Meeting documents

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 Local Plan policy RA.8 and the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (2013 – 2033) policy NE5.

6. The development if permitted would intensify the use of an existing access on a section of an inter-urban principal road. The slowing and turning of vehicles associated with the use of the access would lead to further conflict and interference with the free flow of traffic on the highway and be detrimental to highway safety. The development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, the aims of Buckinghamshire’s Local Transport Plan 4 and the Buckinghamshire County Council Highways Development Management Guidance document (adopted July 2018).