Thursday, November 29, 2007
September 2007
Marsworth Airfield North - Applications submitted to increase vehicle movements
In January Bucks County Council granted retrospective approval to Cairns Skips operating from Marsworth Airfield North, for re-siting of buildings and the operation of recycling equipment. Conditions were attached to the permission, enforceable by legal agreement. BCC continued to monitor compliance with the existing conditions, including traffic movement.
By August the legal agreement on the new conditions was still not signed off, but Cairns submitted an amendment to increase vehicle movements from 24 to 84 per day. In September the other waste transfer business on the Airfield, Camiers, submitted an application to increase their vehicle movements to 124 per day.
Several years ago BCC and AVDC lost an appeal against development on the site. The planners have to balance the rights of the applicants and the interests of those employed on the site with the amenity of nearby residents.
Here are some questions the Council needs to address to get the right balance that will stand up to appeal.
Both applications are a challenge to the existing conditions. Are the existing conditions enforceable? If not what conditions could be put in place to improve enforcement? Why can’t the existing capacity of the site be maintained and enforced?
Currently waste vehicles over a certain size accessing the airfield may not go through Cheddington, Mentmore or Long Marston. Does this put an unfair burden on Ivinghoe, Pitstone, Horton and Northall? Doesn’t this show that the whole road network is unsuitable and the site is effectively landlocked. ?
Construction waste should be disposed of ‘locally’. How far away is local? The applicants suggest High Wycombe and Hemel Hempstead. I think those two towns should have their own facilities and not export waste to Aylesbury Vale. The County Council must make a ruling on its own policies. With quarry two at Pitstone having permission ( but not yet a licence) for similar operations, is there not already adequate capacity to treat local waste?
A time limit on signing off the legal agreement must be imposed. With a retrospective application the operators have continued to run for ten months without complying with the new conditions. While we can see the traffic, equally important, but away from public view, the other detrimental environmental effects still continue unmitigated by any conditions.
I hope to make sure the planning committee have enough evidence to limit and enforce these operations to the size already agreed.
I have called a meeting of the liaison committee for the Pitstone quarry on October 24, as activity there continues. Enforcement officers have visited, but members of the public still have many unanswered questions of both the enforcement team and the operator. Prior to the Pitstone meeting we will review progress on the seeding of the restored Ivinghoe Aston quarry.
The decision on the route this may take has been postponed, probably for several years. New rules brought in by the government will make the County pay £8m towards the road (10% of the cost) and 20% of any overspend. As the County now has to pay commercial rates on borrowed capital, and has a long list of school building priorities, and infrastructure for growth in Aylesbury, this makes the scheme more or less unaffordable. The route was also given a very low priority in the Highways agency spending plans.
In addition, the traffic growth that will arise from the proposed growth of Luton, Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard, similar to that in Aylesbury, was not announced at the time of initial studies of the routes. When the Bedfordshire plans materialize, they may send the bypass options back to the drawing board.
Energy From Waste (EFW) proposals College Farm Aston Clinton.
Bucks County Council has consulted on the use of this site for a full range of waste treatment facilities from household amenity site to power generation. There are so many factors against using this site for EFW generation that I would be very surprised if it was chosen. MoD rules, I am told, mean the chimneys would be too near RAF Halton. The land may not now be available. The views from the Chilterns AONB are an important factor, and the proposal runs contrary to the County’s own policy that such a facility should be built on an existing waste disposal site. The traffic generation however would be a very small percentage set against the traffic growth from the proposed 9,000 homes to the south of Aylesbury. Finally the decision is due to be taken in spring 2009, immediately prior to the County elections!
The principle of utilizing EFW technology was not up for discussion in this consultation, only the proposed sites. The EFW decision was taken about two years ago, and reflects many other local authorities such as Hertfordshire, and Hampshire where EFW plants are already operating. This followed an even more extensive consultation that the recent one.
Aylesbury Southern Arc development propsals.
In my view, the proposed 9,000 homes clustered within an arc from Stone to Bierton, as consulted on this summer by AVDC, take the risk of eggs in a basket. The balance of advantage between this proposal, and the inclusion of sites to the north along trunk routes and the new railway station, is too close to call, and may jeopardize the Council’s planning powers if the government thinks AVDCs proposals are not robust enough. The Council has until May next year to develop the plan to pass the governments ‘soundness’ tests.
Second Class Refuse Collection
In a recent leaflet on waste and recycling AVDC announced that in 2008 it was going to extend to the whole district the current scheme operating in Winslow and Buckingham of alternate weekly collections of household waste and garden waste and other recycling.
Because of poor planning and lack of interest in the last 8 years, not only has AVDC dropped to the bottom of the recycling league tables, but it will not now be possible to put food waste in both collections. This is because AVDC has not developed the composting facilities that can legally take cooked food waste along with garden waste and cardboard, leaving the only option for food waste to be landfill.
In my questions to Council on this I have received three different answers from different members of the cabinet. One saying weekly collections will continue, but not specifically weekly collections of food waste. One confirming the alternate weekly collections as announced in the leaflet. The latest one this week specifically promised composting facilities that will enable weekly collection of food waste.
I have a motion to Council this month on the subject. I hope to achieve a U turn in the policies if it is not too late.
Labels: September 2007
