|
Contact Officer: James Irvine (james.irvine@oxfordshire.gov.uk) Tel: 01865 816526
ITEM PN5
PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2009
THE EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING OF SOFT BUILDING SAND AND INTERMITTENTLY OCCURRING LIMESTONE AND THE REMOVAL OF SURPLUS SOILS, THE INFILLING WITH INERT WASTE SUBJECT TO PRIOR ON-SITE SORTING AND RECYCLING, THE PROVISION OF ALL ANCILLARY FACILITIES NECESSARY FOR EXTRACTION AND INFILLING INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO OFFICE, WEIGHBRIDGE, ACCESS WAYS, RECYCLING PLANT AND THE RESTORATION OF THE SITE FOR NATURE CONSERVATION AND AGRICULTURAL USES. UPWOOD PARK, BESSELSLEIGH.
Report by Head of Sustainable Development
Location: Upwood Park, Besselsleigh
Applicant: Hills Quarry Products Ltd.
Application No: MAR/5529/1-CM
District Council Area: Vale of White Horse
Introduction
1. The applicant is proposing to extract 1.4 million tonnes of soft sand and intermittently occurring limestone over a period of 21 years from a 22.4 Ha site at Upwood Park Estate near Besselsleigh. The maximum annual output from the site would be 100,000 tonnes per year. The annual average output would be approximately 85,000 tonnes per year for approximately 15-18 years.
2. The proposal would act as a replacement to the existing sand quarry at Tubney Wood when planning permission expires in 2012.
3. The application site is adjacent to Parsonage Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) that forms part of the Cothill Fen Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
4. The applicant has involved stakeholders such as the Environment Agency, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) and Natural England and is proposing measures to protect the adjacent SAC and SSSI from potential harm during the life of the proposal.
Location
5. The application site is situated north west of Abingdon in the parish of Besselsleigh, approximately 4km west of the A34 and 400 metres west of the A420. Access to the site would be formed from the A338.
The Site and Its Setting (See Plan 1) (download as .doc file)
6. It is proposed to extract 1.4 million tonnes of soft sand from 4 fields that total 22.4Ha. The application site is within an Area of High Landscape Value known as the North Vale Corallian Ridge.
7. The site is set amongst an extensive plantation of woodland that includes broad leaved tree species including oak, ash sycamore, sweet chestnut, elm, hazel, field maple and thorn. There are a number of nature reserves in the locality that contribute to the Cothill Fen Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Most important are Parsonage Moor SSSI and Ruskin Reserve nature reserves that contribute to the status of the SAC and are of particular significance in their hydrological characteristics.
8. There are a number of residential properties that border the application site. Brushwood House and Brushwood Bungalow are situated directly west of the application site. The property of Redlands lies 150m north-east of the site and Rowleigh House is approximately 200m north-east of the site boundary. Approximately 100m north of the site is Upwood Park House. ‘The Ride’ consists of a number of properties which are situated opposite the proposed access from the A338 extending westwards. Oxford Instruments industrial site is situated approximately 300m south west of the application site along the A338.
Background Information and History
9. The applicant is currently quarrying for soft sand at Tubney Woods quarry, north of the application site (see Plan 1) on the opposite side of the A420. Permission was granted there for mineral extraction in 1988 with permission extended in 2005 until 2012 when mineral reserves will have been exhausted. Tubney Woods quarry currently supplies approximately 90,000 tonnes per year of mineral to local markets.
10. The applicant is proposing to move the mineral operations to the site at Upwood Park Estate once mineral operations at Tubney Woods cease. The proposed site has not been the subject of previous mineral applications.
11. The application site is adjacent to environmentally significant sites that are particularly sensitive to changes in ground water flow and chemistry. An Environmental Impact Assessment accompanies the application and this has also been the subject of consultation.
12. The applicant has held discussions with the Environment Agency, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) and Natural England to produce proposed mitigation measures and a restoration concept that may protect and enhance the environmentally sensitive areas. The details of these measures have also been the subject of consultation.
Details of the Development
Mineral Extraction
13. Extraction of soft sand would occur in 4 fields with a total area of 22.4Ha. The proposal would involve mineral extraction for 21 years at a rate of approximately 85,000 tonnes per year. The working would be phased and progressively restored within field boundaries. Proposed restoration would be to a combination of agricultural use and nature conservation.
14. The working plan identifies 11 phases of extraction. Each of the phases would be worked dry 1 metre above the water table. Phase 1 would be extracted first and the offices, weighbridge, car park, stocking and crushing area would be located in this phase. Extraction would then proceed to field 4 since the nearest residential dwellings are in close proximity to the boundary of working and this approachwould minimise the length of time of potential disturbance.
15. Soils would be stripped during the preparation of each phase and stored as material for landscape screening and for restoration. The applicant proposes to undertake archaeological investigations during the soil stripping phase.
16. A footpath crosses Field 2 and this would have to be diverted during mineral extraction. The applicant proposes thatthis footpath be re-instated to its original route once extraction ceases.
17. Vehicle access to the site would be from the A338. The existing farm track was to have been re-surfaced and the appropriate sight lines along the A338 for HGVs created. Following discussions with the Transport Development Control team, the applicant has submitted revised access arrangements. The revised access is moved 29m north towards to the A420 in order to achieve the appropriate sight lines in both directions. Following a 21 day consultation period (ending 8 April 2009) no objections have beenmade to this change.
Restoration
18. Restoration of the site is proposed to be to agriculture and to nature conservation. Following discussions with stakeholders, Field 2 and part of Field 4 are proposed to be transferred in perpetuity to BBOWT who would then be responsible for the long term nature conservation interest of those areas.
19. Inert waste would be imported onto the site to use as restoration material at a rate of approximately 60,000 m3 per year. This material would be subject to on-site sorting and recycling prior to being used as inert fill. Recycled material would be taken off site.
Traffic
20. There would be an intensification of vehicle movements at the site compared to the current agricultural use. The proposal involves the extraction of mineral and the subsequent import of inert material for restoration. There are therefore potential impacts from two separate operations. For the period 1 May 2008 to 1 September 2008 average vehicle movements at Tubney Wood quarry are 43 per day. This figure includes the movements associated with the import of inert material. Mineral extraction rates would be similar to those at Tubney Woods quarry and would, therefore, generate similar levels of vehicle movements. It is anticipated that average vehicle movements would be between 28 to 36 per day (in and out of the site) for mineral extraction, and 22 movements per day for import of inert fill.
Environmental Statement
21. The application is supported by an Environmental Statement (ES). This covers environmental impacts on agriculture and soils, landscape character, air quality and dust, archaeology, hydrology, ecology, noise and impacts on people.
22. The section on agriculture and soils includes an Agricultural Land Classification that shows the predominant soil to be low-quality Grade 3b soils. Grade 2 soils comprise 10.74% of the land and are important to retain for their moisture retention qualities for agricultural restoration. The assessment shows that the application site is susceptible to drought having very little moisture retention capability and concludes that the temporary loss of farmland would have no material impact but the importation of parts of the site to higher quality agricultural land would be beneficial.
23. The section on air quality and dust identifies that quarrying can produce dust as a by-product and can lead to irritation and possible health hazards. Sand quarries have moisture content and this would help to prevent the release of dust. The assessment identifies a number of additional control mechanisms and concludes that should these measures be implemented appropriately by conditions, then there would be no significant impact from dust.
24. The section on archaeology examines pre-existing information from historic and modern maps, the Oxfordshire Sites and Monuments Record and the geological record amongst other sources. The site is within an area of generally high archaeological interest, with prehistoric finds from the within the site itself and nearby and known medieval evidence not far away. The ES concludes that further assessments would be necessary from field observation in order to mitigate the impact of the development.
25. The section on ecology analyses the results of ecological surveys for bats, badgers, dormice, other protected mammals, reptiles, amphibians, breeding birds and invertebrates. Mitigation measures are proposed which, if appropriately implemented, would reduce the potential impacts on protected species. A full assessment of the ecological surveys is included within the consultation response from the County Ecologist. The ecological assessment recognises that the restoration proposals have the potential to provide significant ecological benefit to the area and to expand Hitchcopse Pit.
26. The section on hydrology assesses the proposal against the implications on the hydrological character of the area and includes mathematical modelling data. Of particular concern would be any significant adverse impacts on Cothill Fen SAC. The groundwater flow assessment found that there would not be a significant impact to groundwater as a result of the development, and that there would be a low potential impact on the SAC. The potential for surface water contamination is considered to be insignificant. The assessment also recommends that extensive groundwater quality and level monitoring would need to be ongoing throughout the life of the development.
27. The section on landscape character assessment identifies that the site is within a number of landscape types, in particular the North Corallian Ridge. The assessment recognises that there would be a slight to moderate impact on the landscape character that would eventually provide an increased benefit to the area through the restoration scheme.
28. A noise assessment has been provided considering the types of noise which may be generated and providing predicted noise levels for noise sensitive properties. The assessment compares these with the current working practices at Tubney Woods quarry since the operations would be similar. The assessment identifies that the development could have a substantial impact on Brushwood and Brushwood Bungalow during working in Field 4 and recommends that noise mitigation measures should be implemented in order to make the development acceptable. It was established, therefore, that noise levels from the development could be controlled to ensure that they would be below the limits in Minerals Policy Statement 2.
29. The section on traffic states that vehicle movements generated by the proposal would be similar to those at Tubney Woods quarry. The proposed access is on a relatively lightly trafficked road and access improvements are proposed to widen vision splays in either direction for vehicles.
30. The section on visual impact assesses the proposal in terms of the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) and finds that the proposal would have a low-ZVI due to the strong framework of existing woodland and vegetation. There would be a significant visual impact to the users of the rights of way that cross and border the site, but can be adequately mitigated against. The overall potential impact is assessed as low.
31. The section on impact on people concludes that people are most affected by quarrying as a result of noise, dust, traffic and visual impacts. These impacts are assessed in the ES and in this report.
Appropriate Assessment
32. The County Council has undertaken an Appropriate Assessment (AA), in accordance with the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994, to determine whether the development would have any significant impacts on Cothill Fen SAC. Independent ecological and hydrological consultants were commissioned by the County Council to assess whether the mitigation measures proposed for the scheme, and the proposed conditions which would provide a legally enforceable framework for management and monitoring at the site, would have an effect on the integrity of the SAC.
33. The conclusions of the AA are that, subject to the submission of a Water Management Plan and its subsequent approval by Oxfordshire County Council, Natural England and the Environment Agency, there would not be an adverse impact on the integrity of the Cothill Fen SAC as a result of the proposed development. Natural England and the Environment Agency support this conclusion.
Consultation Responses and Third Party Representations
Vale of White Horse District Council
34. Stress the requirements of policies NE2 and NE7 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011, that need for soft sand should be fully substantiated and that restoration should be robust and of the highest standard.
35. The Council objects unless Oxfordshire County Council is satisfied that the proposal accords with policy, that such need is substantiated, landscaping, restoration and phasing arrangements are fully implemented and suitable protection measures are in place for residents.
Besselsleigh Parish Council
36. No response.
Marcham Parish Council
37. The Parish Council are concerned that the level of consultation undertaken was inadequate and that a public event held at Appleton Village town hall was in the middle of the day and so not many people could attend. They have requested that the public are allowed greater time to respond, in line with extensions given to Natural England and BBOWT.
38. They have raised concern about the A338 and feel that it is unsuitable for this type of development. The access is on a sweeping bend where vehicles are travelling fast. They have requested that appropriate vision splays are used and that a 50mph be introduced on the A338. There are concerns that any HGVs travelling southwards on the A338 will go through Marcham Village to reach the A34 and Abingdon. They instead ask that all vehicles use the A420.
39. The Parish Council are very concerned about the effect on Cothill Fen and fully support the comments from BBOWT and Natural England.
Appleton with Eaton Parish Council
40. The Parish Council have the following observations:
- Clearer site lines for safer exit from the quarry. - Attention to the perimeter fence, particularly because of the closeness to the well-used public footpaths. - Good wheel wash facility to prevent the road becoming dangerous. Tubney Woods has relied on sweeping mud which has tracked out onto the road. The entrance to Upwood Park is on a more highly used and higher speed stretch of road and there is concern about safety for road users. - There is concern about the proximity to Parsonage Moor and The Ruskin Reserve. Their value is dependent largely on water and there are concerns about the effect on the water table. - Establish a local liaison group, like the Tubney Woods Group, supported by Oxfordshire County Council to address local concerns.
Fyfield and Tubney Parish Council
41. The Parish Council object to the proposal on a number of grounds:
- Access to the A338 is dangerous and inappropriate. It cannot accommodate HGVs. The potential to spread mud on the highway will create a danger for motorists. - The residents of Brushwood Farm House will be affected by noise, together with residents of The Ride directly opposite the access. Some of the properties are within 50m of the site.
Thames Water
42. No response.
Environment Agency
First response
43. The proposed development will be acceptable subject to the imposition of a condition requiring submission and subsequent agreement of further details of: (a) Monitoring of groundwater levels, flow and water quality during extraction. (b) Limit of excavations depths to approved plans, or to a minimum of 1m above the water table.
44. The aquifer recharge area and the groundwater divide detected from the baseline groundwater monitoring data indicate that the proposed quarry/landfill area falling within the SAC groundwater catchments is small.
45. A basal liner will be required for landfilling. However, this will be dealt with in the Hydrological Risk Assessment accompanying the required Environment Permit application.
46. A PPC permit is required for the landfill operations. This will require groundwater monitoring for the duration of operations and until that permit is surrendered.
47. The EA has no objection on flood risk grounds.
Second response
48. Appropriate assessment – agree with the conclusions of the appropriate assessment report and welcome the proposed planning conditions to be attached.
49. Satisfied that the appropriate assessment adequately covers all of the impacts of the qualifying features and conservation objectives of Cothill Fen SAC.
Natural England
First response
50. Hydrology – the submitted proposal, without the implementation of planning conditions to protect the interest features of the above SAC, would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the SAC and would therefore require appropriate assessment under Regulation 48 of the Habitat Regulations 1994. No objection to the proposal, subject to appropriate assessment, provided that a number of planning conditions are attached to mitigate any adverse hydrological impacts.
51. Protected species – satisfied with the survey and mitigation is found to be acceptable. A brief method statement should be submitted for the removal of trees with the potential to support bats. This should be conditioned if permission is granted.
52. Agriculture and soil – submitted restoration and aftercare details unsatisfactory due to:
(a) Discrepancies between the details contained in the ES and the planning statement with regard to sequence of working, soil storage, soil handling. (b) Existing topsoil should be retained on-site and used in restoration. (c) Unclear how existing Grade 2 land will be maintained following restoration. (d) Confusion on aftercare of the land.
Imposition of conditions to clarify these matters will be acceptable in order to determine the application.
Second response
53. Appropriate assessment –Natural England are satisfied that the methodology and the conclusions reached in the report will not give rise to a significant impact on the SAC.
Berkshire, Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust
54. Key concern is the impact on the hydrology of the Cothill Fen SAC. The conditions proposed by Natural England should serve to prevent significant effect on the SAC and SSSI and, therefore, do not object to the proposal providing that the conditions are attached should permission be granted.
55. A proposed County Wildlife Site and an area of Ancient Woodland are within close proximity to the proposal. Information gathered with regard to the County Forester’s comments should be used to determine any potential hydrological impacts on these and inform on the use of appropriate conditions to ensure there are no negative (direct or indirect) impacts on these designations in line with PPS9.
CPRE
56. CPRE object on the grounds that: - The site is in the Green Belt. - The site is on the North Corallian Ridge and the application does not meet the requirements of VOWH Local Plan NE7 which applies. - The site is adjacent to Parsonage Moor SSSI/SAC and excavation will affect the hydrology of the area. - Prevailing wind will carry dust into the area and have an adverse effect on flora and fauna.
The National Trust
57. Lack of up to date policy framework. Need to assess against minerals and waste local plan policy PE2 (ii). Unsure that mitigation measures will be adequate . Alternative sites should be assessed in the absence of a long-term land-use strategy for the extraction of sand or to work just one field to protect the hydrology. Field 2 should be employed as a buffer zone. Transport Development Control
First Response
58. The Transport Development Control officer issued a holding objection until further information was provided regarding: · Clarification of the number of vehicle movements at Tubney Woods. · A scheme showing clearing of vision splays to appropriate Government and Oxfordshire County Council standards and a regime for their maintenance. · Improvements to the access need to be submitted, including modification of drawing no. 490/2 to show vehicle tracking and that the passing place can accommodate two vehicles. · Installation of appropriate wheelwashes to prevent mud migration onto the highway and possibly a road sweeping regime. · Drainage for the access needs to be shown. · Public footpaths would need to be diverted and arrangements for this should be made. · The existing signage must be changed since the traffic movements are to be intensified. These should be in accordance with Traffic Signs and General Directions Manual. · The increased risk to the public who may seek to access the site for recreational purposes should be taken into account. · Appropriate conditions should be implemented to address these issues.
Second response
59. No objection in principle to the amended access arrangements and comments as follows: (a) ‘Upwood Quarry’ sign should not affect vision from The Ride. (b) Unsure where fencing (detail C) is proposed. (c) Proposed Road Markings will need to be in accordance with the Traffic Signs & General Directions 2002. (d) A sign is necessary showing no public access/private.
60. Transport Development Control has confirmed that these can be incorporated into the scheme if access improvements are applied.
County Archaeologist
First response
61. The desk based assessment needs to include more information from the Oxfordshire Historic Environment Record in order to satisfy Minerals and Waste Local Plan policies PE8 and PE17 since part of the site has previously been subject to archaeological investigation.
Second response
62. The applicant has submitted a revised desk based assessment. There is no indication of any archaeological features of national importance, but there is evidence suggesting prehistoric activity somewhere in the vicinity. Recommend attaching a condition that requires supervision whilst stripping topsoil. The applicant should be responsible for implementing a staged programme of archaeological work in accordance with PPG16 and the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1996.
County Ecologist
63. No objection. In assessing advice from Natural England, the Environment Agency, BBOWT and the County Forester, conclude that the proposal would have no significant impact on the Cothill Fen SAC, Frilford Heath SSSI, Tubney Wood LWS, Upwood Park LWS, White Hard Wood, ancient woodland or protected species.
64. There would be some minor short-term negative impacts on biodiversity on the site, however there would be long-term biodiversity gains on-site due to the restoration of field 2 and half of field 4 to nature conservation. There would be wider benefits to biodiversity due to the land transfer of Hitch Copse Pit and Hitch Copse to BBOWT which would result in better management of that land and Parsonage Moor. Increasing the extent of the nature conservation areas can result in more habitat and some species which require a minimum foraging area or territory or which operate successfully only within a meta-population (explain meta population).
65. The proposed development would therefore be compliant with national, regional and local development plan policies; no objection to the proposal, subject to submission and approval of a water management plan as recommended in the Appropriate Assessment and an environmental management plan before any work commences. That plan to include, but not be limited to, surveys of protected species and mitigation measures. And, within 6 months of commencement of development a restoration plan should be submitted by the applicant for approval by the relevant authorities. A section 106 Agreement must also be secured for the long term management of the areas restored for nature conservation to ensure long term management in the event that the transfer of land to BBOWT is not initiated. Conditions would need to be attached to this effect.
County Forester
66. No objection. However, two issues that could affect adjacent woodland are dust and changes to the water table. There is little or no information about the soils and hydrology of the adjoining ancient woodland to the north. Soil pH and hydrology are variable over quite a short distance. If the adjoining soils are podsolised (explain) then the hydrology of the woodland would be very different from the surrounding land and disturbing it could have serious adverse effects on the woodland.
67. The applicant should carry out further investigations to determine woodland soil types and soil water status before determining if the development would be harmful. Should these reveal no problems then a buffer zone of 10 – 15 metres to the woodland should be sufficient.
68. Dust from calcareous sand can affect the pH of acid soils which can then impact on the woodland trees. The potential buffer zone should provide some vegetation that can filter dust.
Rights of Way Officer
69. No objection. Marcham footpath No. 5 will need to be diverted. The applicant will need to make a footpath diversion application.
Third PartyRepresentations
70. Representations received are set out at Annex 2 (download as .doc file)with officer comment.
Relevant Development Plan and other Policies
(Annex 1 - Relevant Development Plan Policies - download as .doc file)
71. The main policy considerations relate to the need for mineral, the impact on the ecology of the area, hydrology, location of waste facilities, green belt, archaeology, noise, traffic, dust, effect on local amenity and landscape.
Need for Minerals
72. Regional Planning Guidance 9: Waste and Minerals (RPG9) policy M3 states that Mineral Planning Authorities should plan to maintain a landbank of at least seven years for land-won sand and gravel. RPG9 continues to outline the sand and gravel apportionment for Oxfordshire of 1.82 million tonnes per annum.
73. Minerals Policy Statement 1: Planning and Minerals (MPS1) also provides for the maintenance of mineral landbanks. MPS1 says that should a landbank fall below 7 years for sand and gravel then additional reserves will need to be permitted.
74. Oxfordshire Structure Plan (OSP) policy M1 states that permission will be granted for mineral working at appropriate locations provided it can be demonstrated that any adverse environmental or other impact that the development would be likely to cause is outweighed by the need for the mineral, having regard to: - The need to maintain landbanks or permitted reserves for aggregate minerals in line with national and regional guidance - The need to ensure a steady supply of mineral materials for local markets - The need to supply material for major construction projects from borrow pits; and - National and regional needs for non-aggregate minerals.
75. Under MWLP policy PE2, planning permission will not normally be granted outside the areas identified in the MWLP unless the apportioned supply from the county cannot be met from within the areas identified.
76. Policy SD1 of the MWLP requires that separate landbanks be maintained for sharp sand and gravel and soft sand at levels which accord with current Government advice and with the current regional apportionment.
Ecology
77. Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9) states that planning decisions should aim to maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity interests. When making decisions, appropriate weight should be attached to designated sites of international, national and local importance; protected species and to biodiversity and geological interests within the wider environment.
78. PPS9 also states that planning decisions should prevent harm to biodiversity. Where granting planning permission would result in significant harm to those interests, local planning authorities will need to be satisfied that the development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. In the absence of any such alternatives, local planning authorities should ensure that, before planning permission is granted, adequate mitigation measures are put in place. Where a planning decision would result in significant harm to biodiversity and geological interests which cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensation measures should be sought. If that significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.
79. With reference to the protection of ancient woodland PPS9 states that local planning authorities should not grant planning permission for any development that would result in its loss or deterioration unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location outweigh the loss of the woodland habitat.
80. Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 (OSP) policy EN2 protects Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), National Nature Reserves (NNRs) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and sites which support specially protected species from damaging development. Local planning authorities will seek environmental measures and promote the use of conditions and management agreements to help protect, manage and expand the biodiversity resource of the county, in particular priority habitats and species.
81. MWLP policy PE10 states that mineral working and waste disposal should not damage or destroy woodland and forestry. Proposals will be assessed by taking into account the importance of the affected woodland, economically, scenically and ecologically; the local abundance of scarcity of woodland; the remaining life of the woodland; the extent of replacement proposed and the time which it can be expected to take for replacement woodland to make a positive contribution to the landscape.
82. MWLP policy PE14 requires that sites of nature conservation should not be damaged. Proposals which would affect a nature conservation interest will be assessed by taking into account the importance of the affected interest; the degree and permanence of the projected damage and the extent to which replacement habitat can be expected to preserve the interest in the long-term.
83. The Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 (VoWHLP) policy NE1 states that applications for development which are likely to affect a known or potential site of nature conservation value will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by an ecological appraisal which enables a proper assessment to be made of the impact of the proposed development on the ecological value of the site.
84. VoWHLP policy NE2 states that development will not be permitted if it would result in the destruction of or damage to any special area of conservation, national nature reserve or site of special scientific interest.
Hydrology
85. Under MWLP policy PE4, proposals for mineral extraction and restoration (including waste disposal) will not be permitted where they would have an impact on groundwater levels in the surrounding area which would harm existing water abstraction, river flow, canal, lake or pond levels or important natural habitats. Proposals must not put at risk the quality of groundwater.
Location of Waste Facilities
86. MWLP policy W4 states that proposals for re-use/recycling and ancillary process will not normally be permitted in the open countryside unless the development is to form part of a mineral extraction/landfill site and will be removed on completion of extraction/landfill.
Green Belt
87. Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts (PPG2) states that mineral working need not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt providing that high environmental standards are maintained and that the site is well restored. Mineral planning authorities should ensure that planning conditions for mineral working sites within green belts achieve suitable environmental standards and restoration. Mineral workings should, so far as possible contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in green belts as set out below: (a) to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population (b) to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas (c) to retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to where people live (d) to improve damaged and derelict land around towns (e) to secure nature conservation interest; and (f) to retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses.
88. OSP policy G4 states that a Green Belt will be maintained around Oxford to: (a) Preserve the special character and landscape setting of Oxford. (b) Check the growth of Oxford and prevent ribbon development and urban sprawl. (c) Prevent coalescence of settlements. (d) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. (e) Assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recyling of derelict and other urban land. Development will only be permitted if it maintains its openness and does not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt or harm its visual amenities.
Landscape
89. OSP policy EN1 requires the planning authority to ensure that proposals for development contribute to the protection, maintenance and, where possible, enhancement of Oxfordshire’s landscape character. It further states that development will be permitted only if it does not unacceptably damage the local landscape.
90. VoWHLP policy NE7 says that development which would harm the prevailing character and appearance of the North Corallian Ridge, as shown on the proposals map, will not be permitted unless there is an overriding need for the development and all steps will be taken to minimise the impact on the landscape.
Traffic
91. OSP policy T8 states that proposals for development should be permitted only if they provide adequate access and mitigation of adverse transport impacts.
Archaeology
92. PPG16 states that the desirability of preserving sites of archaeological importance and their setting is a material planning consideration whether or not the site is scheduled. There should be a presumption for preserving their physical structure in situ.
93. OSP policy EN6 states that there will be a presumption in favour of preserving in situ nationally and internationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings. Development affecting other archaeological remains should include measures to secure their preservation in situ or, where this is not feasible, their recording or removal to another site.
94. MWLP policy PE8 states that a preliminary archaeological assessment is normally required in order to determine the nature and significance of any archaeological remains. The County Council may, subject to the results of this assessment, require an archaeological field evaluation of the site to determine the appropriate means for mitigating the impact of extraction on the archaeological resource.
95. VoWHLP policy HE10 states that development will not be permitted if it would cause damage to the site or setting of nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not.
Amenity
96. MWLP PE3 states that appropriate buffer zones will be safeguarded around mineral working sites for protection against unacceptable losses of residential or natural amenity. Paragraph 4.8 of the text of the plan suggests that appropriate buffer zones would be 350 metres from villages and hamlets and 100 metres from individual dwellings.
97. MWLP policy PE18 states that in determining applications the County Council will have regard for the provisions in the Code of Practice in the MWLP. The Code of Practice covers amenity issues such as hours of working, noise and dust.
Other Issues
98. OSP policy R2 states that development that would damage the rights of way network will be resisted.
Comments of the Head of Sustainable Development
99. The key planning issues are the need for the mineral, the impacts on ecology, hydrology, location of waste facilities, green belt, impact on the landscape, traffic, archaeology and impact on amenity.
Need for the Development
100. Soft sand is needed to supply the constrction industry with the raw materials it needs. Government expects planning authorities to plan to enable a continous and steady supply of aggregates. To enable this planning authorities should enable provision of a 7 year landbank of permitted reserves based on the agreed annual apportionment (MPS1). Oxfordshire’s soft sand apportionment is 291000 tonnes. At the end of 2008 our permitted reserves stood at just over 700,000 tonnes which is equivalent to about 2.5 years supply. In straight landbank terms therefore there is a need to grant permissions for soft sand provided there would not be unacceptable harm caused by the development. If permitted – the landbank would increase to just over 7 years..
101. Reserves at Tubney Woods will be exhausted by 2012 and so the proposal would allow for soft sand to be supplied to local markets to meet demand that would otherwise have been supplied from Tubney Woods quarry. The proposal would therefore ensure the steady supply of minerals to the local market following the closure of Tubney Woods in accordance with OSP policy M1.
102. There are no sites specifically identified in the MWLP for soft sand production. In order to meet demand for the mineral the County Council is dependent on new applications coming forward for previously unidentified sites. There is a strong need for further planning permissions to come forward to satisfy the requirements of the landbank. To this extent, and provided that other MWLP and OSP policies are appropriately fulfilled, the proposal would accord with the principles of MWLP PE2 and SD1.
Ecology
103. The very close proximity of the proposed extraction to Cothill Fen SAC is a significant consideration. The Appropriate Assessment has concluded that the conservation interests of the SSSI would not be affected by the proposal. Natural England and the County Ecologist agree with this view. The proposal, therefore, accords with OSP policy EN2 and VoWHLP policy NE2.
104. There would be some short-term minor negative impacts on the biodiversity of the site. However, this impact is offset by the long-term biodiversity gains that can be achieved due to the extensive areas of nature conservation that would be provided through implementation of the restoration proposals. The proposed transfer of this land in perpetuity to BBOWT would secure the long term management of the restored land. The applicant has nevertheless agreed to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to ensure that long term management of the site is secured in the event that the land is not able to be transferred to BBOWT. The creation of acid grassland and breckland within restored pits would contribute to an increase in Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitat targets. The proposal accords with PPS9.
105. The Environmental Statement concludes that there would be minimal impact upon protected species provided appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. These are set out in the report. Natural England is satisfied with the level of detail of the surveys and states that the mitigation measures proposed would be acceptable. The proposal is compliant with the principles set out in PPS9, MWLP PE14 and VoWHLP NE1.
106. The proposal could have an impact on the woodland that is present around the perimeter of the site, and the areas of ancient woodland that lie within the site. The County Forester has raised concerns that the woodland could be impacted by changes in hydrology and the effects of dust. The Woodland Trust has also raised concerns over the impact on the woodland in their consultation response. Further information was sought from the consultant hydrologist on behalf of the applicant and the hydrological regime of the site suggests that the site does not contribute to the woodlands immediate hydrology. This is confirmed in the Appropriate Assessment.
107. In relation to dust, the County Forester has recommended a minimum of 10m buffer zone around existing woodland. There would be no extraction within this distance to any woodland. The County Ecologist has recommended that the restoration proposal would result in less isolation and fragmentation of woodland in the long term. The proposal accords with MWLP policy PE10.
108. There may be a short term detrimental impact on existing hedgerows and ancient woodland and mature small leaved limes. This can be limited through the imposition of appropriate planning conditions. The proposed scheme would not, in my view, have a long-term detrimental impact as much of the application site is agricultural land and the restoration proposals would enhance the nature conservation status of the site. The County Ecologist has raised no objections on these grounds. The proposal would, therefore, accord with the principles of PPS9.
Hydrology
109. The potential impact on the hydrology of the area – in particular the Special Area for Conservation at Cothill Fen – is a significant consideration for this proposal. The applicant has proposed a number of measures to mitigate against adverse impacts. These are set out in this report in the section on the Environmental Statement.
110. In their consultation responses, Natural England and the Environment Agency have not objected to the proposal and proposed conditions that could be attached to any permission that was given. The Appropriate Assessment concludes that implementation of the mitigation measures described in the proposal, and adoption of appropriate conditions would ensure that the development would not lead to significant adverse impacts on the hydrology of Cothill Fen SAC. Natural England and the Environment Agency are satisfied with the methodology and the conclusions of the Appropriate Assessment.
111. Therefore, the requirements of MWLP PE4 and VoWHLP NE2 would be met.
Location of Waste Facilities
112. The proposed inert waste recycling is associated with mineral extraction and would be removed once the extraction and subsequent fill has been completed. Therefore, the development complies with MWLP policy W4.
Green Belt
113. The site is in the Oxford Green Belt. Because mineral working is temporary, it is not precluded in principle from the Green Belt provided that operations meet high environmental standards. The well-screened nature of the site means that it would not, in my view, harm the openness of the Green Belt. Subsequent landfill using inert waste wll enable a satisfactory restoration. In the long-term the proposal would contribute to green belt objectives and so this proposal does not conflict with MPG2 and OSP policy G4.
Impact on Landscape
114. The development would change rather than damage the landscape character of the area. The land is currently agricultural land that does not provide high yields. The site is well screened by extensive woodland that would significantly reduce the impact of quarrying on the landscape. The restoration proposals would provide an acceptable alternative landscape in character with the area and would therefore accord with MPG2, OSP policy EN1 and MWLP PE13.
115. The site is situated within the North Corallian Ridge which is identified in the VoWHLP as a protected landscape. However, the site is well-screened by extensive woodland growth around its perimeter. This woodland would be retained and enhanced to provide greater screening and protection of amenities of adjoining properties. The restoration proposals would return parts of the site to an agricultural use, and would also result in Field 2 being returned to nature conservation value. The applicant states that this land would be transferred in perpetuity to BBOWT using a legal agreement. The County Council is seeking a separate legal agreement to secure long term management of the site.
116. In my opinion, this proposal and subsequent restoration would result in an insignificant impact on the surrounding landscape due to the existing and proposed screening and would return the land to a more beneficial use that would contribute to the character of the North Corallian Ridge. The proposal is in accordance with VoWHLP policy NE7.
Traffic
117. Transport Development Control objected to the original proposed access arrangements because they provided insufficient detail to fully assess the proposal. The applicant has since re-submitted access proposals which involve the moving the access road 29m north towards the A420 in order to achieve appropriate sight lines along the A338. The amended access was subject to further consultation that ended 8th April 2009. As a result, Transport Development Control removed their objection to the proposal.
118. Fyfield and Tubney Parish Council objected to the access leading to the A338 and proposed that the access to the site could run north parallel to the A338 and join the A420, creating an internal access road. Transport Development Control have advised that this would not be appropriate since the A420 is faster moving with a 70mph speed limit, and the access would be too close to the roundabout that joins the A338 and A420 where vehicles are accelerating.
119. Marcham Parish Council are concerned that heavy good vehicles would travel through Marcham in order to reach markets in Abingdon. The developer has confirmed that heavy goods vehicles would leave the A338 north of Marcham and travel through Gozzards Ford. The vehicles would exit on to the A415 to travel east towards Abingdon. The total number of vehicle movements is approximately 4 per day average. Transport Development Control advise that this quantity of traffic does not justify a routeing agreement to direct it.
120. I consider that the traffic impacts are limited and the access is adequate and that the proposal is in accordance with OSP policy T8.
Archaeology
121. The application area lies within an area of archaeological potential. There is no indication of any archaeological features of national importance however there may be evidence of prehistoric activity in the vicinity. The County Archaeologist is satisfied that there are no significant archaeological interests within the application site. A condition should be attached to require the applicant to be responsible for implementing a staged programme of archaeological work to take place during topsoil removal.
122. With conditions, the proposal would comply with the principles of PPG16, OSP policy EN6, MWLP policy EN6 and VoWHLP policy HE10.
Amenity
123. There a number of properties within close proximity to the site. Of these, Brushwood and Brushwood Bungalow lie closest, immediately west of Field 4. the applicant proposes to work Field 4 immediately after Field 1 is completed (as this is required for access and offices). The field would be progressively restored and it is anticipated that working would take approximately 3 years to complete. Following restoration of this area of the site the impact on these people should be reduced. The applicant proposes bunding to surround Field 4 which would minimise the visual and noise impact of the development. There has been no objection from the Environmental Health Officer (EHO). Therefore, the proposals accord with the Code of Practice and MWLP PE18.
124. The residential properties of Brushwood and Brushwood Bungalow are within 100 metres of the site boundary. Other properties in the immediate vicinity of the site are in excess of the 100 metres buffer zone. The closest small group of residential dwellings is The Ride on the opposite side of the A338 approximately 80 metres from the access, and approximately 150 metres from the boundary of working. The Environmental Statement indicates that the impact of working can be successfully mitigated by the implementation of adequate measures. The EHO has not objected to the proposal on the grounds of proximity to houses. I consider that the buffer zones provided are sufficient to avoid harm to local residents and are and that the development accords with proposal MWLP policy PE3.
125. Dust is a concern for many residents who made representations on this application. The EHO has raised no objection on the grounds that adequate implementation of dust suppression measures described in the Environmental Statement would effectively mitigate any potential nuisance from dust. The proposal, therefore, in relation to dust, accords with the Code of Practice referred to MWLP policy PE18.
126. The potential impact of noise generated by mineral workings and their associated traffic is an important issue for local respondents. The Environmental Statement has considered the impact of noise and has shown that there may be a substantial impact to Brushwood and Brushwood Bungalow. However, the Environmental Statement indicates that adequate implementation of the mitigation measures proposed in the application should minimise the risk of nuisance from noise. The EHO has not raised any objection to the proposal on the issue of noise. The proposal, therefore, complies with the Code of Practice referred to in MWLP policy PE18.
Other Issues
127. The development would require the temporary diversion of Marcham Footpath No. 5 that crosses Field 2 and its subsequent reinstatement once development has finished. The field would be returned to nature conservation but to a level lower than the surrounding landscape. This would change its setting but it would not damage the amenity of the footpath in the long term. No other footpaths would be affected by the development. The proposal is acceptable in relation to OSP policy R2.
Conclusion
128. There is a serious need for further permitted soft sand reserves. This need should be weighed carefully with environmental considerations.
129. This development would provide a substantial contribution to the maintenance of the mineral landbank and it has been demonstrated that there would be no significant impact to the Cothill Fen SAC and the surrounding landscape.
130. Other environmental impacts can be controlled by the use of planning conditions. The proposal accords with development plan policies regarding ecology, landscape, hydrology, traffic, archaeology and local amenity.
RECOMMENDATIONS
131. It is RECOMMENDED that:
(a) subject to a legal agreement covering:
(i) a management plan including a programme of monitoring to operate for 20 years over and above the 5 year after care period; and
(ii) funding for the implementation of that management plan;
that planning permission be granted for the development proposed in Application MAR/5529/1-CM subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Sustainable Development but to include the matters set out below:
1. Complete compliance. 2. Development to commence within three years of permission. 3. 18 years for completion of extraction with a further 1 year for restoration. 4. Method of working as approved. 5. Restoration as proposed. 6. 5 year aftercare period. 7. Standard operating hours. 8. Sheeting of HGVs. 9. No development until access improvements completed. 10. No mud on the highway. 11. Vehicle wheels to leave the site clean. 12. Development to take place in accordance with the dust mitigation scheme. 13. Noise limits 14. Monitoring of noise levels. 15. Vehicles, equipment and machinery to be fitted with effective silencers. 16. White noise on reversing bleepers. 17. No external lighting unless a plan is submitted and approved. 18. Bunds not to exceed 4 metres in Field 4 and 3 metres elsewhere.
Ecology conditions
19. No development until the Water Management Plan is approved. 20. Cessation of works in the event of adverse impacts on conservation areas. 21. No development until the Environmental Management Plan is approved. 22. Submission of restoration plan within 6 months of permission.
Archaeology
23. Applicant to implement archaeological surveys during soil stripping.
Conditions as suggested by Natural England for soils and aftercare
24. Storage of contaminants to prevent mixing with soils. 25. No development until a soil handling scheme is approved. 26. Details of bunds within 3 months of formation. 27. Soil to be moved only when dry and friable 28. No soil handling or movements between October – March inclusive. 29. Plant or vehicle should not cross topsoil/subsoil. 30. 5 days advance written notice to MPA of topsoil stripping. 31. Bunds confirm to appropriate criteria. 32. Grassing of bunds. 33. Topsoil retained for restoration. 34. Retention of suitable soil for restoration. 35. Removal of stones in excess of 15cm. 36. 5 days advance written notice to MPA of topsoil replacement. 37. Submission of aftercare scheme not later than 3 months before topsoil replacement. 38. Aftercare in accordance.
(b) if the legal agreement referred to in (a) above is not completed within 10 weeks of the date of this meeting the Head of Sustainable Development be authorised to refuse the application on the grounds that it would not comply with OSP policy M1 in that there would be no satisfactory provision for the long term management of the restored site.
CHRIS COUSINS Head of Sustainable Development Environment & Economy
Background Papers File Reference 8.4/4500/1
May 2009
|