To Members of the Planning & Regulation Committee
|
Alan Armitage |
Tony Crabbe |
Barbara Gatehouse |
Timothy Hallchurch MBE |
Hilary Hibbert-Biles |
Ray Jelf |
Terry Joslin |
Jim Moley |
David Nimmo-Smith |
Don Seale |
Chip Sherwood |
Lawrie Stratford |
David Turner |
|
|
Notes:
· Date of next meeting: 18 February 2008
· Site visits required for Items 6 (Shipton–on-Cherwell Quarry – meet on site at 10.00 am) and 7 (Worton Farm, Cassington – meet on site at 11.00 am)
If you have any special requirements (such as a large print version of these papers or special access facilities) please contact the officer named on the front page, but please give as much notice as possible before the meeting. |
AGENDA
(Addenda)
1. Apologies for Absence and
Temporary Appointments
(See Addenda)
2. Declarations of Interest – see guidance note
3. Minutes
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 26 November 2007 and to receive for information any matters arising therefrom.
4. Petitions and Public
Address
(See Addenda)
5. Commons Registration Act: In the Matter of an Application
to Register the Thrupp and Bullfield Lakes, Radley in
Oxfordshire
as a Town or Village Green
(See also Addenda)
Report by the County Solicitor and Head of Legal Services (PN5).
In October 2006 an application was made by Mrs Jo Cartmell for registration of the Thrupp and Bullfield Lakes, Radley as a Town or Village Green under the Commons Registration Act 1965. As the Commons Registration authority the County Council has statutory responsibility for determining such applications.
The County Council received objections to the application from the relevant landowners and an independent inspector was appointed and a public inquiry held in order for the evidence to be assessed and an objective recommendation to be made to the County Council as to whether the application should be approved.
The inspector has now prepared his report which comprises the basis for this report and the recommendation set out in it. The Planning & Regulation Committee are responsible for determining the application, which they are now requested to do.
The Committee is RECOMMENDED to REJECT the application for registration as a new town or village green pursuant to the Commons Registration Act 1965 of the Thrupp and Bullfield Lakes and the surrounding land as described in the application by Mrs Jo Cartmell dated 19 October 2006, for the reasons given in the Inspector’s report dated 13 October 2007 and his further Report dated 10 December 2007.
6. Comprehensive Development of the Site Including Demolition of Existing Structures, Extraction of Limestone, Importation and Deposit of Inert Fill,
Construction of a Rail Aggregates
Depot, a Rail Storage Depot, B8 Industrial Use,
Wildlife and Geological Conservation, Temporary
Car Storage (15 years) and Woodland for Managed Timber Production (after 15 years), Shipton onCherwell Quarry
(See also Addenda)
Report by the Head of Sustainable Development (PN6) (download as .doc file).
The applicant is seeking a comprehensive redevelopment of the site which involves a mixture of uses including: mineral extraction, waste disposal rail served facilities warehousing and car storage. The application is a hybrid application and it has been agreed with Cherwell District that the Application be determined as a county matter. The proposed development would take place over several phases. The mineral would be extracted to for a flat area for the rail siding and associated developments, at the same time the derelict.
It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for the development proposed in Application 06/02046/CM be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposal would be contrary to OMWLP policy W7(d) in that material damage would be caused to the County Wildlife site and contrary to policy W7(b) and (g) in that the visual amenities of the area would be harmed.
2. With the exception of mineral working the various components of the proposed developments are inappropriate development in the green belt and contrary to OSP policy G4, CLP policy GB1 and government policy in PPG2: in that no very special circumstances have been shown to justify them taking place in the Green Belt.
3. With the exception of mineral working the proposals are contrary to PPS9 in that there is a biodiversity interest on site which would be significantly harmed and that there is no evidence that alternative sites are not available for the various components of the proposed development.
4. The proposals are contrary to OSP EN2 in that there is no overriding need for the proposed development which would cause significant harm to the County Wildlife Site and the damage to the ecological interest cannot be prevented by the use of conditions or planning obligations.
7. Extension of existing
composting site to provide for in-vessel composting with reception building, biofilter, weighbridge, office, composting tunnels and earth bunding at Worton Farm, Cassington Application 07/00851/CM
(See also Addenda)
Report by the Head of Sustainable Development (PN7).
This is an application for a permanent in-vessel composting facility for the processing of Oxfordshire’s organic waste (including food waste). The facility proposes to process between 37,000 and 49,000 tonnes of organic waste per year. The application site would cover an area of 2.88 hectares and would involve the erection of a steel framed building, an office/welfare building, 20 composting tunnels and an open area for maturation of the compost.
The main issues are its location in the Oxford Green Belt, the open countryside in general, need for the development, transport impacts, whether local environmental impacts can be adequately managed and whether very special circumstances exist to justify development in the Green Belt. The site has a number of benefits that are not available in alternative sites and there is a need for more composting facilities regionally as well as locally to improve recycling efficiency and meet recycling targets.. Potential local environmental impacts such as smell would not be significant and could be adequately mitigated against and controlled through conditions. These locational benefits and the minimal harm to the Green Belt would justify very special circumstances in the Green Belt.
It is RECOMMENDED that:
(a) subject to:
(i) the Environment Agency withdrawing their objection;
(ii) a legal agreement to secure a contribution to the pedestrian/cycle route;
that planning permission for the development proposed in Application 07/000851/CM be approved subject to conditions in accordance with the heads of conditions set out below:
1. Compliance condition
2. Commencement date
3. Operating hours
4. Site used for composting only
5. Organic waste only
6. No floodlighting
7. Existing vegetation to be retained
8. Planting and fencing scheme required
9. Bund specifications (including height, angles and maintenance requirements)
10. Effective silencers
11. External building materials to be agreed
12. Site signage on A40 to be kept to a minimum
13. Sweeping on and adjacent to the site
(b) the Environment Agency be requested that the following issues be covered by the Waste Management Licence conditions:
(i) Odour control
(ii) Pest and vermin control
(iii) Noise control
8. Public Rights of Way Diversions - Objected to Orders
Report by the Head of Sustainable Development (PN8) (download as .doc file)
Diversion orders for Bucknell Footpath 9 and Alvescot Footpath 17 have received objections following publication and under the Council’s Constitution, they are required to be referred to the Planning & Regulation Committee.
In the case of Bucknell Footpath 9 the effect of the order, if confirmed, would be to divert part of the footpath from its current route where it passes both through a parking and turning area for small businesses and through Lower Farm onto a crushed stone track and grass route.
For Alvescot Footpath 17 the effect of the order, if confirmed, would be to divert part of the footpath from its current route where it passes along private drives past the front of private residences onto a route screened and remote from the houses.
Having received objections to the orders the Committee cannot confirm them, but have the option of either submitting them to the Planning Inspectorate for the Secretary of State to make a determination or withdrawing them in the light of the objections received.
The Committee is RECOMMENDED to submit the objected to orders for Bucknell Footpath 9 and Alvescot Footpath 17 to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for determination.
9. Application to Divert Oxford Footpaths 80 and 113
Report by the Head of Sustainable Development (PN9).
An application to divert two public footpaths in Oxford City has recently been made to the county council under section 119 Highways Act 1980. The diversions are required as part of the development of the new Cancer Centre at the Churchill Hospital. This matter was being dealt with by Oxford City Council as the planning authority, but unfortunately the City Council and the developers did not achieve the necessary diversions before or during the development phase.
The construction of the Cancer Centre building is substantially complete and the outstanding diversions now have to be processed under Section 119 Highways Act 1980, not under planning legislation. The City Council, which has concurrent powers with the county council, has declined to resolve the matter under Section 119 Highways Act 1980.
There is a backlog of approximately 3 years for such applications to the county council from across the county. To help manage this the Committee approved a revised ‘Statement of Criteria and Priorities’ in November 2006. This requires that applications are processed in chronological order by date of receipt of a duly completed application form. Paragraph 6 of the Statement also recognises that ‘In exceptional circumstances the county council may exercise its discretion to process individual proposals as a one off priority’.
Construction of the Centre is on target for handover to the Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust so that it can be opened at the end of March 2008. However, there will remain serious difficulties in achieving this unless the original planning condition to divert the public footpaths is resolved. In these exceptional circumstances the county council is in a position to assist by processing the application immediately.
The Committee is RECOMMENDED to:
(a) confirm that the application to divert Oxford Footpaths 80 and 113 should be treated as an exceptional priority, and
(b) instruct officers to begin processing the application immediately.
10. Review of Charges 2008/09
Report by the Assistant Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer (PN10).
The report sets out the proposed charges for 2008/09, which are the responsibility of this Committee and summarises the Corporate Charging Policy.
The Committee is RECOMMENDED to note those charges prescribed by legislation and approve those charges where there is local discretion as set out in Annex 1 to the report.