with none of the extra vehicles in any event travelling through Sutton. Similarly, as the number of vehicle movements resulting from the application were considered insignificant the applicant felt any need to agree a staged increase was impractical.  Sheehans were happy to comply with conditions requiring information and notification of any breaches of the routeing agreement every 3 months and had also agreed a contribution of £5,000 towards a feasibility study to determine the most effective way to improve highway safety. Contrary to what had been suggested Sheehans took its role regarding local amenity and safety seriously. They were accredited under the Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme and trained their drivers to a high standard. They had an exemplary safety record and adhered to the routeing agreement to avoid Sutton during peak hours despite the alternative route requiring a 20 mile diversion, which was both time consuming and environmentally costly and not required by other operators who used the site. Sutton village was not a typical village centre but had 24 residences spaced out on both sides of the road, over a distance of 600 meters, and set well back from the road itself. It had a 30 mph speed limit with adequate signing and 2 HGVs were able to pass each other. The County Council’s own highways department considered the road acceptable as a local lorry route. Therefore, bearing in mind that the application supported Council policies, used a designated lorry route, avoided Sutton at peak hours in accordance with the routeing agreement and had been supported by county planning and highway officers he urged the Committee to approve the application bearing in mind that the report also recognised that a refusal of permission could not be sustained on appeal.

Responding to Councillor Reynolds he confirmed an additional 40 vehicles per day over and above the current 54.

Councillor Mathew expressed regret that the applicants had been unwilling to consider a compromise staggered approach and continued to pursue their aim for an immediate increase to 175,000 tonnes.  That increase equated to a vehicle through Sutton village every 4½ minutes and could not be perceived in any way as insignificant.  He advised that breaches of the routeing agreement continued to occur and only that morning 5 lorries had passed him on the B4449 outside the permitted hours. He questioned the integrity of specialist reports and in his opinion all such reports should be conducted by independent specialists appointed by the county council and paid for by applicants.  The carriageway was not wide enough for 2 HGVs to pass comfortably and any moves to improve the pavements would merely result in a further narrowing of the carriageway. The situation was completely unacceptable to local residents when there was a perfectly adequate alternative route via Hardwick through to Ducklington. The parish council had not been approached on proposals to improve the footpath and he had only learned of the £5,000 offer from the applicants 5 minutes before the meeting. He asked the Committee to refuse the application.

He then responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston – the offer of £5,000 was unusual and in his view inadequate in that it wouldn’t deliver a great deal. He would prefer to see any available money spent on drainage works to the south side between the 30 mph sign and Dean Farmhouse.

Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor – he advised that costings on drainage works had been done by OCC 6 months previously.

Mr Plater advised that footpath improvement works would involve cutting back vegetation on the existing pathway and not widening into the carriageway.

Councillor Gawrysiak – there had been regular breaches of the am hours agreement regularly since 2012 and he agreed that by implication and in his experience more lorries would inevitably mean more contraventions.

Responding to Councillor Webber Mr Periam explained that unlike planning conditions routeing agreements were legal agreements containing various clauses which an operator needed to comply with.  The County Council could request details of movements from company records or could sit and observe movements and if breaches occurred they could then be followed up. That had been done in this particular case after the November meeting but bearing in mind available staffing resources and the number of mineral and waste sites in the county which are monitored, there was a limit to how much officer time could be devoted to this at any one site. If there were persistent breaches then action would have to be taken through the civil court process. 

Councillor Webber then asked whether it was right under the current system for developers to be able to appoint their own experts to undertake reviews or would it be better to have a list of approved consultants/contractors from which appointments could be made.

Mr Mytton confirmed that it would not be permissible to prevent applicants from appointing their own experts although officers could, if they wished, obtain a second opinion but at the county council’s expense.

Responding to Councillor Fox-Davies who considered that there should be a break clause in any permission where an operator persistently breached the terms of an agreement Mr Periam advised that where a permission had been granted subject to an agreement the county council would seek to ensure that operators complied with the terms of that agreement. However, Mr Mytton advised that permission could not be revoked because of breaches of a routeing agreement. There would be substantial costs involved in the revocation of permission.

Councillor Sames suggested a S106 type agreement for permissions to ensure an annual contribution from operators to repair damage to roads. Mr Periam advised that that would be difficult to achieve not least of all because of the difficulties in proving what vehicle had caused damage.

Councillor Walker considered the £5,000 derisory. The carriageway was clearly not wide enough and to have a further 40 plus vehicles was a concern. He felt the applicants should have considered a staged approach and could not support the application as it stood.

Councillor Gawrysiak agreed that the contribution offered was to low and the number of vehicles proposed significant. It seemed the routeing agreement was not being enforced now and he could only see that situation worsening if this application was agreed.

Councillor Johnston understood the concerns expressed but did not think a refusal could be successfully defended on appeal.

Mr Periam advised that it was open to the applicant to appeal if the application were refused. The highway authority had not objected as a statutory consultee and so any refusal would need to be based on amenity grounds due to increased traffic movements with a demonstration of severe harm to residents.

The Chairman then moved the revised recommendation as set out in the addenda sheet as follows:

“Subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the payment of £5,000 towards highway improvement works along the B4449 through Sutton, application MW.0073/13 be approved subject to the existing conditions including the amendment made under Non-material amendment application no. MW.00889/17 to condition 6 reading as follows:

No more than 175,000 tonnes of waste shall be imported to the site in any calendar year. Records of imports, sufficient to be monitored by the Waste Planning Authority shall be kept on site and made available to the Waste Planning Authority's officers on request. Separate records shall be kept on site of any topsoil or other soil materials imported solely for use in the restoration of the Controlled Reclamation Site permitted subject to planning permission no. MW.0141/16(16/04159/CM).

and

An additional condition requiring that the operator’s records of heavy goods vehicle movements to and from the site be provided to the Waste Planning Authority on a quarterly basis.”

The motion seconded by Councillor Johnston was put to the Committee and lost by 6 votes to 5 with 2 abstentions.

Recognising that the Committee seemed minded to refuse the application there was a short adjournment to consider reasons for refusal.  On resumption it was RESOLVED (on a motion by Councillor Walker seconded by Councillor Gawrysiak and carried by 7 votes to 0 with 6 abstentions) that Application MW.0073/17 be refused as there would be an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of residents in Sutton village arising from the additional HGV movements proposed by the application, contrary to policy C5 of the adopted Minerals & Waste Core Strategy and that the offer of £5,000 for highway improvements could not overcome that concern.