Return to AgendaITEM PN3
PLANNING & REGULATION committee
MINUTES of the meeting held on 19 May 2008 commencing at 2.00 pm and finishing at 5.35 pm
Present:
Voting Members: Councillor Steve Hayward - in the chair
Councillor Alan ArmitageCouncillor Catherine Fulljames Councillor Timothy Hallchurch MBE Councillor Jenny Hannaby Councillor Hilary Hibbert-Biles Councillor Terry Joslin Councillor Colin Lamont (in place Councillor Councillor Ray Jelf) Councillor David Nimmo-Smith Councillor G.A. Reynolds Councillor John Sanders (in place of Councillor Barbara Gatehouse) Councillor Don Seale Councillor Chip Sherwood Councillor Melinda Tilley (in place of Councillor Lawrie Stratford Councillor David Turner
Other Members in Councillor Charles Mathew (for Agenda Item 5) Attendance:
Officers:
Whole of meeting: G. Warrington and R. Hanson (Corporate Core); R. Dance, J. Duncalfe, M.Thompson, R. Rossiter (Environment & Economy.
Part of meeting:
The Committee considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the agenda for the meeting, together with the following additional documents:
Schedule of addenda Supplementary paper setting out the response from the Environment Agency to comments from OUTRAGE (Item 5)
and decided as set out below. Except insofar as otherwise specified, the reasons for the decisions are contained in the agenda, reports and additional documents, copies of which are attached to the signed Minutes.
30/08 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS
Apologies for absence and temporary appointments were received as follows:
31/08 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Hibbert-Biles declared a personal interest under Item 5 (Application 07/0111/P/CM) insofar as she was a member of West Oxfordshire District Council. She advised that she had not expressed an opinion on the application in that capacity and intended to participate in the discussion and voting thereon
32/08 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7 April 2008 were approved and signed.
33/08 PETITIONS AND PUBLIC ADDRESS
The following requests to address the meeting had been agreed:-
34/08 APPLICATION FOR THE EXTRACTION OF SAND AND GRAVEL WITH ASSOCIATED PROCESSING PLANT, SILT PONDS, CONVEYORS AND ANCILLARY WORKS. RESTORATION TO WETLAND/REEDBED AND FISHING. EXTRACTION OF BASAL CLAY TO FORM HYDROLOGICAL SEALS AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF RESTORATION ON SITE STONEHENGE FARM, NORTHMOOR - APP NO 07/0111/P/CM (Agenda Item 5)
The Committee considered an application (PN5) to extract 1.55 million tonnes of sand and gravel from a 31 hectare site at Stonehenge Farm, Northmoor with proposals for subsequent restoration to wetland, reedbed and fishing.
Mr Kirkpatrick addressed the Committee on behalf of residents of Moreton who firmly believed that the Committee was not in a position to take an informed decision on this application, that it was premature to consider the proposal now and that the application should be deferred until further work had been done on the following issues:
Maintenance costings to ensure hydraulic connectivity between the lakes and the aquifer. Sequential testing required by PPS25. Proving the groundwater mitigation scheme. A full Level 3 Flood Risk Assessment. The outcome of a Judicial Review against the Environment Agency.
He then responded to questions from members:
Councillor Hibbert-Biles – the Judicial Review was in the first protocol stage. The Environment Agency were required to respond in14 days.
Councillor Seale – the Information Commission were investigating a claim that the Environment Agency had until recently withheld groundwater modelling data information. There were strong reasons to suspect the accuracy of that data and consequently the judgement of the Agency.
Councillor Lamont – there were 57 identified locations currently available in lower flood zones.
Addressing the Committee as a resident of the village, local farmer and Chairman of Northmoor Parish Council Mr Florey advised that the Parish Council considered that the application constituted a new application and not an extension to existing works. Referring to breaches of conditions he advised that routeing agreements attached to previous applications had never worked with prohibited vehicles continuing to use local minor roads to the detriment of local residents and an already congested major route system. There had been a negative effect on the village from the loss of good agricultural land and with the potential for further impact on local water supplies further consideration needed to be given to the response from the Environment Agency. The proposal was unacceptable to residents of Northmoor and he urged the Committee to consider carefully the merits of the application.
He then responded to questions from members of the Committee.
Councillor Joslin – confirmed that by approving the application and continuing with a proposed 40 movements a day there would be no opportunity to alleviate an already congested road system.
Councillor Tilley – currently there was a weight restriction over A415 Newbridge . However if a new bridge was constructed it would encourage use and have a serious impact on traffic levels.
Councillor Hallchurch – a watercourse along the southern boundary of the site which was fed by the Windrush supplied local farms. Dewatering of the site could lead to those supplies drying up in the summer.
Julie Hankey, Chair of OUTRAGE then addressed the Committee. She did not consider that the report now before the Committee formed the basis for a fair and reasoned decision to be made. Contrary to the report Northmoor had experienced the effects of extensive gravel working which was not, as stated in the report, some distance away. Referring to the accumulated impact of workings in the Lower Windrush valley the overwhelming view of local parish councils was that enough was enough – a concern reflected in the Oxfordshire Structure Plan which stated that the County Council would consider the cumulative impact of mineral working. However, as the report implied that the site was proposed to replace Stanton Harcourt Quarry this had clearly not been the case. Cumulative impact should include current and past workings. The applicants were required to provide evidence of alternative sites which they had not done and she questioned the interpretation placed on that by County officers. Regarding statements of need and the current shortfall in the landbank the report had not made it clear that maintenance of the landbank was dependent on the industry submitting enough planning applications in acceptable locations and that there was no penalty for not achieving or maintaining those levels. Stonehenge Farm was not an acceptable location and raised genuine environmental concerns and objections including the absence of a sufficiently large market within range of sustainable transport. The County Council should not be inflexible in its interpretation of policies and should consider the effects on local communities. She urged the Committee not to approve the application.
In response to a question from Councillor Joslin she confirmed that in her view the application site was not an extension.
Tina Rowley (West Oxfordshire District Council) outlined the reasons for the strong objection to this application from the District Council and urged the County Council to take a precautionary approach for the following reasons:.
Flooding and Groundwater – this was a very sensitive area at the confluence of the Thames and the Windrush and the County Council needed to decide whether it had enough information to decide how the application would impact on local water supplies and what the effects of proposed bunding would be on standing groundwater. WODC had published an Interim report on the Summer 2007 floods and a final report was due to be published in June.
Piecemeal approach to working – The District Council had hoped to achieve a greater level of joint working in order to lessen the impact of proposed workings. In this particular case there were transport issues including the weight restriction on Newbridge and provision of the Sutton bypass.
LDF Review – current policies as set out in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan had been in place for many years and patterns of work had changed. These issues needed to be looked at by the County and District Councils.
In summary the District Council considered the disbenefits far outweighed what was to be gained from this small scale production.
She then responded to questions from members of the Committee.
Councillor Hayward - she agreed that some of the existing permissions had been given some years ago on the basis that the A40 would be dualled but as this was unlikely to happen in the future a clear policy should be introduced to lessen the impact of gravel extraction in West Oxfordshire.
Councillor Turner – more detailed reports on flooding would be published later this year.
Councillor Seale – the District Council had based its objection on the information before the Committee. The flooding review had examined the circumstances which had led to the extraordinary situation in 2007 and also the likely effects of more regular normal heavy rain. This was a very sensitive area. Flooding was common and although the circumstances in 2007 were very unusual it was conceivable that with climate change it could happen on a more regular basis which is why the District Council were advising a precautionary approach.
The Chairman reported on a letter received from David Cameron MP in which he had endorsed the grave concerns expressed by his constituents and by West Oxfordshire District Council that in the absence of a clear policy for mineral extraction in West Oxfordshire a piecemeal approach would not help an area already subject to and affected by extensive gravel working.
Addressing the Committee on behalf of the applicants Phillip Duncan reminded the Committee that previous applications for Stonehenge Farm to the north and east of this site had been approved and advised that this application had been amended to exclude the ancient monument in response to concerns from English Heritage regarding proposals to work gravel under it. There was nothing new in this application which was for an area ½ the size of the original application and further away from the village and archaeological site. There had been a number of amendments made with opportunities to create new habitats. The Environment Agency were satisfied with hydrology and flooding issues. Issues regarding the conveyor belt and the bridleway could be resolved and the conveyor belt tunnel had been carefully designed to lessen the impact on the scheduled ancient monument and bridleway. Access would be taken through Dix Pit and not over Standlake Bridge and extracted gravel would be used at the two neighbouring concrete batching plants which meant that the gravel would not be required to travel far. Referring to the shortage in the landbank he advised that if this application was deferred until the LDF had been agreed then the only site of any significant size operating in the county would be at Gill Mill. He asked the Committee to approve the application.
He then responded to the following questions from members of the Committee.
Councillor Turner – there was no environmental or hydrological reason to preclude wet extraction taking place in Phase 3 close to the River Windrush
Councillor Joslin – It was estimated that there was about 2½ years supply of sand and gravel left in the county and due to other sites ceasing operation production would drop by 900,000 tonnes.
Councillor Hibbert-Biles – no applications had been made for any of the other 57 sites referred to.
Mr Dance further advised that not all of the 57 sites referred to contained sand and gravel and that in any event each site would need careful analysis which would take a considerable amount of time through the local development framework process.
With regard to traffic issues Mr Rossiter advised that if sand and gravel was not quarried locally it would need to be imported and the County Council would have no control those movements. The routeing agreement would need to be enforced and the applicants would be funding monitoring. As traffic flows which would result from this application would replace that from other quarry use which had ceased and traffic levels should not therefore increase. In his opinion a refusal could not be justified on traffic grounds.
Mr Campion (Estate Manager, Harcourt Estate) confirmed that the owners of the land would not accept any restriction on current shooting activities and would be seeking an indemnity to cover responsibility for hydrological work after the proposed 25 years.
Councillor Mathew considered there were a number of anomalies in the report:
The first map had omitted 4 properties
Paragraph 2 was incorrect.
Paragraph 37 – stated that Newbridge declared unsafe for vehicular traffic
Paragraph – he asked for clarification of what was meant by “semi improved grassland”
He then referred to the strong local objection to this proposal and the dismissive attitude of the applicants towards residents. Their past record was not good and with regard to this specific application he felt that it was unsustainable to threaten private water supplies and isolation of an area in the flood plain. Traffic problems in the area were well documented with routeing agreements regularly ignored. After use proposals were for water based recreation of which there was more than enough and in any event did not reflect the future needs of the landowner. 95% of the County’s sand and gravel came from the Lower Windrush valley and residents felt that enough was enough. He urged the Committee to refuse the application.
Mr Dance confirmed that Stonehenge Farm formed part of the overall supply strategy for the County, had been included as part of the restoration and after-use strategy for the Windrush Valley and had not been treated as an ad hoc proposal. The application had been considered against policies set out in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan in order to balance the need for sand and gravel against any potential disbenefits.
Some Members expressed great concern regarding the potential impact of flooding and although the Environment Agency had not objected many felt that the issues addressed in the West Oxfordshire District Council 2007 Summer Floods report could be relevant to this application.
Councillor Joslin considered the application site was an extension to existing workings and that the need for sand and gravel far outweighed any disbenefits. The working period was very short and with strict monitoring and enforcement the impacts could be controlled. The 2007 floods should be seen in the context of a very rare event and bearing in mind the responses of the majority of the statutory consultees who had not objected including the Environment Agency the application should be approved.
Councillor Seale felt that many of the issues of concern could be met but he remained sceptical regarding the effective control of traffic. Echoing the concerns expressed by West Oxfordshire District Council regarding flooding he was anxious concerning any potential impact on the flood plain.
Councillor Hayward then moved that “the Head of Sustainable Development in consultation with the Chairman be authorised to approve Application 07/0111/P/CM subject to:
(i) the findings of the final West Oxfordshire District Council 2007 Flooding report and to the Environment Agency not amending its response regarding this application in the light of that report;
(ii) the agreement and conditions as set out in the officer recommendation;
(iii) Recommendation (b) as set out in the officer report; but
in the event that the Environment Agency did amend its response then the Application be referred back to the Committee for consideration.”
The motion seconded by Councillor Reynolds was put to the Committee and lost by 8 votes to 7.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Seale, seconded by Councillor Turner and carried by 9 votes to 2) to defer consideration of Application 07/0111/P/CM to the 21 July 2008 meeting pending publication and consideration of the West Oxfordshire District Council’s final report on the 2007 Summer Floods.
35/08 CONTINUATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND FOR EXTRACTION OF SAND AND GRAVEL, ERECTION OF PLANT WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH CONDITION 25 (OF PLANNING PERMISSION RAD/3963) (THE VARIATION OF THAT CONDITION TO EXTEND THE DEVELOPMENT FOR 5 YEARS) AT THRUPP LANE, RADLEY, ABINGDON - APP NO RAD/3963/4-CM (Agenda Item 6)
The application had been withdrawn at the request of the Applicant.
36/08 EXTRACTION OF LIMESTONE WITHIN PERMISSTED AREA FOR SAND EXTRACTION (AREAS A AND B), HATFORD QUARRY, SANDY LANE, HATFORD APP NO STA/HAT/11163/3-CM (Agenda Item 7)
The Committee considered an application (PN7) for the extraction of limestone from Hatford Quarry.
Mr Bowley acknowledged delays in signing the previous agreement but stressed that it was unlikely that similar problems would occur with the agreement for this application. The quarry operation was well run with issues regarding dust and mud on the road addressed. The current application would allow extraction of much needed material without using extra land and presented an opportunity to improve on current restoration. The alternative would be to import material from outside the County.
He then answered questions from Members of the Committee.
Councillor Joslin – investigations had been carried out into possible rerouteing of the the gas pipeline but in view of the expense and the fact that the pipeline was was well protected where lorries crossed it had been decided not to move it.
Councillor Seale – outlined various problems which had been experienced in trying to sign the previous agreement and apologised for the delay.
Councillor Tilley – the applicants appreciated the need to improve relations with local residents and supported the establishment of a Local Liaison Committee.
Councillor Tilley speaking as the local member advised that residents accepted the quarry but considered it grossly unfair that the operator did not respect conditions attached to the permission and she asked for improved monitoring and enforcement.
Mr Rossiter undertook to ask the area Surveyor to investigate improvements to road markings between the village of Hatford and the A415.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Joslin, seconded by Councillor Lamont and carried 14 votes to 0) that:
(a) subject to a section 106 agreement requiring no further implementation of the existing sand permission (HAT/1163/89) that planning permission for application STA/HAT/11163/3-CM be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Sustainable Development but to include those matters set out at Annex 1 to the report PN7 and to an additional informative requiring the formation of a local liaison committee;
(b) if the legal agreement referred to in (a) above was not completed within 10 weeks of the date of this meeting the Head of Sustainable Development be authorised to refuse the application on the grounds that it would not comply with OSP policy M1 (in that there would not be satisfactory provisions for the restoration of the site).
................................................................................... in the Chair
Date of signing.................................................................. 2008
|