Return to Agenda

Return to EN9

COPY
ITEM EN9 - ANNEX 1

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

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Waterstock Parish Meeting

Recommends rejection of the application. No justification for unpermitted, profitable importation of 300,000 tons waste, other than to build golf course on top. Case of Hinksey Heights or elsewhere in the country is not relevant. Keen to see new 9 holes, but not with massive unacceptable, unnecessary landscape change. New application differs in minor detail to refused one. Parish representations on previous application should be considered on this one.

Disappointed that same application and applicants not used time to prepare plan that better respects pre-existing contours and only involves landscape change necessary for golf course construction.

Applicants now admit would have welcomed 100,000s more tons waste had court action upholding notices not finally stopped tipping, and would then have been asked to accept that extra waste also justified to build golf course. Not sustainable. Only amount demonstrated to be needed for golf course construction should be allowed to stay. But no justification on this basis, which is not surprising given original philosophy of minimal change to natural landscape, of virtually no bulk earth moving, minor re-grading to long running levels at 0.5 metre and no cut or fill for tees, greens, bunkers above +/- 1.5 metres. Cut would be available for fill for another, so no mention of bulk importation of material. This would be non-intrusive, sympathetic way to construct golf course rural landscape, as existing satisfactory 18 holes. All-weather excellence of 18 holes in brochure, so nothing wrong with method and respected landscape with no tipping at all as far as can judge.

What changed? Applicant’s philosophy published in 1992 and 18 holes built in 1994. In 1996 landfill tax introduced and unauthorised tipping started at half price of licensed sites three months later by large number of contractors from as far as Aylesbury and High Wycombe. MSA waste arrived almost a year after. Tipping finally brought to halt by injunction in February 1998. Inquiry inspector found no evidence of plan for 9 holes, but there was ample evidence from developer’s accounts and invoices of income received. Original philosophy changed after introduction of landfill tax into random, profitable tipping on open countryside. Surely not needed for construction of new 9 holes.

Original philosophy was right, little if any of waste is legitimately needed for construction, no argument made for this amount and consequently as unauthorised, it should be removed unless there are convincing special reasons for it to remain. Claims of applicants however, not found to be convincing:

2. Thousands more tons to be retained to repair damage of own clay excavations. Plans for this approved in 1993 and no suggestion that waste needed to return landscape to satisfactory form.
3. Since Hinksey Heights allowed to keep waste, Waterstock should too. But circumstances quite different and unreasonable that decision at Hinksey Heights should affect Waterstock. Each should be decided on local landscape grounds and other circumstances. Developers at Waterstock advised early on and by highest authorities that needed permission and unreasonable not to halt until had it.
4. Unreasonable for authorities to take view that land must be restored close to original form. Yet this was developers’ own plan.
5. Claim that there is less than 110,000 tons on site is astonishing. Known that 55,000 tons of excavated waste on site before tipping began. Admitted in previous application that 80,000 tons imported from MSA site between October and December 1997 and known that further 15,000 tons from MSA in February 1998. Also intensive tipping from other sources for nearly year before MSA waste. Letter to SODC from Parish pre-dating MSA tipping refers to existing eight feet deep waste plateau, which in itself would be over 200,000 tons. These figures give 350,000 tons, 3 times the 110,000 tons claimed. Higher figure is supported by Wyatt Bros own reports and accounts which show income from "hardcore tipping" for every year 1996 to 1998. Applicants appear to be confused, but Parish is satisfied that estimate of 300,000 tons imported waste from detailed observation, measurement and photographs is fair and reasonable. Average cover of nearly three metres across whole site and at this scale could not be essential for course construction or acceptable in landscape terms.

Six years since tipping began over five years since enforcement action taken, nearly five years since High Court injunction and nearly four years since inspector’s decision. Now time to call halt to applications and begin process of removal. As long as waste remains, landscape damage and profit remains, which sends clear permissive message to other developers who might be minded to follow suit.

Resident, Waterstock Mill, Waterstock

Applicants have history of delay/prevarication. Widely predicted they would submit new application to destabilise OCC proceedings to remove unlawful waste and SODC proceedings to stop light pollution from golf range. Application should be rejected. If it succeeded, unlikely that applicants would ever develop site in accordance with it.

Statement makes comparison with other golf courses, but each application to be dealt with on own facts. Pre-existing terrain of any proposed golf course site presumably determines quantity of imported waste (if any) reasonably required for construction. Starting point cannot be amount of waste already imported to site. Statements about OCC diverting substantial quantities away to Hinksey Heights reveals that Waterstock would have imported substantial further quantities if not stopped by enforcement action. Now contend that can complete the course with little further importation. Why then needed additional materials? Answer must be that waste operations had little or no connection to golf course construction. If imports had been allowed to continue, would now have been asked to accept that even greater quantity of waste required to construct golf course. Suggests that whatever amount waste brought onto site should be permitted to remain, which is unacceptable. Balance of what not required to build golf course on pre-existing terrain must be removed, which is why pre-existing terrain is relevant.

Statement suggests imported soil essential for mitigating impact of disruption caused by driving range. Principal disruption is light pollution and applicants’ original lighting projections now proved by SODC to be false and misleading. Urge OCC not to try and resolve one abuse - light pollution, by another – unlawful waste disposal.

Detailed points if OCC minded to agree:

Highways Agency

Only concern is avoiding mud being trafficked onto M40 slip roads, reducing skid resistance and greatly increasing accidents. Vehicles may only transport within the site, but will use public roads when leaving unladen. Strongly recommend wheel wash provided before work commences and used for all works traffic leaving site and only hard surfaced road used between wheel wash and all highways.

CPRE

No substantial change to previous application and should also be rejected. History of tipping well known. Site is green belt, great landscape value, adjacent to extended conservation area and in open countryside. Whilst properly constructed golf course, blending into existing landscape can be acceptable, vast quantity of illegal tipping has created alien, inappropriate landscape. Seeking to show how nine holes can be laid on top post justifies actions. CPRE’s view, however, that waste only justified if shown that necessary for construction. Applicant’s own 1992 philosophy for course shows it was not. Convinced that bulk of material not necessary and since imported without permission it should be removed. To allow to remain when not needed would condone and send clear unacceptable signal to developers tempted to profit at expense of environment. If waste had been sent to authorised site, community would have benefited from landfill tax. Request responses to predecessor application also taken into account.

Thames Water

No objection.

South Oxfordshire District Council (Environmental Health)

On basis of information in environmental assessment strongly recommend that imported material covered with covering layer (ie topsoil) to encapsulate contaminated material and break any pollution linkages, which may pose significant risk to human health and/or environment. Also common practice for developers to test covering layer to ensure free from contamination.

Environment Agency

Site is in 1974 floodplain and therefore an area where new development is strictly controlled. Following conditions should be imposed on any planning permission.

• No building or raising ground levels in area of land liable to flood.
• No spoil or material deposited or stored on land liable to flood.

Waterperry with Thomley Parish Council

No strong view on construction of 9 hole course. Overriding concern is light pollution inflicted on immediate area and particularly Waterperry House and adjacent properties. Satisfactory outcome would be removal of waste, footpath retained in present position and driving range lights removed or glare substantially reduced.

Cultural Services (Rights of Way Office)

1^st response (14.02.03):

The definitive line is different to that shown on the proposals plan. Noted that the landscape consultants believe that right of way taken into account, but minimum distances between 3^rd, 4^th and 6^th greens not met. Guidelines safeguard rights of way users, drawn up on expert advice and minimum requirements of English Golf Union. Topography and planting schemes are not reasons to reduce these minimums. As new golf course, no reason to compromise footpath. A footpath diversion would not be an improvement. The proposals appear to be only accommodating the footpath to the minimum (or in some cases not even the minimum) standards with no indications for improvement.

2^nd response (05.03.03) following submission of new plans to show revised layout:

Public footpath 12 Waterstock which passes through the site is currently well defined and must not be reduced in width in any way. New plan does appear to show definitive line, but due to differences in scale and lack of features 1:2500 plan should be used when assessing line of path on ground. Plan now complies with measurements in Rights of Way and Golf Course Guidelines and must be adhered to in laying out golf course. No materials, plant or temporary structures to be deposited on or adjacent to path that may obstruct public while development takes place.

Southern Electricity

Underground cable crosses northeastern corner of the site. No objection.

South Oxfordshire District Council (Planning)

Comments to be reported orally.

English Heritage

Comments to be reported orally.

Return to TOP