Agenda item

Report by the Director for Planning and Place (PN7).

This is an application for a western extension to an existing quarry near Shellingford in south west Oxfordshire. It is proposed to extract limestone and soft sand from a 30-hectare area over a 22-year period. The site would be progressively restored to agriculture using imported inert waste. Under the current consent the quarry would need to be restored by 2029. This proposal would extend the end date for restoration to 2044. The western extension area would bring the extraction closer to Shellingford village. The application is supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

There have been no objections from any other consultees, including no objections from Vale of White Horse District Council or their Environmental Health Officer, the Environment Agency, OCC’s ecology, landscape, highways, or rights of way teams.

However, there have been objections from 21 local residents and from Shellingford Parish Meeting. Concerns raised include impacts on residents including from noise, dust and visual impacts arising from the proximity of the workings to the village.

Technical assessments submitted with the application demonstrate that impacts on amenity could be effectively mitigated and the proposal is considered to accord with relevant policies relating to amenity, minerals, waste, landscape, rights of way, flooding and water, the historic environment, biodiversity and soils and agriculture.

Subject to the applicant signing a Section 106 agreement for the matters outlined in Annex 2 to this report it is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for MW.0104/18 be approved subject toconditions to be determined by the Director of Planning and Place, to include those set out in Annex 1 to the report PN7.

The Committee considered (PN7) an application for a western extension to an existing quarry near Shellingford in south west Oxfordshire to extract limestone and soft sand from a 30-hectare area over a 22-year period with the site progressively restored to agriculture using imported inert waste and extending the current restoration date of 2029 to 2044.

Mrs Hudson presented the report along with 2 changes as set out in the addenda sheet.

Mike Wright a local resident spoke on behalf of the Shellingford Parish Quarry Sub-Committee. They considered the proposed application to extend Shellingford Quarry unsatisfactory in many respects and in support of that made the following key points:

Need - the Oxfordshire Local Aggregate Assessment, published in November 2018, had clearly stated that there was no requirement for more soft sand or crushed rock for the period to 2031 and stating that the landbank in Oxfordshire for Soft Sand was 16.4 years and for Crushed Rock 16.0 years. With local demand for this product already met by the existing landbank and even with some increased demand it was likely that this excess product would have to be transported out of County which as defined in the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Part 1, sections C1, C2, C5 and C10 would be environmentally unacceptable. The proposal was opportunistic and speculative and sought to circumvent the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Part 2 which was yet to be published and adopted.

Inadequate buffer zone - a 250 metre Buffer Zone between quarries and local residences was an Industry Standard, which had been relaxed in Oxfordshire in 2017.  This sensible principle had helped to ensure that the amenity and health of local residents and school children were protected.  Recent analysis clearly predicted that there would be increased dust experienced by residents and school children, should an extension be permitted.  Therefore, bringing the quarry closer than 250 metres was unacceptable and contrary to the distances of “approximately 250 metres” as quoted in the Council’s summary with distances to residences, school and Grade 1 listed church all substantially less than that.

Rigorous dust monitoring - At the insistence of Oxfordshire Public Health, gravimetric dust analysis had been undertaken at the Primary School during the wet month of April 2019.  Official consultees have commented that measurement for one month would not be sufficient to predict annual dust levels and would not be representative of levels of dust generated during dryer summer months. Additionally, there was no dust monitoring undertaken on the adjacent A417 road, which was well known to be covered in dust and dirt generated by the cumulative effect of quarry lorries from Shellingford and the other nearby quarries of which there were 3. This dust exacerbated respiratory problems, especially for vulnerable adults and children containing carcinogenic silica.

Noise - with the wind from the North East, noise generated by the quarry was unacceptable, particularly when the hydraulic breaker was being used. Both the Council and the Applicant had acknowledged that the hydraulic breaker generated a distinguishable percussive noise and specific noise limits, as mandated by HSE and Government policy, must be imposed on this machine.  They had noted that the applicant had offered to cease operation of the breaker when the wind was from a North East direction.

If permission were granted for the extension he asked that strict and clearly defined robust conditions were set for the operation, specifically when the wind was from the North East with robust systems established for both ompliance, monitoring and complaints.

He then responded to questions from:

Councillor Reynolds – dust was a tangible issue often settling on car windscreens and windows some 230 meters away.

Councillor Gawrysiak – he couldn’t say specifically how often the breaker was used but he would estimate at least 20 – 30% of the time.

Fiona Wright a local resident urged the Committee not to approve the application. She felt the environmental statement could not guarantee safety for the school which was only 230 metres away.  Dust would adversely affect the health of children and the elderly and the monitoring exercise carried out on a wet April day was wholly inadequate when in midsummer you could see clouds of dust. She considered it wrong to consider approval when levels of risk were unknown and the Committee should not abdicate it’s responsibility to residents asking whether approval would be given to an application to build a new school this close to a quarry. The environmental impact assessment had failed to mention a number of issues including impact of future development.  There were 4 quarries along the length of the A417 and it was not right to approve something when the full picture wasn’t known.  If the application were approved then conditions needed to be so tight as to remove any risk to children and other vulnerable residents.

Gemma Crossley then spoke on behalf of the applicants.  The site had a long history with permitted reserves which were close to being worked out. That had led to this application with quarry output, vehicle movements etc all remaining the same.  The report recognised that there was a need for the material.  The western extension would move operations closer to Shellingford but measures proposed would mitigate its effect and reduce impact.  There had been no adverse comments from strategic consultees.  The site was well maintained and recent monitoring for noise had not identified any major issues and had, in fact, been abandoned due to traffic noise interfering with the monitoring.  The application met social and environmental objectives and complied with development plans.

She then responded to questions:

Councillor Johnston – the village was some 230 metres away and there would be a bund along the boundary.  There was a mature tree belt between the quarry and the village which would also help mitigate against noise and dust. Wind direction was usually south westerly which would carry dust away but if from a north easterly direction then the operator would cut down on operations as mentioned in the conditions to the report.

Councillor Carter – with regard to comments regarding the inadequacy of the environmental statement she confirmed that the statement had covered a number of issues including air quality and highway impact, had gone through a screening and scoping process and following a certain format using a baseline assessment had looked at the impact of the application above that baseline. Results had shown no significant impacts and that exercise had been reviewed by the County and District Councils.  Community engagement had also been carried out before the application had been submitted.

Councillor Hibbert-Biles – regarding air quality assessment there had been objection from the health authority and Health England had been consulted. A number of monitoring localities had been included but levels had been so low as to be insignificant and well below guidelines. There was a management plan as conditioned with daily monitoring carried out and if wind direction was from the north east then work would cease until that changed.

Councillor Handley – the boundary was currently fenced as a farm but if approved then fencing would be improved in line with a duty of care.

Councillor Roberts – quarry operations would inevitably be dusty but 7 conditions were being carried over from the current permission which included  sheeting of vehicles, road sweeping and damping down using a manual system.  However, it would be unsustainable for water to be running continuously by installing an automated system.  There was no standard policy for a 250 metre buffer zone with zones now agreed on merit and the applicants felt the zone now being proposed was sufficient in order to maintain acceptable limits.

Councillor Gawrysiak – the breaker machinery operated within the existing quarry but sometimes was sited round the edge of the site.  The machinery operated within existing limits but there were conditions to help mitigate against that i.e. ceasing work when wind direction was form the north east and no Saturday am working. Condition 23 set out terms for a dust management plan. Information on dust data was on the website and monitoring would be undertaken at the school. She wasn’t able to confirm information regarding Pm1s but added that the employer had a duty of care to employees so conditions would be monitored on the site and if those levels were acceptable on site then it seemed reasonable to expect that that would be the case some 230 metres away.

Councillor Hibbert-Biles – she confirmed Public Health England in their last response had stated they were satisfied with measures put forward with the application.

Responding to Councillor Hibbert-Biles Mrs Hudson confirmed that the OCC public health team had raised no objection to the proposals subject to submission and approval of a detailed dust management plan and how levels would be monitored.  That had been set out in Condition 23.

Mrs Hudson then responded to a number of questions from Councillor Carter:

Condition 4 had been amended by replacing implementation with extraction as set out in the addendain order to address an objection by the applicants

Condition 8 – officers felt that the height of bunds as proposed were high enough to mitigate against operations.

Condition 16 – the applicant would be submitting details for a liaison meeting.

Condition 23 – conditions would be regularly monitored and if breaches were identified they would be dealt with. In most cases breaches, when they occurred, were initially dealt with through negotiation with enforcement not always the best answer. Any issues raised would be investigated.

Routeing agreement – no routeing agreement was required as access was directly onto a main road/ There was no such restriction on the existing permission.

Councillor Handley supported calls for a routeing agreement and generally felt that further information was required on a number of issues.

Councillor Carter considered that any extension meant inevitable mean an increase in operations and that justified a routeing agreement to protect local villages and, therefore, should form an integral part of any new approval.

Councillor Johnston stated that as there was no history of problems on the existing site that could be considered an unreasonable condition.

Mr Periam confirmed that a routeing agreement would be a separate legal agreement which the applicant would need to enter into. That had not been raised as a requirement.

Councillor Hibbert-Biles reiterated her concerns regarding the inadequacy of information on the public health aspect and the need for further information.

Councillor Gawrsysiak felt that the report presented a fair summary of the situation. However, he would like to see a robust scheme for dust management including separate monitoring locations over an agreed and sensible length of time with agreement regarding levels when work should cease if breached. Subject to the terms of such a condition coming back to the Committee for approval he moved the recommendation.  Councillor Sanders seconded.

The motion having been put to the Committee and carried by 8 votes to 4 (Councillor Handley, Councillor Hibbert-Biles and Councillor Carter recorded as voting against) it was –

RESOLVED: that

(a)          subject to the applicant signing a Section 106 agreement for the matters outlined in Annex 2 to the report PN7 that planning permission for MW.0104/18 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director of Planning and Place, to include those set out in Annex 1 to the report PN7 amended as follows:

4. No implementation extraction until such a time that the processing plant, silt ponds, stocking areas and access have planning consent until 2044, replacement of stripped soils if consent is not gained for this

15. No excavation below the base of the Highworth Limestone or 64 AOD or into the Lower Calcareous Grit Formation. 

The detailed wording for the conditions would be drawn up following committee, should the resolution be to approve the application. If the Environment Agency indicate that the reference to 64 AOD is necessary, the full wording would include this.

(b)          that Condition 23 regarding the terms of a detailed dust management plan to be submitted to Committee for final approval before work commenced having first been submitted to the public health and the environmental health teams and reflecting the comments raised by members to secure a robust and meaningful scheme.