|
Return
to Agenda
ITEM PN11
PLANNING
& REGULATION COMMITTEE – 17 OCTOBER 2005
MINERALS
AND WASTE PLANNING APPLICATION
Report by
Head of Sustainable Development
Development proposed:
Three applications
have been submitted for development at Wroxton Fields Quarry:
- Small extension
to phase 2a for ironstone working to facilitate the creation of good
restoration contours – Application No 05/01529/CM
- Small extension
to phase 2b for ironstone working to facilitate the creation of good
restoration contours – Application No 05/01531/CM
- To continue the
extraction of ironstone without complying with condition 107 of planning
permission 02/01972/CM (Revised siting of the internal access from phase
1 to phase 2 – Application No 05/01507/CM
Applicant: Peter
Bennie Limited
District Council
area: Cherwell
Introduction
- Peter Bennie Ltd
has submitted three relatively minor applications at Wroxton Fields
Quarry to facilitate good restoration and provide resiting of the internal
access road. They are dealt with together in this report. They are to
be determined at Planning & Regulation Committee at the request
of County Councillor George Reynolds, local member for Wroxton, though
in any event it comes to Committee because objections have been received.
Location
(Plan 1) (download as .doc file)
- Wroxton Fields
Quarry is located in the open countryside in an area which is designated
as an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV) in the adopted Cherwell Local
Plan. It is one quarry in part of a much larger permission which covers
Hornton, Alkerton and Balscote Quarries. The village of Wroxton lies
approximately 500 metres to the east of Wroxton Fields Quarry. The quarry
is located off the A422 Banbury – Stratford road.
Site and its setting
(Plan 2) (download as .doc file)
- The extensions
to phases 2a and 2b are currently agricultural land on the edge of the
main quarry. The area for the revised access road is within the permitted
area of the quarry but where mineral extraction has not yet taken place.
The closest dwellings to the extension to phase 2a are Maidenhill Cottage
which is approximately 300 metres away and Tithe Farm which is approximately
500 metres away. The village of Balscote lies to the west of the phase
2b, the closest dwelling is Manor Farm, approximately 500 metres away.
Details
of development
Applications
to extend areas 2a and 2b
- The applicant
states that the extensions to phases 2a and 2b would facilitate better
restoration contours so that when the land is restored to agriculture
it would have good drainage. The size of the extension area for phase
2a is 0.9ha and extraction would last one year. The size of the extension
area for phase 2b is 400 square metres and extraction would last one
month. There is only a small amount of ironstone which would be extracted
from the extension to phase 2a (35,000 tonnes of which 50 per cent would
be waste) and no mineral would be extracted from the extension area
to phase 2b.
- The applicant
states that if phase 2a was worked as permitted this would result in
a small knoll of higher ground to the south of the extraction area which
would prevent drainage in that direction. He says that the southern
boundary of phase 2 was drawn in 1956, when permission was granted as
a straight line east-west which did not reflect the full extent of the
mineral reserve or the contours of the land. The result is a long gentle
gradient which would not provide an effective drainage solution for
the land. The proposal extends the boundary by a maximum of 90 metres
which would allow a small amount of mineral to be removed and enable
the southern part of phase 2 to be restored so that it slopes to the
south. It is proposed that the restoration contours would be blended
in with those of the rest of the site and the small knoll would be removed.
A screening bund of at least 2.5 metres would be constructed around
the outer perimeter of the site to provide noise mitigation.
- The reason for
the extension for 2b is much the same. As the land in area 2b does not
slope continuously from the north to the south of the site it is not
possible to drain the site in this direction. To address this concern
the applicant says that it is necessary to direct the fall onto the
lower land to the west, which was worked for ironstone extraction in
the 1960’s. This land naturally drains to field ditches, and therefore
any surface water running off the restored surface of phase 2b would
flow to the same ditches. Phase 2b, including the proposed extension
area would have soil screening bunds of at least 2.5 metres constructed
around the edge of the working in order to reduce noise. It is also
proposed not to work the southern end of phase 2b. The applicant states
that there is no economic mineral deposit there in this area so the
purpose is solely to achieve restoration.
Revised
siting of internal access
- It is proposed
to resite the access road as shown on plan 2. The applicant says this
is necessary because the electricity pylons which run across the site
are to be moved later than was anticipated. The pylons are on a raised
ridge of ironstone and an access through this ridge is necessary. The
applicant seeks approval for revised access details to phase 2 of the
quarry under condition 107 of planning permission 02/01972/CM. The revised
siting plan (drawing number 08120/1) would modify plan 2a approved under
permission 97/00430/CM which shows the phases for working and the haul
roads for the whole of Wroxton Fields Quarry. The wording of the existing
and proposed revised conditions to allow resiting of the access are
set out at Annex 1 (download as .doc
file).
Consultations
Cherwell District Council
- Raise no objection
to the resiting of the internal access from phase 1 to phase 2, but
object to the two extension applications because the extension of the
mineral extraction area in lieu of not working the southern part of
the phase 2b site does not conform with policy SD4 of the Oxfordshire
Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1996 because the southern part of phase
2b will not be worked as there is no viable mineral in the area. Therefore,
there is no reasonable or comparable exchange of extraction land. Cherwell
District Council consider that the benefits of improved restorative
drainage accruing from permitting the extension to the extractions areas
do not outweigh the fundamental conflict with policy SD4.
- The Environmental
Health Officer has no objections to either the phase 2a extension, or
the phase 2b extension or the resiting of the internal access from phase
1 to phase 2. The acoustic information indicates that there would only
be marginal increases in the predicted noise levels at the nearest noise
sensitive locations. Indeed, it is suggested that these differences
would not be readily detected by the human ear. These workings will
be of short duration and therefore the situation could be considered
acceptable.
Wroxton
Parish Council
- Wroxton Parish
Council strongly object to any extensions outside the original mining
permission for whatever purpose, as this sets a precedent. The Parish
also object to the new road and feel that another discussion with Central
Networks should take place.
Environment
Agency
- No objection to
the proposed extension areas (2a and 2b) or the alteration of the access
from phase 1 to phase 2.
- Comment that the
phase 2a extension is located very close to Padson Springs where groundwater
levels can fluctuate. The applicant has stated that the site will be
worked dry but to ensure there is no impact on groundwater levels. A
condition should be imposed requiring there be no dewatering of the
site and no removal of water by pumping without the consent of the mineral
planning authority.
County
Archaeologist
- For the extension
to phase 2a there was an initial request that an archaeological desk
based assessment be submitted because there is an important archaeological
site immediately adjacent to the south east of the application area.
This is an Iron Age hillfort, known as Castle Bank, which survives as
a discernible earthwork which is currently being assessed by English
Heritage, on behalf of the Secretary of State DCMS, for its addition
to the Statutory list of Schedules Ancient Monuments. This request has
been withdrawn following a site meeting with the applicant’s agent who
explained the details of the planning application. Following the additional
information provided there is now no objection on archaeological grounds.
- No objection to
the extension to phase 2b or the resiting of the internal access road
from phase 1 to phase 2.
Relevant
Planning Policies
- The relevant planning
policies are policy SD4 from the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local
Plan 1996 (OMWLP) which deals with the concept of surrendering land
with permission for ironstone extraction before new areas can be worked.
Policy PE1 from the OMWLP and policy M1 from the Oxfordshire Structure
Plan 2016 (OSP) both deal with the protection of amenity from mineral
workings and the need for a high standard of restoration following extraction.
Comments of the Head of
Sustainable Development
- The only planning
issues to consider are whether the proposed extensions to areas 2a and
2b are in accordance with policy relating to ironstone extraction, whether
they are acceptable with regard to the potential environmental impact
that they may have on residents in the vicinity of the site and whether
they give a better restoration for the quarry.
Policy
relating to the extraction of ironstone
- OMWLP policy SD4
states that planning permission for additional ironstone extraction
will only be granted in exchange for an agreed revocation, without compensation,
of an existing planning permission containing workable reserves. There
are large consented reserves of ironstone and when the Local Plan was
drafted it was felt that there was no justification for releasing future
reserves for working unless existing unsatisfactory permissions were
removed. In this case the areas proposed for additional working are
small and aimed at improving the agricultural restoration of the quarry.
Some land south of area 2b will not now be worked but this is because
it does not contain economically workable reserves. Therefore, in this
particular case I believe that the restoration benefit afforded by the
proposals is an important factor which mitigates against the limited
impact of allowing additional landtake for the mineral operation without
revocation of other areas of the consent.
- If permission
is granted for the extension to phase 2b, a condition could be added
to preclude the area south of the application being worked in any event.
Environmental
effects of working 2a and 2b extensions
- OMWLP policy PE1
sets out a number of criteria against which proposals for new mineral
workings will be judged. Part (a) of this policy states that local residential,
landscape and natural amenities should be protected. There is no objection
from the District Environmental Health Officer in relation to noise
intrusion from the workings. The noise report which was submitted with
the applications concludes that there would only be a minimal increase
in the noise from the proposed workings. This coupled with the fact
that the closest houses are 300 and 500 metres away and that the duration
of extraction from phase 2a would be 1 year and phase 2b would be one
month means that any minimal level of noise increase would only be experienced
over a short amount of time.
- Noise, dust and
other operations from the two proposed extension areas can all be controlled
by planning conditions.
Restoration
improvements
- The applicant
states that the main reason for making the extension applications is
to improve the restoration of phases 2a and 2b by allowing improved
drainage contours. OSP 2016 policy M1 states that mineral extraction
sites should be progressively restored in a reasonable timescale to
an acceptable use appropriate to its location. OMWLP policy PE1 (h)
states that for mineral workings a high standard of restoration should
be provided. Wroxton Fields Quarry will go back to agricultural use
following the extraction of ironstone. In my opinion, the extensions
to phases 2a and 2b would increase the chance of the restored land going
back to high quality agriculture in a relatively short period of time.
This is certainly desirable for the agricultural productivity of the
land.
Impact
on groundwater
- The Environment
Agency raised no objections to the proposals provided a condition is
attached to protect Padson Springs.
Area of
High Landscape Value (AHLV)
- In the adopted
Cherwell Local Plan the site is designated as an AHLV. However, in the
revised deposit draft there is no such designation. No objections have
been received to the applications in relation to this consideration.
Workings would be short lived. The effect on the AHLV would be negligible.
Resiting
the internal access road from phase 1 to phase 2
- Wroxton Parish
Council object to this proposal and ask that a further meeting is held
with Central Networks regarding the moving of the electric pylons which
run across the site. In my opinion, the alteration to the internal access
is minor and would have no adverse effects justifying further discussion
with Central Networks. The pylons will still need to be moved at some
stage so that the whole site can be worked. The change to the route
of the internal haul road is on land which has permission to be worked
and the alteration of this route would not have any impact on the residential
amenity.
Conclusions
- Arguably the extension
area applications do not comply with OMWLP policy SD4 in that a swap
of land containing workable reserves does not form part of the proposal.
However, the amounts of ironstone involved are very small compared to
the millions of tonnes of workable reserves remaining in the rest of
the planning permission area. The extension areas proposed would not
have any adverse effects on residential amenity and could be restored
to a higher standard than would be allowed by the present scheme. Conditions
can be imposed to control the working of the site to the same standard
as the main quarry areas. The resiting of the internal access road from
phase 1 to phase 2 is a minor alteration to the proposed working of
the site. There are no implications for residential amenity as a result
of this application. Overall, the effects of the proposed developments
are negligible. Although there is not a swap of land that would satisfy
policy SD4, there are no adverse environmental or amenity effects and
the restoration would be improved. In my view permission should be granted
for the three applications at Wroxton Fields Quarry.
RECOMMENDATION
- It is RECOMMENDED
that Application Numbers 05/01529/CM, 05/01531/CM and 05/01507/CM be
approved for the development as proposed in each application subject
to conditions, the heads of which are set out in Annex 1a (download
as .doc file), Annex 1b (download
as .doc file) and Annex 1c (download
as .doc file) to this report.
CHRIS COUSINS
Head of Sustainable
Development
Background papers:
Applications for phase 2a extension, phase 2b extension and resiting of
the internal access road form phase 1 to phase 2 at Wroxton Fields Quarry,
files 8.1/4041/1, 8.1/4041/2 and 8.1/4041/3
Sustainable
Development Service, Environment & Economy, Speedwell House, Speedwell
Street, Oxford OX1 1NE
Contact Officer:
Emma Shaw Tel: 01865 815272
October 2005
Return to TOP
|