Agenda item

Application to modify or discharge Section 106 Planning Obligations to remove the existing waste catchment area and amend permissive path at Sutton Courtenay Landfill Site.

Report by Director for Planning, Environment and Climate Change.

It is RECOMMENDED that

i)                 Oxfordshire County Council enter into a deed of variation to amend the existing Section 106 legal agreement with regards to removing the hinterland restriction and amending the date for the provision of a permissive path.

ii)               The Director of Planning, Environment and Climate Change is authorised to enter into negotiations with the applicant and any other parties to the legal agreement with regard to making the variations set out in this report.

Mary Hudson, Principal Planning Officer, advised in her introduction that the landfill site had been operating since the 1970s and as a result of an existing planning permission granted in 2015 was permitted to continue operating until 2030.  The application proposed two changes to the S106 legal agreement and no changes to the conditions or the routing agreement that HGVs would take.  The proposed changes to the S106 legal agreement were firstly, to remove the restriction on the source of waste permitted to be imported to the landfill site.  Currently, the S106 agreement restricted the source of waste to Oxfordshire, Reading, Bracknell, Wokingham and West Berkshire.  The second proposed change was to amend the date for the provision of the north-south permissive path that the S106 Agreement required as part of the restoration.  The Agreement stated that the relevant paths should be provided by 30 September 2023.  However, it could not be provided within that timescale due to active developments which had consent to 2030, within that part of the site.

Ms Hudson added that the Monitoring Team had identified that waste was already being imported in significant quantities to the landfill site from outside the approved Hinterland area.  The current application was therefore retrospective.  The recommended changes were due to the applicant being unlikely to be able to complete the landfilling in accordance with the approved restoration by 2030 as required by the conditions without bringing in waste from other areas.  Ms Hudson stated that it was recognised that the patterns of movement of waste to landfill had changed since the agreement had been signed in 2008.  The Hinterland area was no longer seen to serve a useful purpose and was not supported by planning policy.  It was also the case that the permissive path could not be implemented until the active developments on that part of the site had concluded.  In the event that the two proposed changes were approved by the Committee, the Council would enter into a deed of variation to the existing S106 Agreement.

The following points of clarification were provided in response to questions and matters raised by the Committee:

·       There had been no request by the applicant to change the annual import of waste being 600,000 tonnes with no more than 350,000 tonnes being imported by road.  The Hinterland agreement only related to waste that was being imported via road.  It was noted that the number of road movements at the site would be the same.  The change would be in terms of where the vehicles were coming from.  The point was discussed that the original agreement sought to minimise carbon emissions and with vehicles coming from further afield they were likely to generate more carbon emissions.  There had originally been concern expressed by the Committee in relation to the original agreement regarding the transportation of waste by road.  In theory there was the possibility of all the permitted tonnage being brought in by rail but this was unlikely, depending on contracts.

·       HIF 1 had not yet been considered as a planning application and it was recommended to Committee Members not to attach too much weight to it in deliberations on the current application.

·       Mr Periam stated that in recommending the removal of the restriction on the source of waste permitted to be imported to the landfill site in order to complete the landfilling by 2030, there had been regard to policies in the Council’s Minerals and Waste Local Plan which encouraged timely restoration of landfill sites.

Councillor O’Broin, representing Appleford Parish Council, stated that the Council had good relations with the applicant and acknowledged that the site was confidently managed.  However, there were concerns regarding noise, dust and air quality from commercial operations and the impact of traffic, particularly heavy commercial vehicles, in the vicinity of Appleford village.  The Parish Council was opposing the extension of the Hinterland agreement.  He referred to paragraph 56 of the report that the Environment Agency Waste Data giving a total of approximately 713,000 tonnes of waste being imported to the landfill site, which was above the permitted annual import figure and therefore was a planning breach.  80% of the waste was coming from outside the permitted Hinterland area which Cllr O’Broin commented was a material and not an inconsequential breach.  Overall, he believed the applicant had demonstrated a casual disregard for the S106 Agreement and that they should be required to advise the Council of any non-compliance.

Councillor O’Broin expressed concerns regarding the proposed amendment of the permissive path and the delays caused by the cement plant occupying the land.  He also expressed the view that the applicant needed to consult the local community and that local authorities such as Appleford Parish Council and Sutton Courtenay Parish Council were consulted on the terms of any agreement or were parties to any agreement.  He considered that the application lacked detail on traffic volumes, expected tonnage or remaining capacity at the site.  He added that approving the application would be to approve historical non-compliance.  Failure to meet the 2030 deadline on the part of the applicant should not result in automatic extension and could be used for other purposes.  Councillor O’Broin requested that the application was refused, pending submission of meaningful traffic information and projected waste tonnage from the applicant.

The Committee also heard from Mr Draper, representing himself and Sutton Courtenay Parish Council.  He requested that the Committee refused the application, taking into account the breach of the legal agreement.  He referred to the Council having identified the breach and commented that the retrospective application lacked transparency and should not be approved.  He concurred with Councillor O’Broin’s point that there was a lack of detail in the applicant’s application.  Mr Draper also expressed concerns regarding the planning breaches of 568,000 tonnes of waste in 2021 being imported from outside the Hinterland area and the overall total being 713,000 tonnes of waste.  It was unlikely on this basis that the applicant would have kept to the limit of 350,000 tonnes being imported by road.

Mr Draper recommended that the application was deferred, with full historic details provided of the waste movement and a plan stipulated by the applicant as to how the restoration of the site was to be completed by 2030 and the site returned to agricultural use.  Maintenance should be provided by the applicant for the footpath for the benefit of the local community.

Councillor Constance formally proposed that the application was deferred.  This was in order to obtain details on the level of the applicant’s compliance or non-compliance since 2021 (when the previous Environment Agency’s Waste Data was available) and what the impact would be on the restoration of the site, if the application was not approved by the Committee.  It was noted that a number of authorities were sending waste to the landfill site and that it would be useful to look at whether it was necessary for the waste to travel from further away or whether they should be treating it.  Councillor Bennett requested that policy work was undertaken to ascertain what the proportion of waste that needed to be landfilled was and if there was waste that could be treated without being landfilled and also comparing the percentage of waste that the local authorities sent elsewhere with that sent to Sutton Courtenay Landfill Site.  The applicant would again be invited to attend the meeting to answer questions.

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Fadlalla.

Councillor Howson spoke in support of refusing the application as he was persuaded by the representations of the two Parish Councils at the meeting and what he perceived to be the flagrant nature of the planning breaches in terms of the tonnage being imported and the apparent length of time this had been taking place.  It was noted that it was not possible to require the applicant to change their application and that they had the ability to appeal against the decision should the application be refused and the matter considered by the Planning Inspectorate.

It was noted by the Committee that it was not possible for the Council to require the applicant to have discussions with the parish councils.  Members did have the option to ask officers to pass on their concerns to the applicant that they ought to seek to improve the nature of the engagement and more promptly with the parish councils.

The Chair called for a vote on the recommendation to defer the application.  The votes cast were, as follows:

For: 9

Against: 1 (Councillor Howson voted against as he wished to refuse the application).

Abstentions: 0

RESOLVED: that the application be DEFERRED for the reasons set out above.