Meeting documents

RESOLVED:  That Mrs J Teesdale be elected as Chairman for the ensuing year.

RESOLVED:  That Mr C Clare be appointed as Vice-Chairman for the ensuing year.

Apologies were received from Mr N Brown.

To disclose any Personal, Disclosable or Prejudicial Pecuniary Interests.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 May 2019 to be confirmed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  The minutes of the meeting held on 20 May 2019 were AGREED as an accurate record and were signed by the Chairman.

Mr D Periam, Planning Consultant, advised that the total gross new floor space to be created by the development was 1,571 square metres.  The site was in the Green Belt and a development of over 1,000 square metres; therefore, if the Committee were minded to support the application, it would need to be referred to the Secretary of State, as per the recommendation in the report.  Mr Periam had circulated an addendum updating the report, appended to the minutes.  Mr Periam stated he had also received comments from the Highway Authority who had no objection subject to conditions. The Flood Management Team Lead, Local Flood Authority had originally objected as noted in the report but now had no objection subject to conditions.  The addendum, appended to the minutes and circulated to the committee members, provided the amended conditions including the conditions that had been requested by the two parties mentioned above.

Mr Periam provided a presentation and highlighted the following points:

• Photographs of the existing reception lobby and dining hall and the area proposed for the extension to the science block.
• The entrance to the school site and car park which would be improved.

A member of the committee requested clarification on the size of the proposed development.  Mr Periam explained that the existing building to be demolished was 421 square metres, but the proposed total gross floor space of the new building was 1,571 square metres due to it being a two-storey building.  As it was over 1,000 square metres and in the Green Belt it needed to be referred to the Secretary of State.  The new building would have a slightly larger footprint but would provide much more floor space.

Ms Gibbs proposed the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendations as stated in the report.  Mr Khan seconded the proposal.

RESOLVED:  The Development Control Committee    SUPPORTED application no. CC/0013/19 for proposed demolition of an existing defunct single-storey Dining Hall in poor condition and its replacement with a two-storey and a single-storey classroom extension of the existing Science Block at The Amersham School, Stanley Hill, Amersham, Buckinghamshire.

RESOLVED:  The Development Control Committee AGREED the application be forwarded to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.

RESOLVED:  That in the event of the Secretary of State not intervening, the Planning Manager be authorised to APPROVE application no. CC/0013/19 for proposed demolition of an existing defunct single-storey Dining Hall in poor condition and its replacement with a two-storey and a single-storey classroom extension of the existing Science Block at The Amersham School, Stanley Hill, Amersham, Buckinghamshire subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. 

Mr D Periam, Planning Consultant, reported that this application was for the importation of 40,426 tonnes of inert construction demolition and excavation waste; however, the applicant had clarified the intention was that it would be waste soils as opposed to other materials and the intention was to provide an agricultural improvement on land at Park Hill Farm.

Mr Periam advised that the applicant’s agent had submitted a letter which had been circulated to the committee members and appended to the minutes.  The applicant stated that additional information had been supplied in support of the application regarding the Land Advisor’s comments in August 2018, contrary to the report.    Mr Periam clarified that the Landscape Advisor had provided initial comments in August 2018, which the applicant had responded to.  However, further comments, as set out in the report, still clearly raised considerable concerns and these were not responded to by the applicant.  All the comments had been available on the website and there had been plenty of time for the applicant to respond.

Mr Periam provided some photographs of the site.

In response to a question from a member of the committee, Mr Periam confirmed the local member had not provided a response.

Mr Khan proposed the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendations to refuse application number CM/0068/18 for the reasons as stated in the report. 

RESOLVED:  The Development Control Committee REFUSED application number CM/0068/18 for the reasons as set out below:

Reasons for Refusal

1. It had not been demonstrated that the site would be restored to a high environmental standard contrary to paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy for Waste, saved Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan policy 31 and the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2016 – 2036) Emerging policy 26.

2. The development would result in the disposal of waste by landfill contrary to the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policy CS15 and the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2016 – 2036) Emerging policy 13.

3. The development would divert waste from the restoration of mineral extraction sites contrary to Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policy CS15 and the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2016 – 2036) Emerging policies 13, 14 and 15.

4. The catchment area for the importation of waste to the site would result in a significant proportion of waste originating outside of Buckinghamshire contrary to paragraphs 1 and 4 of the National Planning Policy for Waste, Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policy CS16 and the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2016 – 2036) Emerging policy 15.

5. It had not been demonstrated that the development would be carried out without a significant adverse effect on the local landscape including the landscape character of the Whaddon – Nash Valley Local Landscape Area contrary to Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policies CS19 and CS23, the Buckinghamshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2016 – 2036) Emerging policy 21, the Aylesbury Vale District  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Ms C Kelham, Senior Planning Officer, advised that application CM/0018/19 was seeking to use an additional unit on the airfield site for waste processing to diversify operations currently taking place on units 32, 32A and 33. 

Camiers Waste Management Limited were a recycling and skip hire operator and Ms Kelham clarified that the site would be operating in conjunction with those three units, although the vehicle movements were proposed to be in combination with those units.

• Since the publication of the report the following had been received: Eight objections from members of the public.
• An objection from Wingrave with Rowsham Parish Council primarily due to the impact of traffic on the surrounding road network. 
• A petition from local residents entitled "No more waste recycling on the airfield".  
• A letter from the Member of Parliament for Hertfordshire  regarding concerns from a resident in Gubblecote regarding the impact of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) from the site and the general impact of the site on the residents’ health and amenity.
• Comments from the Heritage Consultant at Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) regarding this application and the other application on the airfield site (CM/0017/19).  These comments concluded that there had been no change in policy or circumstances since the previous applications on the airfield site and as such the Heritage Consultant considered that it would be difficult to sustain a Heritage objection given that the route proposed for HGVs was the most direct route and was the same as used for previous applications. Overall, having sought advice from the Archaeology and Heritage Consultants, the Planning Authority was satisfied that the development would not lead to harm to a designated heritage asset.

Ms Kelham provided a presentation and highlighted the following points:

• The location of the site area and the footpaths. 
• The Airfield Industrial Estate was granted a Certificate of Lawful Use in 1985 to be used for light industrial and storage purposes.
• Unit 25 was towards the back of the airfield site. 
• In 2017 an application from Waste King Limited was granted planning permission on a site overlapping the current application site. 
• In June 2018, AVDC granted planning permission for the demolition of a building and its replacement by an open fronted steel structure on Unit 25. 
• A site monitoring visit in autumn 2018 discovered that the yard area had been separated by a fence.  This application sought to use new buildings and a unit for waste transfer and waste processing in conjunction with Camiers at Unit 32, 32A and 33.  No additional HGVs were proposed in addition to those that already existed for those three units.
• Comments had been received regarding the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) but Ms Kelham confirmed the site was not within the AONB.
• There was a routing agreement for units 32, 32A and 33 and it was proposed to keep a similar routing agreement for Unit 25.
• Members of the public had expressed concern that if the throughput of the site increased and there was no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Ms C Kelham, Senior Planning Officer, advised that application CM/00/17/19 had been submitted by the operator of CM/17/17.  The application sought to reduce the area of the site.  There would be no increase in the number of HGV movements i.e. 20 in and 20 out.

Since the publication of the report the following had been received:

• Eight objections from members of the public.
• An objection from Wingrave with Rowsham Parish Council primarily due to the impact of traffic on the surrounding road network. 
• A petition from local residents entitled "No more waste recycling on the airfield".  
• A letter from the Member of Parliament for Hertfordshire  regarding concerns from a resident in Gubblecote regarding the impact of HGVs from the site and the general impact of the site on the residents’ health and amenity.
• Comments from the Heritage Consultant at AVDC regarding this application and the other application on the airfield site (CM/0018/19).  These comments concluded that there had been no change in policy or circumstances since the previous applications on the airfield site and as such the Heritage Consultant considered that it would be difficult to sustain a Heritage objection given that the route proposed for HGVs was the most direct route and was the same as used for previous applications. Overall, having sought advice from the Archaeology and Heritage Consultants, the Planning Authority was satisfied that the development would not lead to harm to a designated heritage asset.

Ms Kelham provided a presentation and highlighted the following points:

• Photographs of the site and entrance to the airfield. 
• Photographs of the hill fort and footpath. 
• Photographs looking into the yard and the inside the site. 
• There was one skip lorry; the other vehicles were caged. 
• The routing agreement was the same as for application CM/0018/19.

Public Speaking

The Chairman invited Ms P Thomas to read out her statement, appended to the minutes, in objection to the application.

Members of the committee raised and discussed the following points:

• A member of the committee stated that she appreciated Ms Piers’ statement had been written before the clarification of the B1 use had been provided in the previous item and felt that from her perspective she was unable to take any part of the presentation as valid.  The member asked Ms Piers if she concurred that the B1 use had changed over the years.  Ms Piers commented that her understanding was that AVDC had given the B1 classification and Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC) changed the use.  The member explained that consent could change much the same way as an extension to a house could change the housing classification.  Ms M Rajaratnam, Assistant Team Leader, Planning and Regeneration, HB Public Law clarified that the district council considered certain types of applications and the County Council considered waste related applications; it was not a case of BCC overruling AVDC.  BCC had granted planning permission for waste storage and sorting having considered the information provided at the time of that application.
• Ms Thomas queried why  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Monday 2 September 2019 at 10.00 am.

Monday 2 September 2019 at 10.00 am.

RESOLVED

That the press and public be excluded for the following item which is exempt by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972 because it contains information relating to an individual