Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D Brailsford, M S Jones, D C Hoyes MBE, D Hunter-Clarke and C L Strange.

Councillor Mrs J M Renshaw requested that a note should be made in the minutes that she had been lobbied by objectors (minute 74).

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 16 January 2017, be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee received a report in connection with the latest position of all current Traffic Regulation Orders and petitions received since the last meeting of the Committee when these matters were considered.

RESOLVED

That the report be received and the receipt of petitions be noted.

Since the publication of the report further correspondence had been received from the applicant together with the response of the Planning Manager, Councillor R A Shore, Executive Councillor for Waste and Recycling and local residents and these was detailed in the Update to the Committee which could be viewed on the Council's website. Officers stated that a further four letters had been received from residents objecting to the application since the publication of the Update.

It was noted that the Committee had made a site visit to the application site preceding this meeting.

Ben Hill, an objector, commented as follows:-

·    Before making his speech he gave a petition, on behalf of objectors, to the Chairman.

·    He stated that proposal was industrial and would operate day and night, was unacceptable to the local residents in the wrong location.

·    He was satisfied with recommendation in the report.

·    He stated that residents on Long Leys Road were already disturbed by noise from vehicles from the site and the new application, if approved, would only aggravate the problem.

·    The parking of vehicles at night would cause noise and pollution for local residents.

·    The amenity of local residents would be affected if planning permission was granted.

·    There were 13 high specification Eco houses in close proximity to the application site.

·    Excellent schools served the area near the application site and the area was environmentally attractive for local residents.

·    The applicant had failed to consult local residents about the application and when local residents had arranged a public meeting to discuss the application the applicant had not attended.

·    The applicant had failed to answer questions from local residents about the application.

·    The applicant needed to examine more appropriate sites which were not close to residential areas and urged refusal of the application.

Ben Hill responded to questions from the Committee as follows:-

·    Was noise a problem from the workshop on the applicant's site? Ben Hill stated that residents living close to the site were able to hear noise from the scraping of bins, reversing vehicles and vibration from vehicles.

·    The light industrial estate covered a large area and was noise a general problem? Ben Hill stated that noise from vehicles was a general problem and not just from the Veolia site.

·    There did not appear to be much activity on the Veolia site, when the Committee had made its site visit, was this a normal average day? Ben Hill stated that residents were disturbed by traffic on site from early morning (5am) and added that if the application was approved then noise would increase.

Chris Okenyi, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

·    Veolia had been a good local neighbour for 40 years and therefore he was surprised by the opposition to the application.

·    Veolia employed local people.

·    The company had tried to address misinformation about the application given to the community.

·    It was not proposed to sort waste at night.

·    The application should be considered on its merits.

·    It was important that the company was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Kate Hodson, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

·    There would only be between 3 and 4 deliveries to the school each day and these would take place outside of the school's working hours.

·    3 new posts would be created if the application was approved.

·    A car sharing scheme had been introduced for school staff and this had freed up car park places.

·    The school's kitchen would be open from 7.30am to 2pm and would provide meals for other schools in the area.

·    The other school suggested by the local Member and the Parish Council in the report as an alternative to the applicant's school only had 115 pupils on roll and was not economically viable compared to the 326 on roll at the applicant's school.

Comments by the Committee and responses of the applicant, included:-

·    Parking issues was problem outside many schools in the county.

·    How far the school was suggested by the local Member and the Parish Council from the applicant's school? The applicant stated that the other school was approximately a mile away.

·    The applicant stated that on School Lane (access to the applicant's site) there was a Care Home which had its own car park and two residential houses with their own parking, opposite the school and therefore local traffic was not an issue.

·    The applicant stated that parking by parents dropping and picking their children up from the school was an issue otherwise parking was not an issue on School Lane.

·    It was important that vehicles visiting the kitchen should abide to the delivery times and the applicant agreed that this would happen.

·    The applicant stated that the proposed colour of the kitchen would be the same as the school's colours.

The officer agreed with the applicant's comments about traffic management on School Lane adding that he had visited this area on an afternoon during a school day and noticed how quiet traffic was in the area and agreed problems occurred when children were being dropped off/picked up which was a county wide issue.

On a motion by Councillor D McNally, seconded by Councillor T M Trollope-Bellew, it was –

RESOLVED (6 votes for and 2 votes against)

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.