Contract Officer: Mary Thompson Tel: 01865 815901 email: mary.thompson@oxfordshire.gov.uk
ITEM PN5
PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE – 21 JULY 2008
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
Report by Head of Sustainable Development
Location Land at Stonehenge Farm, Northmoor
Applicant Hanson Aggregates
Application No 07/0111/P/CM
District Council Area West Oxfordshire
Introduction
1. On 19 May 2008 the
Planning & Regulation Committee deferred consideration of a planning
application for sand and gravel extraction at Stonehenge Farm until 21 July 2008
pending publication and consideration of West Oxfordshire District Council’s
(WODC) final report on the 2007 Summer floods. The report to the Committee on 19 May is attached as Appendix 1 (download as .doc file) to this report.
Flooding
2. The final report on the floods has not yet been published by WODC and is now expected in August. However, an Interim Report was published in January 2008 and a Northmoor Parish Flood Report in May 2008.
3. The Interim report is the initial stage of WODC’s strategic flood review. It covers the causes of the July 2007 floods, the response to the floods and recovery and proactive flood alleviation and mitigation. It does not contain site specific information or details that are relevant to making a decision on this specific application. WODC have confirmed that the final report will primarily give an overview of the whole process, outlining the number of reports produced and the areas they covered, what WODC has achieved, the priority areas that WODC will be working on and WODC’s role for the future. Although the final report may mention individual areas, it will be at a higher and more strategic level than the very specific Parish flood reports. WODC have confirmed that the final report is not now expected to be published until early to mid-September. The Environment Agency has also confirmed that having viewed the interim report, they do not anticipate that the final report will include anything bearing on the consideration of this application.
4. The Parish Flood Report for Northmoor suggests a table of possible options for flood alleviation schemes and other work throughout the parish. These largely relate to management, such as ditch clearance and provision/maintenance of gullies and sluices. However, under Area 3, Moreton, there is one suggestion which is that the Environment Agency, in conjunction with Hansons, undertake a full flood zone modelling study, including the effect of gravel extraction, of the Windrush Delta including Newbridge Cut and Northmoor New Cut.
5. The Environment Agency has been asked to provide a further response considering the Stonehenge Farm application in the light of this report. They have responded as set out below:
“The key point made in the Northmoor flood report that relates to this application is that we undertake a hydrological modelling study, to include the potential impacts of the Stonehenge Farm development. As we have stated in our formal response to this application, we have found the level of hydrological modelling to be acceptable. We do not, therefore, wish to amend our response in the light of this report.”
6. The Flood Risk Assessment provided as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment that accompanied the Stonehenge Farm planning application related specifically to the application area and contained an Annex on the July 2007 floods. This work on flooding and hydrology submitted with the application was done by a team of independent hydrologists employed by Hanson and is considered to be the most important in determining whether the application is acceptable in flood risk terms. The Environment Agency are the statutory consultee with regards to flood risk and they have considered this work and have no objection to the proposals.
7. The design of the proposed bunds and their potential impact on flood flows is considered in the flood risk assessment accompanying the application. Modelling work was undertaken for the bund along the Standlake Road as it would lie across potential flood plain flow paths. Gaps and culverts have been incorporated into the design to ensure continued flow. The Environment Agency is satisfied with the proposed bunds.
8. The possibility of not including the phases located closest to the River Windrush was discussed at the last committee meeting. The Environment Agency has not suggested this in their consultation response and therefore it is not considered necessary to reduce the area of working to make this development acceptable in terms of flood risk and groundwater mitigation.
9. On 12 June 2008 Planning Policy Statement 25 Practice Guide was published. This contains a section on taking flood risk into account in waste and minerals planning. The advice it contains mainly regards the development of plans and policies but can also be applied to development control. The practice guide confirms that sand and gravel extraction is defined as ‘water compatible development’ and that sand and gravel has to be dug where it is found, which is often in flood risk areas. It states that mineral working should not increase flood risk elsewhere and needs to be designed, worked and restored accordingly. It states that the location of site allocations need to be identified and by taking a holistic approach it is possible to explore benefits such as the restoration of mineral workings in flood risk areas to increase flood water storage. Duplication of Strategic Flood Risk Assessments should be avoided but where there is incomplete coverage Mineral Planning Authorities should use the best information available and may need to carry out more detailed work in specific areas. In terms of all development it advises the importance of Flood Risk Assessments and of following Environment Agency advice. This new practice guide does not contain any advice or information which would change my opinion with regard to the Stonehenge Farm application.
10. The level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for Cherwell District Council and WODC is currently being prepared. This will involve producing up to date flood maps using all known data including surface and ground water flooding events. Assessment of the flood risk posed to sites put forward in the Local Development Frameworks is also expected to be made. A draft report has been produced by consultants but it may be some weeks before the study is completed. Stonehenge Farm has been nominated for inclusion in the Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) as a site for sand and gravel extraction and therefore will be assessed through the SFRA. However, although the preparation of a SFRA is a pre-requirement for proceeding with the MWDF, it is not a pre-requisite for the determination of a planning application. SFRA is not intended or appropriate for assessing detailed proposals at planning application stage; the more detailed FRA that is specific to the particular planning application proposal and the views of the EA are the relevant considerations. A flood risk assessment has been submitted with the application and the EA have considered the relevant issues and raised no objection. Therefore there is no justification for delaying the determination of this application while the SFRA is prepared.
Other Issues
11. There were other issues in addition to flooding that were raised at the May Committee which I address below.
12. Lorry Routeing: The routeing agreement that is proposed would not allow traffic to travel over Newbridge. The bridge is subject to a weight restriction order that means that it could not be used by gravel lorries in any case. Therefore the condition of this bridge is not relevant to the determination of this application.
13. Alternative sites for gravel extraction: It was suggested that there are 57 identified alternative locations for sand and gravel extraction in Oxfordshire. This is referring to the sharp sand and gravel sites included in the Local Development Framework (LDF) consultation documents. These are sites which have been suggested for potential extraction. The LDF is at an early stage and the sites in the consultation document have not been assessed for suitability. Only a small number of them are likely to be accepted into the LDF and this may not be for a number of years. The sites which are eventually selected must still be the subject of a planning application at a later stage. The application for Stonehenge Farm must be determined through consideration against current development plan policies and other material considerations.
14. Need for sand and gravel: Oxfordshire’s landbank for sand and gravel is currently very low. It is 2.5 years rather than the minimum of 7 years that the Government requires. The only sites that were allocated in the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan that have not now been worked are an area of Gill Mill and an area of Sutton Wick. Therefore, there is a strong need for new permissions and the application must be considered under Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (OMWLP) policy PE2, as it is in the main report. Stonehenge Farm is identified in the plan as an area with a resolution to grant planning permission. Although the OMWLP was adopted in 1996 certain policies from it still comprise part of the development plan as they have been ‘saved’ by the Secretary of State. Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 and the regional spatial strategy also form part of the development plan and have been taken into account in the main report at Appendix 1.
15. Judicial Review Progress: It was reported at the last meeting that the Judicial Review against the Environment Agency was at the first protocol stage and the Environment Agency had 14 days in which to respond to the pre-action protocol letter. They have responded to this letter but have not accepted the grounds of challenge. Another letter has been sent to the Environment Agency by Richard Buxton Solicitors requesting further details of why they consider the flood risk assessment and the various mitigation measures to be adequate.
16. Location of nearest residential properties: The location plan that accompanied the committee report did not individually label each of the nine properties listed in paragraphs 13-14 of the report and some were instead labelled as, ‘houses near the site.’ The plan that accompanies this report shows the location of each property.
Further Consultation Response
17. A further consultation response has been received from the Rights of Way team which incorporates comments from the Lower Windrush Valley Project. These comments are set out below:
Rights of Way Response: Would hope that the causeway is installed and maintained to a high standard by the operator. It would of course be preferable for footpaths not to be diverted unless unavoidable. Would like the operator to provide a better user experience on the bridleway to the south of the processing plant in order to mitigate for the continued operation. Would expect that the conveyor crossings are fully enclosed and properly maintained, together with the necessary barrier fencing to ensure the safety of users. Supports the securing of public access benefits through contributions secured through a section 106 agreement.
18. The recommendation includes a legal agreement for contributions to the Lower Windrush Valley and for the long term management of the site. The suggested improvements to public rights of way can be achieved through this. The details for the conveyor crossings will be required to be submitted for the approval of the County Council, prior to the commencement of development.
Conclusions
19. I am satisfied that the issue of flooding has been thoroughly considered by the applicant and the Environment Agency. It does not appear that the Final Report on the 2007 Summer Floods will add anything material (see paragraph 3). I therefore conclude that the application is acceptable in terms of flood risk.
20. None of the other issues raised in the 19 May 2008 meeting change my recommendation from that in the report at Appendix 1.
21. There is therefore no change from the recommendation in the report to the 19 May 2008 Planning and Regulation Committee, which is set out in Appendix 1 and below.
RECOMMENDATION
22. It is RECOMMENDED that:
(a) subject to: (i) a legal agreement, covering (a) long term management of the site and its funding and funding of the wider Lower Windrush Valley Project through contributions per tonne of mineral extracted, including a permissive right of way and bird hide (b) bird management and (c) monitoring of routeing; and (ii) a routeing agreement requiring that traffic to and from the development use only the approved route through Dix Pit, west along the B4449 and north along the A415;
that planning permission for the development outlined in Application 07/0111/P/CM be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Sustainable Development but to include those matters set out in Annex 1 to the report to the 19 May Planning & Regulation Committee; and
(b) if the legal agreement referred to in (i) above is 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 policies M1 or T8 in that:
(i) there would be no satisfactory provisions for the long term management of the restored site;
(ii) that there would be bird strike risk;
(iii) that the development would not be acceptable in transport terms as lorry movements would damage local amenity.
CHRIS COUSINS Head of Sustainable Development Environment & Economy
Background Papers: 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
File 8.5/4102/2 located in Minerals and Waste Development Control Team area at Speedwell House, Speedwell Street, Oxford. Contact Mary Thompson 01865 815901.
July 2008 |