Return to Agenda

ITEM PN6

PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE –17 OCTOBER 2005

MINERALS AND WASTE PLANNING APPLICATION

Report by Head of Sustainable Development

Development proposed:

Continuing sand and gravel extraction and progressive restoration to water based nature conservation at Caversham Quarry.

Location: Caversham Quarry

Applicant: Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

Application No: PO5/E0130/CM

District Council area: South Oxfordshire

1. This application seeks to extend mineral working into 15 hectares of agricultural land to the north of Playhatch Road in order to recover approximately 370,000 tonnes of sand and gravel. The application states that as reserves in the existing Caversham quarry come to an end, the extension is required to continue supplying the local markets and the Sonning Blockworks with processed minerals. The existing quarry has an average output of 130,000 tonnes per annum and it is anticipated that the extension site would have a similar output, giving the proposed extension a life of three years.
2. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) which covers visual impact, noise, traffic, dust, soils, rights of way, flora and fauna, hydrology and archaeology.

Location (Plan 1) (download as .doc file)

3. The application site is located in an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV) to the east of Caversham between Sonning Eye and Playhatch, within Eye and Dunsden Parish. Caversham is approximately 1km to the south west and Sonning a similar distance to the south east.

The Site and its Setting (Plan 2) (download as .doc file)

4. The site is roughly triangular in shape and is bounded by Playhatch Road to the south, Henley Road to the north and Spring Lane to the east. Beyond these roads to the east and north west lies extensive agricultural countryside which rises to the north into the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. To the south side of the road is the existing Lafarge mineral workings which include Sonning Blockworks mineral processing plant and ancillary activities. The river Thames lies about 800 metres to the south east.
5. The site itself is flat, in the floodplain and consists of a series of agricultural fields. A survey indicated that soils are clayey, poorly draining and prone to flooding.
6. Lakeside Cottages are approximately 50m from the southern limit of proposed extraction on the far side of the Playhatch Road. Properties on Spring Lane are approximately 100-130m metres to the south east corner of the proposed extraction area and Homestead Cottage, located to the west of the A4155 is approximately 70m west of the proposed extraction area. Botany Bay is 95m west of the limit of extraction and the Flowing Spring Public House, 90m north.
7. Three hedgerows run north south in the southern half of the site. An overhead cable crosses the south east corner of the site and two telegraph poles supporting the cable are located on site. No rights of way are directly affected.
8. The application site is adjacent to Caversham Quarry which, as of December 2004, had approximately one years reserve of sand and gravel remaining. The extant permission for Caversham Quarry permits mineral extraction and processing to continue until 2010.

Background and Relevant History.

Inspector’s Report

9. In the mid 1990’s this site was promoted for inclusion in the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan as an allocated sand and gravel site. In 1995, the Inspector’s report into objections to the draft plan concluded that the site should not be allocated in the plan because of the open views into the site. However, the Inspector added that proposals to screen the site may, if effective, allow much work to progress almost unseen and planting which was in hand in 1995 may, in the fullness of time cut off many views into the site.

Review of Old Mineral Permissions (ROMP)

10. As a result of the 1999 ROMP (Application No.P98/S0737/CM) a new access was required to the Sonning blockworks and processing plant, together with the relocation of the processing plant; the plant being relocated from the Caversham site to Sonning to allow for the extraction of the mineral beneath the Caversham plant. The relocation and access would occur irrespective of the outcome of this application. The existing access to Caversham Quarry would remain in use for restoration traffic.

Details of the Development

Mineral Extraction

11. It is proposed that sand and gravel would be extracted from the application site on a ‘campaign’ basis i.e. large volumes of sand and gravel extracted over a short period of time and transported to the processing plant for washing and grading. The application states that due to the historic flooding of the site, mineral extraction is unlikely to take place between November and March.
12. Mineral extraction would begin in the northern sector of the site (Phase 1), as shown in Plan 2. Topsoil would be stripped and stored in bunds to provide partial visual and acoustic screening to Botany Bay. These bunds would be 3m high and would be seeded to create a grass sward. The extraction area would be dewatered to allow the mineral to be extracted dry. Groundwater would be pumped to Folley Lake through a pipe laid under the B478 and would be discharged to the Berry Brook upstream of the site, following the settlement of suspended solids in Folley Lake.
13. Phases 2 and 3 would be worked in a similar way, with appropriate stand-offs maintained between the working area and hedges, trees and watercourses. Topsoil baffle bunds would also be constructed in the south east corner of the site to reduce views into the site from Spring Lane Cottages and Lakeside Cottages.
14. Four options for transporting the extracted mineral across Playhatch Road to the processing plant have been suggested by the applicant:
    
    

1. conveyor overbridge
2. pipe crossing under the road
3. conveyor underpass
4. traffic lights on the road and transport by dump truck
   
   

Each crossing option would have varying degrees of impacts and these are further discussed in the ‘Comments’ section.

15. The void created after extraction would continue to be dewatered whilst the site was restored. Restoration would be progressive and to a range of habitats including open water, wetlands and species rich grassland. Two of the existing hedgerows would be retained and integrated into the restored landscape. Additional tree and hedge planting are proposed, as is a hide along the southern edge of the newly created lake.
16. Access to the restored area would be via a locked gate, the keys to which would be controlled by a named body. Restricting access would ensure the privacy of the adjacent properties and reduce disturbance to wildlife.

Traffic

17. The Traffic Assessment undertaken by Scott Wilson and Co Ltd included a traffic count on the B478 between 0700 and 1900 hours and counted 10611 vehicles. HGVs made up 1.3% of this number. The existing processing operations generate an average of 60 lorry movements a day (30 in and 30 out). There is a weight restriction in force at Sonning Bridge which prevents lorries travelling through Sonning. Overall the number of lorry movements from the site would remain similar to present levels although lorries would use a longer stretch of the B478, due to the change of access.
18. The applicants propose to establish a footpath along the southern boundary of the site to increase pedestrian safety on the route between Henley Road and Sonning Eye. At present there is no pedestrian footpath or pavement along this stretch of the B478.

Environmental Statement

19. An environmental statement has been submitted with the application and as well as covering traffic issues (covered above) it includes assessments of noise, archaeology, ecology, hydrology and flooding. A number of its findings are covered below.
20. Operating hours would be 0700-1800 Monday to Friday and 0700-1300 Saturdays with no working on Sundays or public/bank holidays. Operations outside these hours would be restricted to pumping or emergency works. No soil stripping or soil mound construction would take place within 200m of any occupied property before 0800 hours.
21. Background noise levels were monitored at four properties adjacent to the application site. Minerals Planning Statement 2 (MPS2 Annex on Noise) states that mineral extraction should not exceed background levels by more than 10 db(A). The noise assessment concludes that the predicted noise levels due to temporary and normal operations would be within the accepted criteria levels as specified in MPS2.
22. The application site is located within an area of possible archaeological interest. A desk based assessment was undertaken based on a brief prepared by the Oxford Archaeology Unit. The Unit concluded that the identified archaeology, whilst of local importance was not of such importance as to preclude the principal of extraction. However, the area would require further archaeological investigation, recording and analysis, if permission was granted.
23. A number of surveys have been carried out over time. In particular the surveys found potential for bat roosts, badger prints (but no setts), common farmland birds, and yellow hammer and reed bunting which are in decline. The bat survey concludes that any significant delay in removal of trees would necessitate a repeat survey immediately prior to take down of those trees.
24. Mammal runways were observed and whilst no water voles were seen, two animals were heard entering the water. The vole survey concludes that it was likely that the two animals heard were water voles. As the proposed extraction does not affect water courses on site, it is not considered that water voles would present a statutory constraint to development.
25. In terms of vegetation, the ecological survey found that only one of the hedgerows met the criteria for important hedgerows under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. This hedge lies outside the application site boundary and would not be affected by the mineral working. The Lodden Lilly, nationally scarce, was identified but not in an area proposed to be excavated.
26. The hydrogeological and hydrological report concludes it is unlikely that the restoration of the site would significantly affect the flow of groundwater across the site. The report adds that ground levels would not be raised and the areas of the site restored to open water would result in an increase in the flood storage capacity of the site.

Community involvement

27. The applicants have stated that they would be willing to establish a liaison committee to discuss complaints and matters arising from the working of the extension area.

Consultations

South Oxfordshire District Council Health

28. Recommend approval of the proposed scheme subject to conditions to include control of noise to properties, details of any floodlighting, access, dust suppression and hours of operation.

Eye and Dunsden Parish Council

29. Recommend refusal: Council believes there will be a significant increase in traffic. Use of Sonning Eye access unacceptable as road in poor state, prone to flooding and will not support heavy traffic. Footpath: proposed path inadequate for cyclists. Ground floods frequently - no proposal to raise path. Footpath would be hidden behind trees and dangerous in winter. Lafarge own other sites in Reading area – why should south Oxon service gravel demands of Reading? Decisions should be made on what is right for this county.
30. Inadequate financial provision for aftercare. Concerns over Lafarge’s poor record of restoration. Computer based flooding model required to demonstrate no negative impact on local houses. Site will be clearly visible from a number of properties. Detrimental impact on footpaths 9 and 11 from the Flowing Spring to Dunsden and Binfield. More than adequate provision for fishing locally, a more imaginative public access scheme, including designation as a country park would be of greater community benefit. Spring lane car park poorly sited and could encourage fly tipping.

Sonning Parish Council

31. Concern over impact of working and transportation of material; unacceptable levels of dirt, dust and noise. Longer working hours, increased vehicle movements and removal of hedgerow will increase noise levels and render site unattractive. Justification for more mineral working? Highway safety. Significant impact on important eco system and detrimental impact on landscape and setting of area. Area floods each winter - concern that proposed changes will increase flood risk.

Sonning and Sonning Eye Society

32. The ecological proposals are sound and tie in with the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. What evidence have Lafarge given that they will provide appropriate aftercare management? Mention is made of harvesting from a local meadow but there are no suitable local meadows.

Binfield Heath Parish Council

33. Oppose application on following grounds;
    
    

1. highway impacts.
2. working hours – extension to current working hours unacceptable
3. flooding – removal of permeable aggregate and replacement with clayey subsoil may worsen flooding in the area.
4. Not a minor extension as site is geographically distinct from current works. Applicants committing huge expenditure for just 370,000 tonnes of aggregate – plainly a stepping stone to reserves beyond.
5. Lafarge reliability – current site poorly managed, inadequate control of public access, flytipping, litter and vandalism. Any restoration has been carried out by third parties; sailing club, marina, rowing course.
6. Inadequate provision made for archaeological exploration, protection of natural habitats and impact on the community of noise, dust and traffic. Site poorly located to meet South Oxfordshire’s gravel requirements.
   
   

Shiplake Parish Council

34. Object to application on following grounds;
    
    

1. not a minor extension but gateway to extend operations to Shiplake
2. area is AONB
3. extra traffic across B478 unacceptable- road already has problems
4. flooding risk may increase
5. environment- existing species should be protected rather than endangered
6. Is there a need for the gravel? Likely to be used in and around Reading.
7. Archaeology – several significant finds have been made in the area.
   
   

Reading Borough Council

35. No objections subject to a request that lorries should not be permitted to use Caversham Park Road or Lowfield Road as part of the haul route except for access to Caversham Park.

Wokingham District Council

36. No objection to principle of mineral extraction as proposed but would wish measures to prohibit quarry traffic using B478 east bound through Sonning except for local deliveries.

Environment Agency

37. Initial response April 2005

The Environment Agency objected to the proposal for the following reasons;

1. Quarrying within 16 metres of main rivers requires the Environment Agency's prior written consent and consent was likely to be refused unless a 16 metre buffer zone could be provided and topsoil baffle mounds moved and located outside of this zone.
2. Due consideration should be given to the small population of Loddon Lilly which has been identified on site.
3. Prior to any works commencing, a further survey for presence of water voles should be undertaken and a supplementary ecological survey be carried out.

Second Response 21/09/05

1. 10m buffer to Berry Brook will be adequate from a nature conservation perspective provided area is clearly fenced off during operations and remains free of storage and equipment.
2. All other comments still stand.
   
   

English Nature

38. No objections.
    
    County Ecologist

39.

(i) Satisfied that the proposal will not have a serious detrimental effect on the existing ecological interest of the site subject to any provisions required to deal with protected species.

(ii) the proposed restoration and after-use of the site is for nature conservation. This will generally improve the overall biodiversity interest of the area and it is something which I support in principle.

(iii) As with all other applications which have been restored to a nature conservation after-use would expect a 20 year management agreement over and above the usual 5 year after-care period.

40. Currently no public rights of way through the site but potential to create useful links within the rights of way network. There is currently little or no verge/pavement for access between Sonning Eye and Playhatch or Reading. The proposed footpath seems to start and finish short of any connecting footpath can the footpath be extended at either end?

41. No objection to the development in principle. Details of the new access and means of transporting mineral across the Playhatch Road must be agreed prior to construction.

County Archaeologist

42. Given the archaeological potential of the site I recommend that an archaeological field evaluation be undertaken in line with PPG16 and Policy PE8 of the Local Plan. The area will require further archaeological investigation, recording and analysis. Should planning permission be granted, the following condition should be attached:

"No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a phased programme of archaeological investigation in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Planning Authority."

Representations (available in the Members Resource Centre)

43. Thirty seven representations have been received including submissions from the Sonning Eye Action Group (SEAG), whose comments are listed at Annex 1 (download as .doc file). The numbers in brackets relate to how many times the issue has been raised. Respondents object to the application in relation to the following issues;

1. Impact on local wildlife (24)
2. Traffic (18)
3. Flooding (17)
4. Means of transporting material across the B478 (15)
5. Restoration (12)
6. Noise (11)
7. Impact on archaeology (10)
8. Dust (10)
9. Visual Impact (9)
10. Impact on trees and hedges (8)
11. State of existing Lafarge Site (8)
12. Working Hours (8)
13. Validity of minor extension (6)
14. Alternative Supplies (5)
15. Need (4)
16. Sonning Eye Conservation Area (3)
17. Mud on the road (2)

44. All relevant development plan policies are listed in Schedule 2 (download schedules as .doc file). The key policy issues are:

1. Assessment of the proposal against mineral supply policies SD1, SD2 and PE2 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan (OMWLP) which seek to maintain supply of mineral and allow for small extensions to existing minerals sites;
2. The need to provide acceptable access to roads that can safely accommodate the traffic levels proposed without material harm to the environment (in particular policy PE1(d) of the OMWLP);
3. The need to protect the environment of nearby homes (in particular policy PE3 of the OMWLP requires appropriate buffer zones to protect against unacceptable losses of amenity);
4. Assessment of the proposals against polices to protect other aspects of the environment – ecology, archaeology, water environment and rights of way (both Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 (as resolved to be adopted)(OSP2016) and specifically Policies PE3 – PE12 of the OMWLP); and
5. Assessment of the proposal against policies to ensure adequate restoration and after-use (particularly policies PE13 – 15 of the OMWLP).

• need
• small extension policy
• traffic
• means of transporting mineral across Playhatch Road
• noise, dust and buffer zones
• visual impact and the conservation area
• impact on local wildlife
• impact on trees and hedges
• flooding, and
• rights of way

46. SEAG, Eye and Dunsden Parish Council and a number of residents argue that gravel requirements in the County have decreased by 13% and that the location of Caversham Quarry ruled it out as an area to serve the wider Oxfordshire market. Objectors comment that the mineral would not be used to meet demand in South Oxfordshire but would be used largely in Reading, whilst there were quarries in Berkshire better located to supply Reading. OMWLP policy SD1 states that separate landbanks will be maintained for sharp sand and gravel. There is currently a shortfall in the landbank and overcoming the shortfall would require approximately an additional 1.1 million tonnes of sharp sand and gravel to be permitted. There are no other allocations for sand and gravel in this part of Oxfordshire. The only small allocations which remain to be permitted in the plan are to the west and immediately north of Oxford.
47. It is likely that mineral from the site would be used outside the County but there are no policies to say that mineral should be used solely within Oxfordshire.

Small Extension Policy

48. SEAG argue that the site is geographically distinct from the current works, on land not historically owned by the applicants and that the applicants were committing to huge expenditure for 370,000 tonnes of mineral. They and other residents are concerned that a permission at this site would set a precedent for further extensions along the Thames Valley to Shiplake.
49. The proposal is to continue sand and gravel across the road from the existing larger mineral working site (albeit that the present area of working is not immediately adjacent the proposal site) and to move from working sand and gravel from the present permission without interruption. Policy SD2 advises that small extensions will not be expected to last for more than three years. This proposal is to continue mineral working over three years at current production rates and in my view it can reasonably be considered as an extension.
50. There is an extensive gravel deposit to the east of the application site immediately east of the application. Any potential future proposal to extract this mineral would need to be considered against the policies of the development plan.

Traffic

51. A number of objectors argue that the development would increase traffic in the area. In particular residents are concerned traffic would travel over Sonning Bridge and there is reference to numerous accidents on the B478 and mud being deposited on the road. Reading Borough request that lorries should not use Caversham Park Road other than for access to Caversham Park. There is concern about the proposed new access from the plant site.
52. The proposal involves continued production of gravel at current rates so overall the proposal would not significantly change traffic levels albeit that lorry traffic would continue from the site for a further three years. Sonning Bridge has a weight restriction order which prevents lorries from this site using that bridge. Lorry numbers from this site have traditionally been small and in my opinion a routeing agreement would not be necessary in this case. A condition could be imposed to require that measures be taken to prevent mud on the road. A new access to the plant site is required by the review of the existing mineral working permission (ROMP). The current application does not propose to change this.

Means of Transporting Mineral Across Playhatch Road

53. Four options for transporting gravel from the site to the processing plant have been offered and have generated comment. The overpass is unpopular because of the visual impact and risk of noise and dust. Trucks crossing the B478 and the underpass options were unpopular because of the potential disruption to the roads.
54. Options involving an underpass would require significant works and disturbance to the road. Pipeline technology is relatively untried. In my view a conveyor across the road is the most sensible option particularly given the short term nature of this development proposal. A conveyor would run inside a closed boxed structure which would avoid significant noise and dust generation. Details of any overpass proposal would first need to be submitted to the local planning authority for approval.

Buffer Zones, Noise and Dust

55. OMWLP policy requires that appropriate buffer zones should be safeguarded between mineral sites and residential dwellings. Accompanying text indicates that the Council should have regard to the Council’s established standards of 350 metres to protect towns, villages and hamlets, and 100 metres between individual and small groups of dwellings.
56. It is proposed here to work minerals to within 100 metres of individual dwellings (Homestead Cottage, Lakeside Cottages, Botony Bay and the Flowing Well). The intention is that soil bunds would be created between mineral working and these properties, and that working at the closest point to these dwellings would take place during a short period and would in most cases be separated from working by the immediate road network. The District Council (including the Environmental Health Officer) have not objected to the proposal and I feel confident that in this case there should not be unacceptable adverse environmental effect upon the nearest dwellings. Conditions to restrict noise and require placement of appropriate soil bunds can help to limit adverse effects.
57. In my view the proposal meets the requirements of OMWLP policy PE3 (buffer zones). Standard operating hours could be required by condition to limit mineral activity during evenings, weekends and bank holidays (see operating hours – OMWLP annex 1). A condition can be imposed requiring limits to the generation of dust.

Visual Impact and the Conservation Area

58. SEAG objections, particularly challenge the claim that there is only limited visibility into the site from adjacent properties particularly that a number of properties have partial views into the site and that Botany Bay has clear views. The proposed soil storage bunds would restrict views into the site during working phases but they would not completely screen the workings. The applicants have met with the residents of Botany Bay and suggest building a 3m bund which would be seeded with wild flower mix to include species which would grow 0.5-1.0m high. Although this bund would not hide all plant and machinery on site, views of the working would be substantially screened from Botany Bay.
59. Views into the site from other properties would not be increased as the perimeter vegetation would be undisturbed. However, temporarily, views would be of a mineral working and not a field.
60. A number of letters have stated the sites location in the Sonning Conservation Area as a reason for refusal. Although the site is close to the Conservation Area, it is not within it. SOLP policy CON15(v) states that the council will take all available steps to ensure that development outside a conservation area would not have a detrimental effect on the conservation area. Any effect on the conservation area would be temporary and South Oxfordshire District Council have not objected to the development on the basis of its location.
61. SOLP identifies the application site as within the Thames Valley and fringes landscape character area and consider this character should be retained. Introduction of mineral working would change this landscape in the short term and in the longer term would create a new landscape with biodiversity interest. In the short term storage bunds would create an unnatural feature in the landscape but in the longer term the restoration would benefit habitat diversity and add to the landscape value of the site..
62. I am satisfied that the existing and additional vegetation, together with soil bunds and acoustic fencing would adequately protect visual amenity over the three year working period.

Impact on Local Wildlife

63. A number of local residents have objected to the application on the basis that the site is frequented by a variety of wildlife including Roe deer, badgers, white clawed crayfish, foxes, rabbits, kites, owls and otters.
64. English Nature have not objected and the application site is not part of a County Wildlife Site. The ecological survey states that there are no habitats on site which can be regarded as rare or threatened. The County Ecologist has raised no objection to the proposals. Restoration of the site to nature conservation would provide an opportunity to create new wildlife habitat. The applicant has agreed to enter into a legal agreement to provide long term management of the site. A local source for seed collection to create meadowland would need to be found. A condition can be imposed to require a 10 metre buffer zone between mineral working and Berry Brook to meet with Environment Agency concerns to protect its nature conservation interest.
65. Although habitat would be lost initially, I am satisfied that in time, the proposed restoration scheme would more than compensate for the short term loss.

Impact on Trees and Hedges

66. SEAG and others say that the loss of hedgerows and mature trees would have a detrimental effect on the setting of Sonning Eye and Playhatch. The proposal involves some loss of trees and hedgerows. However all vegetation between the application site and properties on the Playhatch Road would be retained except for a section of hedge at the point of the new access. In my view the setting of Sonning Eye would not be significantly affected.
67. The indicative restoration plan proposes new planting to replace lost trees and hedgerows. In time, additional planting will more than compensate for initial losses.
68. A resident has expressed concern that even if hedgerows were left in place, mineral working would undermine their root systems. A condition could be imposed on any permission to require a stand off between hedges and extraction.

Flooding /Hydrology and Hydrogeology

69. Eye and Dunsden Parish Council consider the application has not proven sufficiently that flooding would not be worsened whilst soil bunds were in place, and a number of residents are concerned that the proposal would increase the severity of flooding.
70. The Environment Agency accept the findings of the flood risk and require flood mitigation measures to be put in place.
71. Residents of Botany Bay are concerned that their properties would be affected by the dewatering of the application site. However, the independent hydrological assessment undertaken indicates there are no structures in close proximity to the site that would be at risk from settlement due to drawdown from dewatering. I am satisfied that any potential impact on the floodplain can be mitigated in accordance with OMWLP policies PE6, PE7 and G16 of the SOLP.

Rights of Way

72. The application proposes creation of a new footpath along the southern boundary of the application site, from Spring Lane to the roundabout of the B478. The path would incorporate a footbridge over the Berry Brook. As it is proposed to restore the site to nature conservation, the footpath would be separated from the site by a fence and new hedge planting, to prevent disturbance to wildlife.
73. Eye and Dunsden Parish Council consider that the proposed footpath would be inadequate for cyclists and pushchairs due to a lack of a free draining surface. They added that the footpath is in an area prone to flooding but which is not proposed to be raised, and would be hidden behind trees thus dangerous in winter when light is poor. The restoration plan (C1/PL04/04) shows the footpath between the Playhatch Road and the existing trees so that the path would not be hidden
74. The creation of a footpath is consistent with policies OSP2016 R2, OMWLP PE11, SOLP R7 which encourage improvements to the rights of way network.

Conclusions

75. The application proposes to extend mineral working into 15 hectares of agricultural land, to recover 370,000 tonnes of sand and gravel over three years. There is a need for sand and gravel and the proposal accords with development plan policy for small extensions to existing workings.
76. Whilst the distance between the proposed working and some properties is below the County Council’s established standards of 100m, existing roads and vegetation would mitigate potential of noise. The anticipated noise levels fall within the levels specified in Mineral Planning Statement 2 and noise to nearby properties could be further reduced by the construction of soil bunds and acoustic fencing.
77. Whilst at most there would be a marginal increase in traffic, no traffic would be able to travel through Sonning because of the weight restriction on the bridge. The proposed footpath along the Playhatch Road would provide a safe route for pedestrians, where at present no path exists.
78. In terms of restoration, although the existing site supports some wildlife, the proposed restoration scheme would provide opportunities to promote nature conservation through restoration away from intensive agriculture. This would offer the potential to increase the habitat diversity of the site and as public access would be controlled, wildlife would be largely undisturbed.
79. The proposal is in accordance with the development plan and I am satisfied that potential impacts of the working can be satisfactorily mitigated by condition, I recommend that permission is granted.

CHRIS COUSINS
Head of Sustainable Development

Background papers:
Extraction of sand and gravel from the northern extension to the existing quarry, Caversham Quarry. File Ref.8.3/7475/4
Sustainable Development Service, Environment and Economy, Speedwell House, Oxford OX1 1NE
Representations made on the application are on this file.

Contact Officer: Joanna Freyther. Tel 01865 815901

October 2005

Return to TOP