Agenda item

Temporary Clay Compaction Trial (including compaction trials, pit, with associated stockpiles and topsoil mounds), construction compound, security fencing, access tracks and formation of access from Hanney Road, overground surface water drainage pipe, alongside other associated works (as amplified by landscape information received 18 January 2024 and amended / additional information received 14 February 2024).

Councillor Ron Batstone declared a non-registerable interest in this item as a result of his attendance at a protest against the construction of South East Strategic Reservoir Option (SESRO). Councillor Batstone stood down from the committee during the consideration of this application and did not participate in the debate or vote.

The committee considered planning application P23/V2559/FUL for the temporary clay compaction trial (including compaction trials, pit, with associated stockpiles and topsoil mounds), construction compound, security fencing, access tracks and formation of access from Hanney Road, overground surface water drainage pipe, alongside other associated works (as amplified by landscape information received 18 January 2024 and amended / additional information received 14 February 2024), on land to the south of Hanney Road, Cow Common, OX13 6AP.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application came before the committee at the request of the local ward member. The application sought temporary permission for engineering works associated with a clay compaction trial. The results of the trial would inform SESRO construction. The planning officer informed the committee that the application did not consider the wider reservoir proposal and that this would be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and would be assessed under the relevant legislation by central government.

The planning officer advised there had been two updates since the publication of the agenda. One further letter of objection had been received from a resident raising concerns regarding the reservoir proposal. The second update was that the County Archaeologist had responded advising that a number of archaeological features had been identified at the south of the site and whilst it was not believed these would be impacted by the trial works, vehicular movements to and from the site could cause damage. As such, an additional condition was requested for the provision of protective fencing around these areas.

The planning officer then went through the plans and advised the committee that the site was flat and currently in agricultural use. There were no landscape or ecology designations and no designated heritage assets nearby. The site was largely in flood zone one but a small section of the site connecting to Cow Common Brook fell into flood zone three.

The planning officer advised the committee that the application sought consent for a period of up to 12 months to carry out the trial which included the creation of a borrow pit and removal and storage of top soil. She went on to inform the committee a compound would be constructed on the frontage of the site but there would be an earth mound screening this with access to the site being from Hanney Road. The planning officer advised there would also be water storage and treatment areas on the site before water was discharged into the brook. She also showed the committee section plans of the borrow pit and informed the committee that the indicative heights of the stock piles were a maximum of 5.5 metres and these would be located in the centre of the site.

The planning officer concluded that the principle of development was acceptable and there were no technical objections to the application. The impacts of the development could be mitigated through the proposed conditions including the additional archaeology condition as follows:

No development shall commence until the area of archaeological interest identified by the archaeological evaluation, as detailed in the Wessex Archaeology evaluation report dated March 2024, has been secured through protective fencing to avoid any impacts during construction. The fencing shall remain in place until the completion of the trial and the restoration of the site.

Mark Beddows and Councillor Andy Cooke spoke, objecting to the application.

Mark Mathews, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Sally Povolotsky, a local ward councillor, spoke on the application.

The committee enquired as to whether it would be possible to restrict the hours of operation further than as set out in the proposed condition already. The planning officer advised that this would be possible but that doing so could result in the works taking longer to complete. The committee asked the planning officer if they knew how much restricting the hours could increase the predicted timeframe by and she advised they were unable to predict this. The committee were concerned about traffic at peak hours and asked if it would therefore be possible to restrict the hours of operation in line with school holidays. The planning officer indicated that this would likely cause confusion and made enforcement and monitoring difficult. The committee went on to ask if it was possible to require the applicant to complete the works within four weeks in order to minimise disruption to residents. The planning officer advised that this would be overly restrictive, and four weeks was the delivery time put forward in the programme by Thames Water.

The committee asked the planning officer to comment on the ecology concerns which had been raised by one of the speakers. The planning officer advised that a biodiversity impact assessment and species reports had been provided by the applicant and that the ecology officer had advised that the measures set out to protect the relevant species were sufficient.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application with an additional condition in relation to protective fencing and an amendment to the condition on the time of operation to Monday to Friday 8am to 5pm and Saturday 8am to 1pm, was carried on being put to the vote.

The committee reflected that it was important to listen to residents’ views in relation to their experiences of traffic in the area. Some members considered if it would be more appropriate for operating hours to be earlier to avoid rush hour but it was felt that noise disruption was also a concern and therefore longer operating hours would not allow respite from this.

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P23/V2559/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1.    Commencement

2.    Temporary consent

3.    Approved Plans

4.    Surface Water management details

5.    Lighting details

6.    Archaeology

7.    Visibility Splays

8.    Construction Traffic Management Plan

9.    Constriction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) – Biodiversity

10.Noise mitigation

11.Hours of operation

12.Unexpected land contamination

13.Protective fencing – Archaeology

Informative

1.    Flood risk activity permit

2.    Discharge permit

3.    Highways advice