Agenda item

Report by Assistant Director of Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN6)

This is an application to continue the existing sand and gravel operation at Cassington Quarry for another 5 years until December 2015 and restoration by 2017. This is to allow sufficient time for the working of material from beneath the plant site and to retain the processing plant for the same period. The proposed extraction area is approximately 12 hectares which would provide about 380,000 tonnes of mineral. Restoration of the site would be to a lake suitable for angling, in accordance with the previously approved scheme.

The report outlines the consultation responses received, comments from third parties, relevant Development Plan and other policies and key considerations for the Committee to take account in determining the application together with the views and recommendation of the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure).

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be granted for Application 10/01929/CM subject to those heads of conditions set out in planning permission W2001/1729 and 02/00602/CM together with additional heads of conditions numbers 6 and 10 as set out in Annex 1 to the report except that condition 2 should now read ‘Except with the express written consent of the Mineral Planning Authority: (a) No excavations shall be undertaken or continued after 31 December 2015; (b) all restoration shall be carried out and completed not later than 31 December 2017’.

The Committee considered (PN6) an application to continue existing sand and gravel operations at Cassington Quarry for another 5 years until December 2015 with restoration by 2017 to allow time to work material beneath the processing plant site and retain the processing plant for the same period.

Dr Wright highlighted a number of complaints and comments.

·                    Eynsham Parish Council had not been formally consulted on this application even though it affected Eynsham. The report itself had mentioned the outstanding Eynsham mineral application.  The Parish Council had asked for the matter to be deferred.

·                    The original permissions from 1986 stated that all buildings, plant and machinery should have been removed once mineral extraction had ceased.  That had occurred in March 2009. No excavations were to be undertaken after 31 December 2010.

·                    Illogicality of the application in that it sought to extract material from under the existing plant site yet retain that plant in situ in case permission was granted for the Eynsham application. It represented nothing more than a ruse to keep open the Eynsham application which should have been considered long ago.  He referred to changes in land ownership for the Eynsham application and that the Eynsham area was outside the Local Plan until the new policy framework was in place in 2012.

·                    He reiterated the major concerns of West Oxfordshire District Council referring specifically to the knock on effect of the undetermined application at Eynsham and the location of the processing plant; use of the site should have already ceased; ongoing use of the site could adversely affect operations at the neighbouring recycling plant and the AD site; excessive time scale for this operation and the delaying tactics of this application pending determination of the Eynsham application, which could set a precedent for further extraction elsewhere in the Evenlode valley.

He urged the Committee to defer a decision or refuse the application.  If the Committee were minded to approve then a condition should be attached requiring that the plant be immediately dismantled.

Clive Wilkinson referred to the EIA which had met some of the Parish Council’s concerns. However, he concurred with the view that the application was merely buying time for the Eynsham application and had little to do with winning the remaining reserves.  Cassington had endured these operations in the green belt for years expecting it to cease in 2010.  Approval of an extension now would add substantially to traffic levels, dust, noise etc and he catalogued a history of incidents reported to the Local Liaison Committee.  The Parish Council considered the County Council should have started enforcement  proceedings for the removal of the plant some time ago as working at the quarry had ceased 21 months ago.  There was a lack of commerciality for the application and he asked where the plant would go when the land underneath had been worked.  He asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Paul Williams stated that:

·                    Cassington Quarry was a good quarry incorporating a conveyor belt and haul route.  It was 400 meters from the nearest dwelling, 800 from Cassington and well screened.  The extension would not mean increased traffic or environmental intrusion.

·                    Cassington Quarry was an asset to the local community and economy paying a business rate of 40p per tonne of material. Working the remaining reserves would generate £150,000 in business rates and aggregate levy.  Important nature habitats would also be conserved.

·                    The application would provide a valuable reserve and help to maintain the County’s landbank which was currently at the required level but included material at Cassington.  Failure to approve this application would sterilise the material and although there was currently a reduction in demand the industry had to adopt a more circumspect  view with regard to future demand.

·                    The quarry was a fundamental part of the County strategy and if refused could undermine the strategy recently agreed by the Cabinet.

He urged the Committee to approve the application having due regard to the responses from statutory consultees none of whom had raised an objection.

He responded to questions from:

Councillor Crabbe – a months delay if deferred would not have a serious impact but he questioned if it was really necessary to do that.

Councillor Sanders - as an extension this application represented an important strategic site.  The site had been maintained in order to process material won in this area.  He didn’t think the site would remain operational for 5 years with 2 years a more reasonable timescale.

Mr Dance referred to concerns regarding the consultation process which had been undertaken for this application. The decision not to consult Eynsham Parish Council had been taken because the processing plant area was about 3 km from Eynsham Parish boundary and 4 km from the village itself. Yarnton Parish Council had been consulted as the host parish with Cassington Parish as immediate neighbours.  It was appreciated that there was an indirect consequence of this development for Eynsham parish which related to a current planning application for sand and gravel extraction south of Cassington Lane and to Oxfordshire’s emerging minerals and waste development plan.  However, these matters had been adequately covered in the main report. Officers had felt that the statutory obligations had been met and the Committee could therefore consider the application.  He added that he would look to resolve the application for sand and gravel extraction south of Cassington Lane within the next 3 months.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Hannaby, seconded by Councillor Sanders and carried 12 votes to 0)that planning permission be granted for Application 10/01929/CM subject to those heads of conditions set out in planning permission W2001/1729 and 02/00602/CM together with additional heads of conditions numbers 6 and 10 as set out in Annex 1 to the report PN6 except that condition 2 should now read ‘Except with the express written consent of the Mineral Planning Authority: (a) No excavations shall be undertaken or continued after 31 December 2015; (b) all restoration shall be carried out and completed not later than 31 December 2017’.