Return to Agenda

COPY
ITEM EN9

PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE –
7 APRIL 2003

CONSTRUCTION OF NINE HOLE GOLF COURSE USING ALREADY DEPOSITED MATERIAL AT WATERSTOCK GOLF COURSE, PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER P02/N0837/CM

Report by Assistant Director of Environmental Services (Land Use Planning)

1. A planning application has been made by Wyatt Bros (Oxford) Ltd to regularise the unauthorised deposit of waste at Waterstock Golf Course against which the County Council has taken enforcement action. The scheme involves reshaping the waste to reduce the landscape impact and building a new nine-hole course.
   
   Annex 1 Consultation Responses
   Annex 2 Consultation Representations
   Annex 3 Extract from Previous Committee Report – 20 May 2002 - Previous Comments of Director of Environmental Services on PO1/N0417/CM Annex 4 Relevant Planning Policies
   Annex 5 (download as .doc file)
   Plan (download as .doc file)
   

Planning History and Background

2. The planning application is essentially identical to the one which the Committee refused (reference P01/N0417/CM) on 20 May 2002 (Minute 29/02). That refusal has been appealed and a public inquiry is scheduled to begin on 17 June 2003. The First Secretary of State considers that he should determine the appeal himself, because it relates to significant development in the green belt.
3. For ease of reference the site history as outlined in the report to the Committee on 20 May 2002 is repeated and updated in this report as relevant.
4. On 11 October 1989 South Oxfordshire District Council granted outline planning permission no: P89/N0692/O for a golf course at Waterstock. On 11 August 1993 (with the benefit of an extension of time) reserved matter application no: P93/N0298/RM was approved, which included landscaping details for the outline area, showing also the layout of an eighteen hole course and an irrigation lake. The 18 hole course was built in 1993.
5. On 20 April 1994 South Oxfordshire granted planning permission for a driving range on the site, which was built and is operational.
6. On the basis of a case of need for the water storage capacity the County Council granted planning permission on 21 January 1994 for extraction of clay from the irrigation lake. This permission was extended on 12 January 1996 and expired on 01 November 1997. The lake as constructed is significantly different in shape from the approved form.
7. During 1994 unauthorised tipping took place on land adjacent to the river. On 21 September 1994 the then Environmental Committee agreed a course of action in relation to this breach and the tipping ceased.
8. Towards the end of 1996 unauthorised tipping resumed, this time on land to the east of the lake. In June 1997 the then Planning Sub-Committee resolved to take enforcement action. At the same time South Oxfordshire District Council were considering a planning application for a new 9 hole course in the area beyond the 18 hole golf course around the irrigation lake which proposed substantial raising of land levels. This application was subsequently refused on 20 August 1997.
9. Between September and November 1997 the County Council served 3 enforcement notices and 2 stop notices, in an attempt to curtail the sustained tipping of waste material. This had continued to spread westwards up to and around the driving range and intensified in October 1997, when spoil from construction of the nearby Motorway Service Area (MSA) started to arrive and was deposited on the site. The tipping did not cease until the County Council obtained a High Court Injunction in February 1998.
10. The outcome of a public inquiry into an appeal against the enforcement notices held in January and February 1999 was that the vast majority of the waste should be removed from the site, including that which had been tipped in the lake. The levels to which the waste had to be removed were specified on plans. Sufficient material to construct a bund alongside the driving range, as required by another inspector in an earlier enforcement appeal decision of 07 February 1997 (relating to the driving range netting), and the "demarcation bund" defining the edge of the 18 hole course were permitted to stay.
11. In May 1999 the golf course owners’ landscape architect opened discussions regarding the possibility of a planning application being made to retain waste at the site in the construction of a nine hole course. Officer advice was, amongst other things, that there would be little support for any proposal that did not involve removal of a substantial quantity of the deposited waste material. The first proposals were submitted in September 1999 and did not follow this advice, showing considerable mounding of the site. Consequently further advice was given to the applicants in October 1999 stating that any proposal to return the landform to anything other than very close to pre existing contours would be likely to result in a recommendation of refusal.
12. A series of modified schemes followed, all of which were principally concerned with moving the waste around the site. In April 2000 an application was made to the County Council, but information requested from the applicants to make the application valid was not forthcoming and it was withdrawn in August 2000. An Environmental Statement had been requested, but the Secretary of State directed that one was not necessary.
13. In September 2000 the Inspector’s decision notice (see paragraph 10) was appealed in the High Court on 6 grounds. All but one of the grounds were dismissed. However, the Inspector’s decision was remitted to the Secretary of State on the remaining ground, a technical point.
14. The previous, essentially identical, planning application was made in May 2001. As a result of the consultation process technical (and other) problems with the scheme became apparent and it was amended twice. In August 2001 a survey of the site was carried out on behalf of the County Council to assist in determining the application.
15. The Secretary of State and the County Council appealed the High Court decision and there was a counter appeal by the Wyatt Bros re-opening all 6 grounds (although all but that relating to the Secretary of State’s appeal were later withdrawn). This was heard by the Appeal Court in October 2001 and the Secretary of State’s appeal was allowed, upholding the Inspector’s decision notice.
16. Consequently the enforcement notices are now in force. Compliance with them has been delayed given the recent developments regarding the re-submitted application and pending appeal against the earlier refusal.

The Site (see plan attached)

17. The application site covers some 12 hectares of land within the Oxford Green Belt and an Area of High Landscape Value, about 300 metres southwest of Waterstock village and 400 metres east of the M40 (Junction 8). The site is bounded by the River Thame to the north, Waterstock Lane to the east, the golf course driving range to the west and the 18 hole course to the south. The clubhouse lies about 100 metres to the southwest. The private property of Waterstock Mill adjoins the northern most point of the site. Part of the site along the riverbank is within the floodplain. Public Footpath 12 Waterstock crosses the northern part of the site east to west and Bridleway 2A runs just inside the boundary parallel to Waterstock Lane. The MSA site lies about 600 metres to the south west of the site between the A40 and the M40.
18. The original landform would have consisted of a relatively gradual fall northwards with a more abrupt descent at about 80 metres from the banks of the River Thame. The deposited waste has altered this in that the levels of the site are now raised above those to the south on the 18 hole course and the steep fall at the river’s edge has in part been levelled out. A water filled void (the irrigation lake referred to in paragraph 6 above) from which clay has been extracted lies in the western part of the site. The haul road for this working, which runs north of the driving range to the golf course entrance at the A40, is still in place and forms part of the application site. There are some existing trees and vegetation along the riverbanks and the Waterstock Lane side of the site.

The Proposed Development

19. The proposal is to remodel the existing deposited waste and create a nine hole golf course. The area of land to be raised is given as 12 hectares and the proportion of materials is said to be 95% naturally occurring excavated materials (soils etc) with 3% builder’s waste, all from the MSA construction site and indigenous overburden. A further 2% of specialised materials for tees, greens and approaches are required. It would take 12 months to complete the project.
20. Apart from a recent amendment to the layout to show now adequate safety margins to the public footpath, the submitted plans are essentially the same as the previous ones, which were explained in that submission as follows. The applicants state that up to 4 metres of material would be removed from the eastern part of the site, which would be used to reduce the steep cut slope between the driving range and the lake. There would be a bund adjacent to the driving range, which would be up to 2.5 metres high with a steep gradient on the driving range side and shallower slope towards the lake. The bund is said to have a flowing form, wider at its southern point narrowing northwards. An area of the lake to the south west would be infilled to reduce the gradient between the lake and driving range. Otherwise the existing profile of the lake would remain unchanged, except where necessary to soften the appearance of its edge. The demarcation bund between the application site and the existing 18 holes would be reduced in scale. The applicants’ view is that the proposed landform is gently undulating and entirely in keeping with the local landscape.
21. A supporting statement makes a number of submissions regarding the current application and consideration of the earlier one. The full text of the supporting statement is at Annex 5. The main points may be summarised as follows:

· It is essential to look at relevant appeal decisions at Hinksey Heights and Wyre Forest for a proper consideration of the case

· The views of the inspector in upholding the enforcement notices regarding the purpose of the waste deposit must be taken into account.

· The previous decision would be open to an allegation of unreasonableness (as found at Wyre Forest), for lack of reference to PPG2 on green belts.

· The scheme is a result of extensive negotiations which resulted in a list of amendments.

· Final correspondence related to minor issues and implied officer support.

· There has been an absence of guidance since the refusal.

· The proposed landform is acceptable at this location and has the benefit of blending the demarcation bund.

· There is no basis for the landform to resemble pre-existing contours.

· The description of pre-existing contours is incorrect.

· Reference to significant additional cut is not relevant.

· The drop between the driving range and lake would not be made steeper by the bund.

· The proposed driving range bund is very similar to a scheme recommended to the District Council to deal with the lights and with planting could reduce light spillage.

· The proposed rise in land levels from Waterstock Lane is barely perceptible.

· No obvious improvements can be made and the scheme is better than removal of all the waste

· The provision for irrigation is adequate.

· Appropriate safety margins have been proposed to the footpath.

· There is no objection to construction of a golf course.

· Negotiations have been on the basis of an acceptable landform with the material, as an improvement to the requirements of the enforcement notice.

· An analysis of the material suggests that the scheme should succeed. Clarification and amendments are invited where significant harm would otherwise occur.

22. A covering letter with the application responds to a letter from the Oxfordshire County Council’s Legal Unit dated 18 October 2002, which reiterated the key points that a proposal would have to meet before officers could recommend it for approval. The text in brackets is a summary of the Council’s key points.
    
    

1. (The principal requirements for an appropriate landform). The County Council’s position that the pre-existing contours form a basis for judging the proposals is not accepted. This would mean more waste material would be required to reconstruct a hill in the lake area. The enforcement plan is more relevant. The use of imported material to construct the golf course restores land disrupted by the approved clay extraction. The proposed landscape should also be considered on its merits.
2. (Compliance with development plan policy). The applicants’ landscape consultants believe that the proposed scheme is fully acceptable in terms of landscape impact. The use of waste material accords with Structure Plan policy WD1 and Waste Local Plan policy W3. Reference to other policies is based on a misunderstanding of the dual purpose of the importation. The reasons for refusal do not refer to floodplain defence and the landscape consultants believe the right of way has been taken into account.
3. (Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt). The committee report and refusal notice make no reference to PPG2 which sets out the criteria for deciding whether development is appropriate in the Green Belt. Other appeal decisions make clear that the operation proposed at Waterstock can be appropriate.
4. (No further import of material). Only specialised materials need to be imported.
5. (No driving range bund). The proposal is to blend the driving range bund into the general landscape and with planting it would perform an important function in minimising light spillage to the east, screens part of the fencing and building and should not be omitted.
6. (No tipping in the lake to maximise irrigation potential). The capacity of the lake is adequate for watering 27 tees and greens and there is no reason not to continue with mains water.
7. (More gradual change in slope between the 18 hole and 9 hole courses). The landscape in this area has been changed through approved development and the proposed plans are believed to be entirely appropriate.
8. (Specification of heights and contours, including tees and greens). The proposed landform plan shows contours at 0.5m. The tees and greens (averaging 1 m high) fit into this landscape and should not be seen as part of a waste disposal operation.
9. If the site was to be evenly covered by the waste to a depth of 1 m (excluding the area of the lake) the material required would be about 110,000 m³ which is more than is available on site.
   
   
23. In a very recent letter relating to the appeal against the previous refusal the applicants have put forward special circumstances for allowing the development, if it is inappropriate in the green belt, as: the increase in jobs, including special needs groups and work experience within a rural area short of employment opportunities; enhancement of a facility that already attracts over 100,000 participants per year; the planting of thousands of trees to increase biodiversity and carbon sequestration; the avoidance of transporting material from the site; and the need for mains water for irrigation and impact of the driving range would be reduced.
24. Included within the application documents is a "Specification of Works for the Construction of a 27 Hole Course" by Donald Steel & Co Ltd. In short this refers to a 180 acre site in two blocks of 100 acre and 80 acres. It provides numbers and sizes of greens, approaches, green surrounds, tees and fairway bunkers. Construction details as follows are given. The greens will be built on under-drained bases with stone drainage carpets, blinded with gravel or similar gritty material and topped with imported, approved free-draining black sandy soil. Green surrounds will not be heavily featured, with slopes no steeper than 1:4. All will need to be built up at the rear especially. Approaches will be married in with particular care to greens with built up putting surfaces. Tees will be elevated on average not more than 30 cm above the surrounding level. Some tee bases on sloping ground will need to be built up or cut out to accommodate the slope. There will be no differentiation between fairways and rough at any stage of construction. Definition will be mown out after establishment. Bunker backs will be a minimum of 1.5 metres height above fairway levels. On site borrow pits may be used to provide soil for the banks of greens and for tees.
25. A report by AEA Technology Environment assessing the environmental impact on human health and flora and fauna of the arsenic in the material tipped on the site derived from construction of the nearby Motorway Services Area has also been submitted. The assessment concentrates on a source-pathway-receptor analysis of the arsenic based on existing data provided by the applicants and a visual inspection of the waste. The data consisted of soil samples taken on behalf of Oxfordshire County Council for the enforcement enquiry and subsequent samples and testing for the Environment Agency. It states that the samples suggest that only the arsenic in the MSA material might be of concern. Arsenic concentrations in most of the samples exceeded trigger levels for parks, playing fields and open spaces. It is questioned whether these are abnormally high, given other evidence of background levels in Oxfordshire. The report identifies a potential hazard if people inhaled, ingested or otherwise came into contact with the soil, or the arsenic leached from the soil and found its way into the water supplies, but says that the concern is the chronic toxic effects from intake at relatively low levels over a long period, as opposed to acute effects from a high intake.
26. For the air and soil pathways the greatest potential impact is expected to be ingestion of the MSA material. However, likely ingestion rates are calculated as lower than typical intakes through diet. For the soil water pathway the results of leaching tests show low concentrations of arsenic compared with drinking water standards. The Environment Agency measurements of arsenic in the River Thame and the lake detected no arsenic. The conclusion is that no adverse impact on health would be expected, not even were a well to be used on a nearby property. The report states that consequently it is doubtful that the arsenic would have any impact on flora and fauna and that the proposed layer of topsoil on the MSA material would reduce the likelihood of any adverse impact.

Comments of the Assistant Director of Environmental Services

27. Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 says that an application for planning permission shall be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. My view is that the application is not in accordance with the development plan. It has been advertised as a departure. The application has also been advertised in accordance with Section 67 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, because parts of the application site are historically linked to and form part of the setting of the grade II listed Waterstock Mill adjoining the site.
28. The only substantive difference between this application and the one previously considered on 20 May 2002 (Minute 29/02) is that the proposed layout is now acceptable in terms of rights of way and therefore the previous reason for refusal, that adequate safety distances between golf holes and public footpath 12 Waterstock were not provided, no longer applies. Otherwise my assessment of the proposed development is entirely the same as set out in the previous Committee report paragraphs 28-53 of which are set out at Annex 3 (download as .doc file) to this report for ease of reference. The applicants’ submissions on how the application should be considered have not led me to any different conclusions for the following reasons.
29. The comments at paragraph 30 of the previous Committee report that the unauthorised deposit of waste was a waste disposal exercise are consistent with the findings of the inspector in upholding the enforcement notices. Within the same paragraph (28) of the decision letter quoted by the applicants the inspector also found that the primary intention of the deposit of waste was not to construct a golf course. His reasons were the lack of any evidence "to show how the land was being formed, including the manner of construction and proposed levels to which the project had been designed prior to its implementation", in which case "it is reasonable to be sceptical when the importation of material is profitable" and "it is plain that the importation of additional quantities was prevented by stop notices and an injunction".
30. Paragraph 31 of the previous Committee report goes on to consider whether the same judgement applies to the development proposed by the application. The conclusion is that there is operational development (the laying out of nine holes), but implicit in the application is the need for retrospective planning permission for the material change of use, i.e. authorisation to retain waste which was unlawfully deposited as part of a waste disposal exercise. In addition, I am of the view that the principal purpose is still waste disposal. Consequently development plan waste disposal policies apply, notwithstanding that there may be broad development plan support for the recreational element of the proposal. The first reason for refusal relies on an assessment of the proposed development against these policies as set out in paragraph 32 of the report not paragraph 30. There is no distortion of the facts or learned opinions as claimed by the applicants, which in any event apply to the breach of planning control not the proposed development under consideration.
31. The characteristics of the material given in the current application as 95% soils or naturally occurring materials and 3% builder’s waste lend support to my view that the materials have no particular benefits for golf course construction. If they had been imported to improve the drainage qualities of the land, as has been claimed, I would have expected a much higher proportion of builder’s waste or hardcore type material that allows freer flow of water. The soils or naturally occurring materials all from the MSA site or on-site overburden are predominantly clay and would actually impede drainage further. In addition a letter by JH Arthur written in February 1990 to the golf course architect advising on the construction of the golf course, which has recently been submitted by the applicants in relation to the pending appeal, states that "drainage is satisfactory to good" and that only one small area of standing water was seen on the other side of Waterstock Lane (not within the current application site). Furthermore at no point does the letter suggest that imported materials are required for remedial treatment of the land to enable a golf course to be constructed.
32. Although the applicants claim that the use of the waste on the site would be beneficial in constructing a golf course, the Inspector’s findings, the characteristics of the material and the lack of need for the imported material reinforce my view that the waste is principally being disposed of at the site and that this is not a development that should be assessed against recycling or re-use policies (Structure Plan WD1 and Minerals and Waste Local Plan policy W3).
33. The advice in PPG2 that the applicants refer to states at paragraph 3.12: "The statutory definition of development includes engineering and other operations, and the making of any material change in use of land. The carrying out of such operations and the making of material changes in the use of land are inappropriate development unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt." At paragraph 33 of the previous Committee report the Director gave the reasons why he considered the proposed development detrimental to the openness and contrary to the purposes of the Green Belt and therefore inappropriate development.
34. In making that judgement he was aware of the Wyre Forest Golf Centre decision. By way of background the particulars of that case are that the site would be re-profiled by raising a broadly central lower section on a west to east axis. A quantity of 123,000 cubic metres was proposed to be used. The applicants claim that this is much more than deposited at Waterstock. However, as the Council’s survey of the site demonstrates (see paragraph 29 of the previous committee report) this is not the case and as no site area is given in the Wyre Forest case it could be spread over a much larger area with much less effect. The inspector found that the resulting landform would reflect and rest comfortably within the undulating features that form the wider landscape about the site, which is designated as high landscape value, not an area of outstanding natural beauty. Interestingly the inspector concluded in the Hinksey Heights appeal decision that the development was inappropriate in the Green Belt. In relation to quantities, Hinksey Heights involved about 380,000 m³ of waste, or about 2.4 times that estimated by our survey to have been deposited at Waterstock, but the site area is 63 hectares or more than 5 times as large as Waterstock.
35. Irrespective of these appeal decisions Council officers have consistently been open to considering positively a scheme that retains some of the material on site as an alternative to pursuing rigid compliance with the enforcement notices and removal of all the waste. They have set out the basic requirements on a number of occasions. An acceptable compromise has, however, not been forthcoming.
36. The nature of amendments to the scheme listed by the applicants in their supporting statement (Annex 5) derive from a letter dated 30 October 2001 from their landscape consultants and depended on confirmation that a proposed lake capacity of 15,000 m³ was acceptable. On 16 November 2001 I advised the landscape consultants that this proposed lake capacity, on the basis of advice from golf course irrigation specialists, was not acceptable. The letter went on to say that "infilling of the western side of the lake was required to enable suitable gradients to be established for the fairways on this side of the course. It appears therefore that there are still serious problems with trying to achieve a suitable landform with the waste material and at the same time fit 9 holes onto this area of land." The letter also confirmed that there was generally no support for the bund to the driving range. The landscape consultants wrote on 29 November 2001 to say that the revised proposals would address their list of amendments. In the event the scheme did not fully do this. For example the driving range bund was not re-located to the west, the layout of the holes did not properly take account of the public footpath, part of the lake was to be infilled, so did not more closely fit the existing void and there was no method statement for dewatering the lake (not managing the water level). This latter point related to demonstrating how the proposed contours below the water line were to be achieved.
37. Clearly final correspondence did not relate to minor issues and the scheme did not have officer support. However, the applicants had received considerable guidance as to what was required to make the scheme likely to be recommended for approval, and when requested following the refusal this was reiterated in the County Council’s letter of 18 October 2002.
38. The advice that has been given has not been that the proposed landform should resemble the pre-existing contours, but that "the existing high, steep-sided mounding must be altered so as to successfully integrate with the existing landform and return the overall landform to something closer to the pre-existing contours". This position is entirely consistent with Countryside Commission Advice "Golf Courses in the Countryside" and the applicants’ own earlier philosophy for construction of the course as explained at paragraph 40 of the previous Committee report. It is also necessary to comply with development plan policy, which requires that the quality of the landscape is conserved and enhanced and protected from development which is likely to have an adverse effect on its character and appearance.
39. The applicants also appear to misunderstand the position regarding the actual pre-existing contours. They are those which existed when the tipping began and include the lake. Consequently there is no call to infill this area, which was permitted on the basis of need for irrigation of the course. In addition the evidence does not support the claim that the description of the site in the previous Committee report (and paragraph 17 of this one) is incorrect or that there were any significant ridge or hill and valley features on the site. The ‘Soils in Oxfordshire’ map shows only soil deposits, it has no contours. The "valley" feature is identified on this map as drift river terrace deposits and also crosses Waterstock Lane where there is currently no valley feature. The landscape consultant who devised the scheme was not familiar with the site before it was tipped. However, the contours adopted in the enforcement notice plan were drawn by his former colleague before any clay extraction or tipping took place and must make a fair representation of how the land looked then. They do not show any pronounced ridge or valley feature. In addition photographs of the site before clay extraction show gently sloping land. Perhaps most significantly, however, the letter referred to earlier from JH Arthur from 1990 describes the landform in a very similar way to the Committee report as "open and attractive, with a gentle slope northwards to the river meadows".
40. I do not agree with the applicants’ viewpoint that the proposed landform between the driving range and lake is acceptable or that it was devised with officers’ help. As my comments at paragraph 35 make clear, the applicants had been advised that there was generally no support for the driving range bund. The scheme recommended by Machin Bate Associates to South Oxfordshire District Council, which is quite different to the proposed bund, had been put to the applicants as a potential solution, but they declined to adopt the proposal in their scheme, because of, I understand, its impingement on driving range land.
41. There is a drop in the order of 7 metres over a distance of about 90 metres to the existing western edge of the lake from the base of the driving range. By creating a bund, that difference would rise to about 9 metres and the lateral distance of the increased drop would be about 20 metres closer to the lake edge at the top of the bund. To be able to create appropriate gradients of at least 1:14 for a fairway in this reduced lateral distance over a greater fall, substantial making up of land levels and infilling of the lake is necessary. Alternatively, in the absence of the bund, the extent of the drop at this part of the site is minimised, less infilling is necessary to create a fairway and the capacity of the lake can be maximised.
42. The applicants state that the bund with planting could reduce spillage from the driving range lights. However, they still do not provide any evidence to demonstrate that this is the case. Furthermore a narrow 4.5 metre wide 2-2.5 metre high bund alongside the driving range netting also with planting as approved by the earlier inspector would provide as much of a benefit in this respect, but would not have the same degree of landscape impact as the much more extensive unnatural landform created by the current proposal.
43. Contrary to the applicants’ assertions the demarcation bund is not a fixed matter as far as this application is concerned. It is only a fixed matter if the enforcement notices are complied with and all the remaining waste (except the earlier approved minimal driving range bund) is removed from the site. It has been said that the bund is necessary to separate the courses and direct play. However, it is not clear why this is the case. Alternative measures, such as planting or areas of rough work equally as well and other golf courses do not have the need for such features.
44. It is furthermore questionable that blending the demarcation bund into raised levels where the land was formerly more concave, as the applicants accept, (and actually as shown on the enforcement requirements plan), is a benefit. Achieving a smooth transition between the two courses, rather than an unnatural ridge would be a benefit.
45. The compromise in relation to the eastern part of the site referred to in paragraphs 38 and 39 of the previous Committee report was an absolute limit of an average depth of one metre maximum. It was made clear to the applicants that in the officers’ view there was no justification for any tipping and proposals would have to stick rigorously to this principle. The difference admitted by the applicants is 20-30% over the limit and it is therefore unacceptable. The original gradient of this land was about 1:50 which is considerably different to the proposals. I also do not accept that a 50cm depth of fill is required to improve drainage on the fairways. The evidence does not show that free draining materials would be used. In fact, given the stated proportions of materials available (see comments at paragraph 30 above) it is possible that such fill could impede drainage. Furthermore the comments of the applicants, that the proposed tees and greens average one metre high and are not part of the waste disposal operation, imply that they would be built on top of the raised levels. In all these circumstances it is reasonable to describe the land as excessively raised. I would also dispute that the proposed landform and features are comparable to those on the existing 18 holes.
46. The previous Committee report at paragraphs 41-44 made clear that the mains would be the principal source of water for irrigation. The problem is that the maximum potential from the mains is not sufficient to irrigate 27 holes and the lake would not make up the shortfall. It is noted that the applicants do not quantify the "substantial additional irrigation capacity" that the lake is said to provide. In addition the irrigation requirements for golf courses are during the drier summer months, when there will be little natural replenishment to off-set loss of water through irrigation (and evaporation) as claimed by the applicants. Notably the Environment Agency have advised the applicants that an abstraction licence would be required to draw water from the lake, that further details on means, rates and uses should be submitted, and that if a licence is granted it would be subject to restrictions during drier periods of the year.
47. The final comment I have to make on the applicants’ submissions relates to the quantity of waste material deposited at the site. The current application does not provide any quantities, as a result of which it is not possible to calculate how much the proposed 2% of further imported specialised materials amounts to (see paragraph 19). The applicants say they do not understand the comments at paragraph 29 of the previous Committee report about significant additional cut. This can be explained by the fact that before the lake was excavated there were approved plans to show existing and proposed levels (following extraction). The County Council’s survey of the site shows that actual land levels are lower than the approved levels following extraction of the clay.
48. In conclusion the assessment of the essentially identical previous application applies equally to this proposal, except that public footpath 12 Waterstock is satisfactorily accommodated within the scheme. There is also the statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed Waterstock Mill, which has not yet been properly assessed, because a response is still awaited from English Heritage. An oral report will be provided to the meeting on this issue. In relation to the special circumstances now put forward by the applicant (paragraph 23) they do not in my opinion justify this development in the green belt, nor are there any other material considerations that indicate that planning permission should be granted contrary to the development plan.

Environmental Implications

49. If planning permission is refused compliance with the enforcement notices would need to be pursued. The difference between the enforcement notice plans and the County Council’s survey of the site show that approximately 125,000 m³ of waste is required to be removed. This would equate to about 9,000 lorry loads. However, the site has very good access onto the main road network including the motorway. Thus lorry movements would have minimal effect on local amenity. There is no evidence to suggest that a 9 hole course could not be satisfactorily constructed on the site without the waste.
50. The alternative of the waste remaining on the site would be extremely damaging to the local landscape and to visual amenity. It is quite possible that the poor physical and varied characteristics of the deposited material together with insufficient water resources would create problems for upkeep of the course. It could thus remain an area of comparatively despoiled land. Clearance of the site would also remove any threat of harm to human health or the environment from the known presence of arsenic in the waste. I further consider that the disturbance from removing the waste would be less damaging to local residents than the operations that would be involved in moving it around the site. Waterstock Parish Meeting made a case for this viewpoint in consultation responses on the previous application.

Financial and Staff Implications

51. A considerable amount of staff and consultant time has been and will continue to be involved in resolution of the unauthorised development at this site. If planning permission is refused, there is likely to be an appeal heard by a public inquiry. The cost of a barrister and any expert witnesses necessary will then need to be met.

Implications for People Living in Poverty

52. None has been identified.

RECOMMENDATIONS

53. It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be refused for the construction of a nine-hole golf course using already deposited material at Waterstock Golf Course (Application No. P02/N0837/CM) for the following reasons:

1. it is contrary to Structure Plan waste disposal policies WD4 and WD5;
2. it is inappropriate development in the Oxford Green Belt contrary to Structure Plan policy G4 Minerals and Waste Local Plan policy W7 g) and South Oxfordshire Local Plan policy GB3;
3. it would unacceptably harm local landscape character and the area of open countryside contrary to Structure Plan policies EN4 and G5, Minerals and Waste Local Plan policy W7 h) and South Oxfordshire Local Plan policies G1, C1, C3, C6 and R5,
4. it does not demonstrate that there would be adequate water resources contrary to Structure Plan policy EN13;
5. it would be an unacceptable expansion of an existing facility without redressing the adverse environmental effects caused by light pollution from the driving range lights contrary to South Oxfordshire Local Plan policy G7;
6. it conflicts with the general strategy to protect the environment, character and natural resources of the County and to resist development which would damage the environment contrary to Structure Plan policies G1, G2 and EN2;

CHRIS COUSINS
Assistant Director of Environmental Services (Land Use Planning)

Background papers: File 8.3/6305/1.1 Construction of Nine Hole Golf Course Using Already Deposited Materials At Waterstock Golf Course in Land Use Section (Minerals)

Contact Officer: Chris Cousins, telephone 01865 815459

17 March 2003

Return to TOP