Agenda item

Application A: Retrospective planning application to extend recycled soil and aggregate area to NAP Grab Hire Ltd.’s adjacent site permitted under P11/V0615/CM/ 11/00615/CM (MW.0049/11); and

Application B: Retrospective Section 73 application for change of use from agriculture to site for the import, storage and screening of waste soils to create topsoil, without complying with conditions 5, 10, 13 and 15 of permission P11/V0615/CM/ 11/00615/CM (MW.0049/11)

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN6).

The report relates to two interlinked applications that were deferred from Planning & Regulation Committee on 20 July 2020, to enable further information to be provided to enable a decision to be made. This report considers the further information provided as requested by members and whether permission should be granted (application MW.0134/19) for an extension area to store the screened soils from the waste soils operation granted under planning permission MW.0049/11. The report also considers further information provided as requested by members and whether permission should be granted (MW.0135/19) to vary conditions 5, 10, 13 and 15, to regularise the current operations on site and allow for aggregate crushing, increase stockpile heights, amend the existing boundary planting and increase HGV movements, contrary to permission MW0049/11.

The applications were reported to Committee on 20 July 2020 at the request of the County Councillor. This was due to objections raised by three parish councils and various local residents. There are concerns for both the extension area and the request for variation to the named conditions due to the increased operations. These concerns are largely related to the consequent increase in HGV movements of expanded operations and the adverse impact on the local highways network and adverse impact on the amenity of local residents.

The report outlines the further information received and the recommendation of the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning.

The development accords with the Development Plan as a whole and with individual policies within it, as well as with the NPPF. The proposals are to regularise the existing operations on site, for the extended site area, concrete crushing, increased stockpile heights, reduced vegetation and increased HGV movements.

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to the applicant entering into a routeing agreement to require all vehicles to be routed to and from the A34 via the A338 and the A420, to avoid the A415 between Frilford Junction and the Marcham Interchange and the junction of the A415 and the A420 at Kingston Bagpuize, the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning be authorised to:

i)          approve application no. MW.0134/19 subject to conditions the detailed wording of which to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning including the conditions set out in Annex 2 to the report PN6; and

ii)        approve application MW.0135/19 subject to conditions the detailed wording of which to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning including the conditions set out in Annex 3 to the report PN6.

The Committee considered a report (PN6) relating to two interlinked applications which had been deferred by Committee on 20 July 2020. The report now before the Committee set out further information which had been requested by members to enable them to consider whether permission should be granted for application MW.0134/19 for an extension area to store the screened soils from the waste soils operation granted under planning permission MW.0049/11 and application MW.0135/19 to vary conditions 5, 10, 13 and 15, to regularise the current operations on site and allow for aggregate crushing, increase stockpile heights, amend the existing boundary planting and increase HGV movements, contrary to permission MW0049/11. The applications had been originally reported to Committee at the request of the County Councillor due to objections raised by three parish councils and various local residents with regard to both the extension area and the request for the variation to the named conditions due to the increased operations. Those concerns had been largely related to the consequent increase in HGV movements of expanded operations and the adverse impact on the local highways network and amenity of local residents.

Having presented the report Ms Bolster then responded to questions from members.

Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor – Vale of White Horse officers were currently in the process of talking to the landowner about submitting an application to regularise the activities on site but that was unlikely to be resolved within the next month or so. Regarding vehicle numbers she confirmed that currently permitted movements were 3 in and 3 out while the applicant’s statement said they were running at 14 in and 14 out.  They were requesting 20 in and 20 out. The survey carried by OCC in August showed an average of 17 in and 17 out.

Councillor Roberts – the rights of way informative would not be as binding as a condition but the applicants were fully aware that the right of way issue needed to be resolved and it would be open to the countryside team to, if necessary consider enforcement action as the rights of way authority.

Councillor Mathew – both applications were retrospective having been operating for about 18 months – 2 years.

Councillor Webber – vehicles were required to have a waste transfer not showing where waste was collected from which would then show they were travelling on the correct route.

The Committee noted the following comment submitted by David Warr (Kingston Baqpuize Parish Council) who had spoken in that the Parish Council remained disappointed that the proper enforcement actions had not been taken at the appropriate time.

Paul Donovan regretted that the Committee had not rejected this application out of hand at the last meeting but had seemed more prepared to accept the deliberately misleading submissions of a serial transgressor of rules and regulations and to respond to the implied pressure of the OCC planning team, who, in his and his wife’s view had been concerned to cover up their own enforcement shortcomings and get this application passed rather than listen to their impacted local councillors and the residents they were supposed to serve. The whole arrangement at the Swannybrook site had been a sad indictment of Oxfordshire County Council’s inability to carry out competent enforcement and investigations over the permissions granted to occupiers on the site.  The analysis was flawed, the energy lacking and the will to hide behind broader objectives to reward the wrong kinds of behaviour was truly shocking.  He reminded members that they had been recording NAP Grab vehicle movements to the site since January, all of which were dated and time verified but not once had OCC officers asked to see this evidence, although it showed clearly and without any ambiguity the extent of the misleading information placed before the Committee today and suggested to him the reason for the indifference was that it revealed inconvenient truths. They had been reassured after the last meeting that a number of their recommendations appeared as if they would be acted upon – namely that the broader planning environment around Swannybrook be properly investigated and that further ‘independent’ traffic surveys of the lorries in and out of NAP’s facility be adequately assessed.  Sadly it seemed at present that the Vale had not responded and without the whole picture he could not see how the Committee could make a sound decision on this application.

The Council’s independent traffic survey had only recorded one thing namely that for the week sensors were in place NAP Grab had clearly modified their business practices to fit the parameters of the Planning Permission with historic lows in terms of traffic in and out, no vehicle movements recorded before 8am and traffic flow remarkably even throughout the day.  Furthermore the traffic survey only noted NAP wagons entering and leaving the site when it was in fact NAP’s visitor contractors who also used NAP’s facility that could add up to 30% to the vehicle movement per day.  The new Helix report commissioned by the applicant contained a line stating “the entry includes a trip by TLB, who NAP Grab indicate have no business on the site – it is believed the presence was in error”.  However, the operating licence for TLB stated that their Operating Centre is Swannybrook Farm and TLB is owned by the applicant’s relative and he was usually one of the first lorries out of the site at just after 6am and continued in and out of the site throughout the day.  Other regular visits into the site were made by SCB, based at Stone Pitt Barn on the A415 which was owned by yet another relative of the applicant.  He reminded members that in the report submitted by the Bluestone Planning representative, it had been denied that third party lorries accessed the NAP site at all, because it suited the narrative.  The Council needed to look at the combined picture of NAP, TLB and SCB in order to understand the total impact on local residents. 

Committee members were not being told the truth and either OCC planning officers were too pro capacity increase, indifferent or too negligent to get to the truth.  This last week the traffic had again been moderated with the average daily flow fitting within the parameters being asked for by the applicant.  Taking a random two weeks, the first ending September 18^th, the average for that week had been 25 journeys in and 25 journeys out per day.  The week ending October 2^nd, they were averaging 22 journeys in and 22 journeys out per day.  Those numbers were still above the numbers the applicant was applying for, but greatly moderated from his pre monitored daily journeys. The applicant had made a great deal of effort to emphasise dust management, noise suppression and planting to conceal the site.  These three factors, while very important, were of far less significance to the people living in Fyfield Wick and Kingston Bagpuize than the appalling intrusion into their sleep and daily lives by these massive trucks thundering along a country lane and entering a village at what was still classed as a night time hour. Wagons, weighing between 30 and 60 tonnes left from 6am, sometimes in batches with only two or three minutes in between in a single file, but by 7.30 onwards they were returning and passing  outgoing wagons on this grossly unsuitable narrow road.  As we have stated previously two lorries cannot pass on Fyfield Wick which was between 5 and 6 metres wide whereas 2 lorries with wing mirrors were more than 6 metres.  One of those, therefore, would have to go up onto the verge and so by November when it rained the verges were carved up and destroyed, the road potholed and the surface ripped away and mud everywhere leaving the road treacherous for other road users.  The applicant commented to me personally 18 months ago, that “the road is just not wide enough for my trucks”.  On a daily basis these wagons were making around 12 movements either in or out before 8am, the actual operating time set out in their planning permission.  This application had been the first time that I have ever become involved in lodging an objection to anything of a planning nature having highlighted to the Council the planning breaches at Swannybrook Farm in early 2019. He confirmed that in the event of this grossly under researched planning application being passed he would be left with little alternative but to begin the process of Judicial Review as he felt  passionately that this was a miscarriage of justice due in the main part to the shoddiness of OCC in investigating flawed evidence to support it, whilst choosing to overlook reliable evidence that they could have inspected at any time.

Jeremy Flawn for the Applicant then addressed Committee with regard to the following points.

Noise– the applicant had commissioned two noise assessments that looked at the operation of the crushing plant, one with five metre bunds and the second assessment maintaining the existing three metre bunds around the site. The second assessment confirmed that “calculations and an assessment of the noise levels generated by the operation of a new McCloskey J40 crusher have been undertaken based upon specifications for the proposed plant received from the manufacturer……Noise levels would remain substantially below a level which would represent an adverse effect and thus noise from the operation of the crusher would therefore …. be fully compliant with the requirements of the NPPF.”

Dust– a management plan and revised management plan had been provided to the planning authority detailing a series of measures which the applicant had proposed ensuringe that dust from the operations of the application sites would be effectively managed in addition to existing conditions on the 2001 permission

Landscaping of the two sites– two separate landscaping plans had been produced, one for each of the application sites. The ecology and landscape officer’s comments had been accepted by the applicant although for the avoidance of doubt, the height of the topsoil bund referred to in the officer report (paragraph 56) on the eastern perimeter of the existing site would not be altered. The covering email to the planning authority dated 28th September 2020 stated “this will not be in addition to the existing bund, simply replacing some of the material with topsoil suitable as a planting medium”. The three-metre height would be maintained.

Rights of Way– the evidence provided by the applicant was based on the existing topographic survey of the site and the definitive right of way mapping. The evidence submitted confirmed that the eastern existing bund did not impinge on the route of the right of way. The suggested solution at section 62 of the committee report was acceptable to the applicant.

Routeing Agreement– this was acceptable to the applicant. With regard to the objection from Charney Bassett Parish Council the applicant had indicated that they did not have any reason to travel through Charney Bassett and the only reason they would do so would be because of official diversions if the A420 were closed or if they had work in that village.  So for those reasons and the terms of the routeing agreement there should be no impact on that village.

Enforcement Matters– they understood that the Vale of White Horse District Council were considering matters that were under its jurisdiction and had been in discussion with the owner of Swannybrook Farm (the current applicant’s landlord) about activities on other parts of the farm site.

New Traffic Counts– The applicant had reviewed the data and had submitted an analysis of the data to the planning authority which concluded as follows:

“Put simply, traffic volume surveys undertaken since mid-March 2020 are inevitably influenced by the Covid pandemic response and cannot, therefore, offer a reliable picture of historic or future traffic activity (assuming Covid doesn’t last forever). Nevertheless, even if the 2020 surveys were taken as the baseline, as a theoretical exercise, the previous conclusions of negligible impacts on amenity and highway safety would be unaltered.”

Therefore, having regard to the additional information provided the applicant commends the officer recommendation that planning permission be granted for both applications, subject to the recommended routing agreement being signed and subject to planning conditions as set out in the annexes to the committee report.

Mr Flawn then responded to questions from members of the Committee:

Councillor Johnston – the maximum decibel rating for the modified crusher at 10 metres was 66 decibels which was a significant reduction to the previous decibel rating and indicated that it would be below existing background noise levels.

Mr Flawn did not respond specifically to Councillor Johnston’s advice that neither Ash nor Sycamore should be part of the planting scheme.

Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor - the applicant’s advice was that his vehicles were 2.4m wide and that the road was, therefore, of sufficient width for two lorries to pass.

Councillor Gawrysiak – he could not confirm if his client had any plans to restore the road or repair damage as many other vehicles used that road and so would be difficult to attribute what vehicle caused what damage. His professional advice to his client was and had been previously that they should comply with the conditions of any permission.

Responding to Councillor Sanders officers explained the findings of the various surveys undertaking to try and reconcile the differences which existed in the figures between Mr Donovan’s submission, the Applicant and the County Council’s own independent survey.  The existing allowance was 3 in and 3 out daily with application seeking 20 in and 20 out.  The applicant’s survey had shown 14 in and 14 out which was less than Mr Donovan’s at 17 in and 17 out.  The latter figure had been borne out by the survey commissioned by the County Council and, although it was recognised that there were difficulties in differentiating between the different operations at the site and which vehicles could be attributed to those operations, officers confirmed that the County Council’s independent survey had been specific to this site to remove those vehicles from the wider traffic count.  Other operations at the site were under the jurisdiction of the Vale of White Horse District Council.

Responding to Councillor Roberts officers confirmed that there had been no overall objection from OCC Planning Policy and the site had not been allocated in the Sites Allcocation Document. However, as Part 2 of the Plan was at an early stage it would not be appropriate to attach to much weight to it and a decision needed to be based on Part 1.

Councillor Gawrysiak recognised the problems to date with enforcement but there needed to be some reconciliation to find an optimum for vehicle movements.  He moved the recommendations as set out in the officer report  but with the modification for a daily maximum of 15 vehicles in and 15 out with the expectation that the applicant would adhere to that and prove to the planning authority that they were doing so by providing daily registration numbers for submission every month to the County Council and for the County’s enforcement team to take a proactive interest with a minimum of 4 visits per annum to ensure conditions were being met.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor.

Members empathised with Mr Donovan and felt it imperative that if permission were granted then every effort should be made to ensure the operator complied with the conditions.

The motion was then put to the Committee and –

RESOLVED: (by 6 votes to 2 with 5 recorded abstentions) that subject to the applicant entering into a routeing agreement to require all vehicles to be routed to and from the A34 via the A338 and the A420, to avoid the A415 between Frilford Junction and the Marcham Interchange and the junction of the A415 and the A420 at Kingston Bagpuize, the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning be authorised to:

i)          approve application no. MW.0134/19 subject to conditions the detailed wording of which to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning including the conditions set out in Annex 2 to the report PN6; and

ii)         approve application MW.0135/19 subject to conditions the detailed wording of which to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning including the conditions set out in Annex 3 to the report PN6.

subject to:

(a)      amending “MW.0135/19” in condition 12 of Annex 3 to read MW.0134/19;

(b)      Condition 12 to Application MW.0134/19 being amended to read “No more than 15 HGVs shall enter the site in any working day and no more than 15 HGVs shall leave the site in any working day in combination with the development permitted by planning permission no. MW.1035/19”;

(c)       Condition 12 to Application MW.0135/19 being amended to read “No more than 15 HGVs shall enter the site in any working day and no more than 15 HGVs shall leave the site in any working day in combination with the development permitted by planning permission no. MW.1034/19”;

(d)      an additional condition to Applications MW.0135/19 and MW.1034/19 that the applicant submit monthly figures of vehicle movements with registration numbers recorded on a daily basis to show that they were complying with condition 12 on both permissions;

(e)      following the grant of the planning permissions County officers increase site monitoring visits to seek to ensure activities at the site complied with all conditions and to consider the expediency of enforcement action against any non-compliance identified.