Comments on: Big wins in Oxfordshire http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/10/20/big-wins-in-oxfordshire/ Fri, 18 May 2012 19:54:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Shlomo http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/10/20/big-wins-in-oxfordshire/comment-page-1/#comment-486 Shlomo Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:01:46 +0000 http://ukwin.org.uk/?p=1372#comment-486 5(a) The Construction and Operation of an Energy from Waste (EfW) Facility together with Associated Office, Visitor Centre and Bottom Ash Recycling Facilities, New Access Road and Weighbridge Facilities and the Continuation of Non Hazardous Landfill Operations and Landfill Gas Utilisation with Consequent Amendments to the Phasing and Final Restoration Landform of the Landfill, Surface water Attenuation Features and Improvements to the Exisiting Household Recycling Facility at Ardley Landfill Site, Ardley Fields farm, Ardley – Application 08/02472/CM Refused on the grounds that: The development proposed would represent a large permanent building in the countryside which is contrary to policies C7, C8, C9 of the Cherwell Local Plan, and policies EN30, EN31, EN34, and D10a of the non statutory Cherwell Local Plan. The Council as Planning Authority is not persuaded that the need for a facility on this scale to divert waste from landfill is sufficient to outweigh the effects of the proposal on the countryside in this locality. 5(b) Energy From Waste Incinerator (EfW) Infrastructure plus that for Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) Processing Plant with Outside Storage Area and Air Pollution Control Residue (APCR) Treatment and Disposal facilites, Visitor and Office Accommodation and Landscaping within Sutton Courtenay Recovery Park Refused on the grounds that The development proposed would represent a large permanent building in the countryside which is contrary to policies NE9, NE10,NE11 and GS2 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan. The Council as Planning Authority is not persuaded that the need for a facility is sufficient to outweigh the effects of the proposal on the countryside in this locality. 5(a) The Construction and Operation of an Energy from Waste (EfW) Facility together with Associated Office, Visitor Centre and Bottom Ash Recycling Facilities, New Access Road and Weighbridge Facilities and the Continuation of Non Hazardous Landfill Operations and Landfill Gas Utilisation with Consequent Amendments to the Phasing and Final Restoration Landform of the Landfill, Surface water Attenuation Features and Improvements to the Exisiting Household Recycling Facility at Ardley Landfill Site, Ardley Fields farm, Ardley – Application 08/02472/CM

Refused on the grounds that:

The development proposed would represent a large permanent building in the countryside which is contrary to policies C7, C8, C9 of the Cherwell Local Plan, and policies EN30, EN31, EN34, and D10a of the non statutory Cherwell Local Plan. The Council as Planning Authority is not persuaded that the need for a facility on this scale to divert waste from landfill is sufficient to outweigh the effects of the proposal on the countryside in this locality.

5(b) Energy From Waste Incinerator (EfW) Infrastructure plus that for Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) Processing Plant with Outside Storage Area and Air Pollution Control Residue (APCR) Treatment and Disposal facilites, Visitor and Office Accommodation and Landscaping within Sutton Courtenay Recovery Park

Refused on the grounds that

The development proposed would represent a large permanent building in the countryside which is contrary to policies NE9, NE10,NE11 and GS2 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan. The Council as Planning Authority is not persuaded that the need for a facility is sufficient to outweigh the effects of the proposal on the countryside in this locality.

]]> By: pauline wilson http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/10/20/big-wins-in-oxfordshire/comment-page-1/#comment-482 pauline wilson Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:57:54 +0000 http://ukwin.org.uk/?p=1372#comment-482 I believe the voting for Ardley was 9 against 5 for. Doesn't change the result. I believe the voting for Ardley was 9 against 5 for. Doesn’t change the result.

]]>