Agenda item

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

This is a Section 73 application to amend certain conditions on an existing consent. The site is an asphalt plant located adjacent to the railway, north of Banbury. Aggregate is imported mainly by rail and used to produce asphalt which is exported by road. These operations currently take place from 4am until 7pm, with overnight working only permitted with the prior approval of the Minerals Planning Authority. The applicant has applied to remove this restriction so that the plant could be operated through the night on any night, without needing to seek additional consent. They have provided a noise assessment to demonstrate that this would not cause unacceptable noise impacts and have proposed an additional noise barrier. It is proposed that overnight working would take place occasionally, rather than every night.

It is also proposed to relocate the existing office and associated buildings within the site. The current consent dates from 2003 and therefore there are some further conditions which are no longer relevant and which the applicant has applied to be removed.

There have been objections from 11 members of the public as well as the County Councillor, Banbury Town Council and Cherwell District Council. The main concern raised is noise. There were also some concerns about HGV movements and trains. However, the applicant has confirmed that there would be no increase in HGV movements and no change to the timing or number of trains. ??

Subject to a new routeing agreement first being entered into to secure the existing routeing provisions with additional restrictions to the route for night time HGV movements, it is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for Application MW.0117/18 be approved subject to conditions as set out in Annex 1 as amended by Annex 2 to the report PN7.

???

The Committee considered (PN7) a Section 73 application to amend certain conditions on an existing consent at an asphalt plant located adjacent to the railway, north of Banbury. Aggregate was imported mainly by rail and used to produce asphalt which was then exported by road. Operations currently took place from 4am until 7pm, with overnight working only permitted with the prior approval of the Minerals Planning Authority. The applicant had applied to remove this restriction so that the plant could be operated through the night on any night, without needing to seek additional consent. They had provided a noise assessment to demonstrate that this would not cause unacceptable noise impacts and had proposed an additional noise barrier. It is proposed that overnight working would take place occasionally, rather than every night. It was also proposed to relocate the existing office and associated buildings within the site. The current consent dated from 2003 and therefore there were some further conditions which were no longer relevant and which the applicant had applied to be removed.

Presenting the report along with further information on the published addenda Mary Hudson reported 2 further objections from residents. She then responded to Members’ questions:

Councillor Phillips – since 2004 there had been 8 requests for extended working with the last being in 2014 although there had been one last week but that had been to facilitate the company’s assessment work. It would be reasonable to expect that there would be more requests.

Councillor Johnston – complaints had been received from the south of the site.

Councillor Gawrysiak – a new routeing agreement would be required with a more restrictive route for night traffic as required by Condition 6 and as set out in paragraph 72 of the report.  Overnight traffic was required to access the motorway via Hennef Way.

Mr Shepley with Sam Lankester also attending then addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. Tarmac was the UK’s leading sustainable building materials and construction solutions business and had operated at the Banbury site for over 30 years currently employing 14 people full-time, predominantly from the local area. As the plant had expanded and the need for asphalt in the local area increased a number of variations to the plant’s operating hours had been made over the years, with the last granted in 2003 to permit operation of the plant between the hours of 4am – 7pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 5pm on Sundays. Overnight working was permitted outside of these hours, provided that prior written agreement had first been obtained from the minerals planning authority, each time such working was required. Tarmac took their responsibility to the local community very seriously and, since 2003, their records showed there had only been a single complaint in 2018 from a local resident to operations at the plant. That had been resolved quickly and successfully by Tarmac. He pointed out that the report by county officers stated no complaints had been received by the Minerals Planning Authority regarding operations on site.  However, current restrictions on the hours of operation was becoming a significant issue in delivering materials for roadworks and other projects, which were often required to take place overnight to limit disruption on the local highway network and Tarmac were seeking additional flexibility to remedy that. HGV movements would inevitably take place on nights when the plant was operational, although the number of movements were likely to be significantly smaller compared to movements during the hours currently permitted. The applicant also intended to install noise attenuation barriers within the site to mitigate night time operations and to further improve community engagement had recently launched a website for residents, along with a community phone line, that could be used to report any issues in future. The existing vegetation bank at the entrance to the site would be retained with further planting provided to replace the minor loss of tree and scrub cover that would occur as a result of the relocation of the office and welfare facilities and alterations to the site access were proposed which would help improve circulation, visibility and highway safety. The increase in night-time working would also provide additional employment as 4 night-shift workers would be required. It was important to point out that night-time working would not occur at all times of the year and the applicant was happy to agree to a planning condition restricting that. Additional conditions had also been proposed regarding noise limits and train deliveries, and Tarmac were continuing to liaise with officers on the wording of those conditions. An additional night-time noise survey was carried out last week, with the asphalt plant operating, to assist with those discussions. He commended the officer recommendation to approve.

He and Mr Lankester then responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston – he confirmed that trains would be unloaded by grab which would be within the sound barriers.

Councillor Phillips – the company were still analysing the results from the recent night time operation.

Councillor Fox-Davies – the report stipulated 180 nights per annum with conditions monitoring train delivery and noise enabling work to stop if exceeded. Responding to a supplementary question from Councillor Gawrysiak he appreciated 180 seemed a high figure but it gave flexibility to meet demand.

Councillor Haywood – there would be no additional movements resulting from this application.

Councillor Roberts – Mr Lankester accepted that as there had only been 8 requests for overnight working over a 10-year period a proposal now to increase that to 180 nights pa represented a large increase but it would allow the plant to operate more efficiently.

Speaking as local member Councillor Hannah Banfield referred to the level of local objection to this proposal including a 230 signature petition against. There were grave concerns regarding the removal of existing conditions 3, 4 and 5 which would impact heavily on local residents as a result of an increase in noise. Noise was a constant problem which would only increase thereby affecting the health and happiness of local residents. A noise barrier would not stop noise pollution. She referred to air pollution citing Hennef Way as the second highest polluted road outside of London and the worst in Oxfordshire. This proposal would increase traffic levels even further and she and residents asked how this was compatible with the initiatives to address air pollution and promote public health. Cherwell District Council and Banbury Town Council had objected.  Tarmac had stated this was needed in order to meet orders and offer greater operating flexibility but she asked the Committee to vote with its conscience and put the interests of residents first.

She then responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston – she indicated on the screen plan those roads affected by operations at the site.

Councillor Fox-Davies who had queried her traffic movement figures and asked whether or not residents had taken other companies to task regarding pollution she stated that the Committee needed to consider how this would affect an area already suffering from high vehicle emission levels as confirmed by Cherwell DC and Oxfordshire CC.

Councillor Sames considered comments regarding the Dewars Farm application with regard to NPPF guidelines applied equally to this application and that in his view there were reasons to reject the application on the grounds of health and loss of amenity for local residents and he so moved. Seconding the motion Councillor Gawrysiak felt the proposed 180 limit for overnight working was to excessive but if that were more restrictive then the application might be more acceptable.

Councillor Roberts agreed and felt more evidence was required to justify such an increase other than flexibility for the applicant.

Councillor Johnston agreed but felt that was not sufficient grounds to vote against and it would be difficult to justify sanctioning one company when there were other vehicles other than those associated with this particular site contributing to the problems in this area.  He felt the report needed to be clearer regarding issues of air pollution.

Responding to member concerns regarding the proposed 180 night limit Mary Hudson confirmed that had been an officer suggestion.

Councillor Haywood and others felt a 40 night time limit would be more reasonable and defensible at appeal.

Mr Periam advised that a deferral would be advisable in order to come back to a future meeting with a revised proposal and further information from the trial working carried out by the company.

On that basis Councillor Sames with the agreement of his seconder withdrew his motion.

It was then RESOLVED: (on a motion by the Chairman, seconded by Councillor Phillips and carried by 12 votes to 0) to defer Application MW.0117/18 to enable further discussions with the applicant regarding an acceptable maximum annual limit for night-time working and to consider the results of the recent assessment of a night-time operation undertaken by Tarmac