Meeting documents

Return to Agenda

Return to PN6

ITEM PN6 - ANNEX 3

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

EXTRACT FROM PREVIOUS COMMITTEE REPORT – 20 MAY 2002

PREVIOUS COMMENTS OF DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ON PO1/N0417/CM

28. Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 says that an application for planning permission shall be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. My view is that the application is not in accordance with the development plan. It has been advertised as a departure.
29. A substantial amount of waste material has been deposited on the site. Despite the applicants’ claim that this only amounts to 80,000 m³, calculations based on the County Council’s recent survey of the site show that it amounts to about 160,000 m³. Even these figures are likely to be quite an underestimate, because it has transpired that there was significant additional cut of land levels east of the driving range above and around the lake area in association with the clay extraction than approved (WAT9 plan referred to by Waterstock Parish). Consequently an accurate calculation for the fill in this area cannot be made, because the levels of this land just prior to the tipping cannot be ascertained.
30. In my view the tipping was also not done for the purposes of creating a golf course and to improve drainage of the site as claimed, but was indiscriminate. The works were not carried out in accordance with any preconceived plan (as also noted by the enforcement inquiry inspector). Much of the material tipped was no better, often having worse physical characteristics than the existing soil with a high clay content that would actually impede drainage. The operations were therefore purely a waste disposal exercise. This conclusion can be reached quite apart from considering any benefit that accrued to the golf course owners from being paid to deposit waste on their land.
31. Although the proposals are to move this waste around showing how a nine hole course could be laid out on it, I still consider that the principle purpose of the application is to dispose of waste. The applicants do not demonstrate that there would be any method to the placement of materials, for example that hardcore type material would be placed under the fairways for drainage purposes, or where the imported clay materials (mainly from the MSA site) would be placed to avoid impeding drainage.
32. The proposal does not comply with Structure Plan waste disposal policies WD4 and WD5. The waste is not being used to assist the restoration of a mineral working and nor would the landraising improve the agricultural quality of the land. The former mineral working within the site was permitted expressly to create a lake for irrigation purposes, not to be infilled. That planning permission also provided for the lake margins to be restored using the clay overburden, which was, however, unfortunately not stockpiled and is now indiscernible from the remainder of the waste. Given the poorer physical characteristics of the imported material it is possible that the agricultural quality of the land has actually been reduced by the waste disposal.
33. The scale of landraising, even if remodelled, completely alters the character of the land. I agree with South Oxfordshire District Council that this is a substantial engineered structure which is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I consider that the development is detrimental to the openness and contrary to the purposes of the Green Belt of preserving the special character and landscape setting of Oxford and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Consequently there is a fundamental conflict with Structure Plan policy G4, Minerals and Waste Local Plan policy W7 g) and South Oxfordshire Local Plan policy GB3.
34. I further agree with the District Council and the views of other consultees that the proposed landform is not sympathetic to the local landscape character and would have an adverse impact on the Area of High Landscape Value and open countryside, contrary to Structure Plan policies G5 and EN4, Minerals and Waste Local Plan policy W7 f) and South Oxfordshire Local Plan policies G1, C1, C3, C6 and R5.
35. The proposed bund alongside the driving range, despite being shown as lowered and changed in shape, remains a large unnatural feature. Furthermore, because land levels would be raised to create this bund, the already significant drop between the edge of the driving range and the lake would be made even steeper. Consequently in order to enable a fairway to be constructed on this part of the site as proposed, significant raising of land levels and filling in of part of the lake is required to make a shallow enough slope to play golf on. The same applies to the land in the southwestern part of the site, where the fall between the driving range and edge of the 18-hole course would be exaggerated by the bund proposal. In order to construct suitable fairway gradients here, it has been estimated that the land is shown to be raised by between 2.0 to 3.5 metres to create a convex shape, where land levels were previously more concave. This would have the added disadvantage of creating an unnatural ridge rather than smooth transition into the adjoining 18-hole course.
36. The incorporation of a bund alongside the driving range in the scheme stems from the enforcement decision (see earlier paragraph 8). The Inspector’s requirement, although admittedly an artificial feature, was nevertheless for a small structure, some 2-2.5 metres high and maximum 4.5 metres wide in the context of otherwise original land levels. The current proposal is a very different proposition at about the same height, but between 25 and 70 metres wide and associated with substantial raising of land levels, creating a distorted unnatural landform over a wide area.
37. Another purpose pleaded by the applicants for the bund is that without it the driving range structure would be visually exposed and the problems with the driving range lights would be exacerbated. I fail to see how the lighting problem would be exacerbated by the lack of a bund, because there is currently no bund alongside the driving range. Furthermore as Waterstock Parish Meeting (on behalf of those most affected by the light pollution from the driving range lights) have confirmed, they do not think that the proposed bund would solve their problem. As they say, it would be an excessive measure which would not conceal the lights, and that if the Inspector’s bund had been built and planted as required in 1997, that that would have been more likely to have had the desired effect. The applicants were asked to submit evidence to demonstrate how the bund would reduce the lighting problems, but have not done so.
38. Prior to the submission of the application there was considerable discussion with the applicants about the eastern half of the site, which is currently the most heavily mounded area. Where land levels used to rise up gradually from Waterstock Lane towards the driving range there is now a plateau of waste. I considered that in this area particularly it was vitally important that any landform should be as close as possible to original contours. In response to submissions by the applicants, as a compromise, I suggested that any submission should show a maximum average of one metre depth of the imported fill material being retained to create the golf course across the area to the east of the lake. This was to include any mounding and golf course features. Consequently the waste deposit would in some places be more than one metre depth and in other places much less or even amount to none at all.
39. The originally submitted scheme was measured and was found to be just within the parameters of using up to a metre of material. The current scheme, however, shows the levels to be pushed up again on this area. I consider that the scheme as previously submitted was already at the limits of what might be acceptable for the eastern part of the course. It has now been exceeded. The effect would be for land levels to bank up relatively steeply from Waterstock Lane in comparison with the original gradual almost imperceptible rise. Furthermore as Waterstock Parish Meeting have pointed out it is not clear from the submitted documents what is precisely proposed and it could be interpreted that the submission of the Donald Steel document means that further raising is proposed to create tees and greens and surrounds. The combined effect on an already excessively raised landscape would be unacceptable. In addition, as with the area to the south west of the lake the proposed contours show an abrupt transition into the 18-hole course, which causes an unacceptable ridge like feature incompatible with this landscape.
40. There is a stark contrast between what is proposed and the character of the existing 18-hole course. This is inconsistent with the applicants’ original philosophy for construction of their golf course, which I quote: "to effect minimum change upon the natural configuration of the landscape. … Minor grading only is proposed and includes +/- 0.5 m movement to long running levels in respect to fairways, and none of the tees, greens or bunkers, involving cutting or fill above 1.25m." The British tradition of golf design of "laying the golf course gently on the existing landscape" as embodied in the Countryside Commission Advice "Golf Courses in the Countryside", says that golf course development should be sensitively related to landscape resources and there should be greater restraint in areas statutorily designated for their landscape. The proposal does not reflect this advice nor the County Council’s own advice to the applicants of May and October 1999 (see earlier paragraph 9). The result is that the scheme does not respect the sensitive nature of this piece of countryside that is designated high landscape value and comprises an important part of the setting to Waterstock village.
41. In addition there are problems with the proposed configuration of the lake in that it would not in my view be able to provide the quantity of water required for irrigation purposes. The proposal is therefore contrary to Structure Plan policy EN13, which only allows development where adequate water resources exist.
42. I calculate the irrigation requirements as follows:

3. consequently to irrigate the 18 hole course about a further 1,800 m³ of water is required, but for a 27 hole course the shortfall would be about 8,400 m³.

1. the size of the lake is about 0.7 hectare or 7,000 m²;
2. based on this surface area, evaporation loss from the lake would probably be about 5,000 m³ per year (as per the irrigation consultant’s advice);
3. the water requirement for 27 holes could be just met therefore by entirely draining the lake, ie 13500 m³ (water storage capacity) – 5000 m³ (evaporation loss) = 8,500 m³;
4. the resultant exposed clay banks during summer months would, however, create further detrimental landscape impact and have an unacceptable effect on amenity so close to a public footpath.

44. In my view the lake form has, however, been designed as an amenity feature not as a reservoir. Whilst the applicants’ agent has provided assurances that there would be no tipping below the water line, this is not what the proposed contour plan shows. Such infilling would be appropriate for creating shallow edges to an amenity lake but not ideal for a reservoir, because the potential to provide water for irrigation purposes would be reduced further. This design is inconsistent with the advice of the Dr JW Eaton report submitted. (Although in any event I am uncertain as to the relevance of this document which relates to an entirely different theoretical project for providing 68,000 m³ of water.) The proposals also show aquatic vegetation being planted around the edges of the lake. I have been advised that aquatic vegetation does not survive if draw down of the lake is more than about one metre. Consequently for the lake to have amenity value and maintain the aquatic vegetation as designed, it would be able to provide no more than about 2,000 m³ of water. The proposed surface area of about 7,000 m² with a draw down of one metre gives approximately 7000m³, but evaporation losses of 5,000 m³ reduce this to 2,000 m³.
45. Structure Plan policy R4 and South Oxfordshire Local Plan policy R7 seek to protect and improve the public rights of way network. The various submissions in relation to this planning application have included revisions of the course layout to take account of footpath 12. It would appear, however, that the latest version still does not show the footpath on its proper line. This means there is a problem with the proposed layout in terms of safety margins to hole 4 and because of the floodplain and buffer required to the river it would appear unlikely that the tee can be moved and the problem overcome. Consequently the proposal is contrary to the above planning policies and the County Council’s adopted policy on Public Rights of Way and Golf Courses.
46. The point raised by Machin Bate Associates about the legal implications of the route not being at its original level was considered in preparation for the enforcement inquiry. The view was taken that provided that the route could be walked and given that the raising had taken place there was no obstruction of the right of way against which action could reasonably be taken.
47. There has been some criticism by consultees of the AEA report on the risk from arsenic contamination at the site. However, both the Environment Agency and environmental health officer are satisfied that there is not sufficient risk to justify removal of the waste on that basis alone. The environmental health officer’s comments regarding requirement of a capping layer were clarified and it has been confirmed that the proposed cover of top soil would suffice. Although no additional samples were taken, those used were the ones done for the County Council and Environment Agency.
48. The occupant of Waterstock Mill’s concern about the risks from arsenic contamination through eating produce grown in his garden, which is watered from the application site, has been taken further. AEA has stated that whilst they did not consider in their report the pathway for uptake of arsenic through consumption of vegetables, it is very unlikely that there would be any health risk. The occupant has been advised of the position.
49. I do not agree with the applicants that avoidance of the trips required in removal of the material is sufficient justification for overcoming the green belt objection and for allowing the landscape harm that would result from retention of the material. The site has good access directly onto the main road network. Furthermore the local residents would rather have clearance of the site with the associated traffic movements, because they consider that this would cause less nuisance than the proposed moving around of the waste on site and any nuisance is outweighed by the need to avoid the longer term environmental damage. There is the added benefit that any risk of danger from toxicity in the material is also dispelled.
50. The comments from South Oxfordshire District Council raise the issue of compliance with South Oxfordshire Local Plan policy G7. There has been considerable concern about the light pollution caused by the driving range lights. I agree that it would not be appropriate to allow the expansion of this golf course without the question of the problems with the driving range lights having been satisfactorily addressed. This point was raised as a requirement for any successful planning application in initial discussions with the applicants’ agent in May 1999. No attempt has been made by the applicants (other than the ineffective bund proposal) to comply with this policy.
51. On a final point the playability of the proposed course layout has been independently assessed as suggested by various consultees. Bob Stewart of the English Golf Union has provided a report, which states that the layout is appropriate for the proposed users. He considers that the short nature of the holes means that the gradients and playing across water would not present a problem. Furthermore he does not believe that any water logging of the 4^th hole would affect the viability of the remaining holes, because access from the 3^rd green to the 5^th tee would be easily available.
52. Nevertheless for all the various reasons given the proposal amounts to an unacceptable form of development. As a consequence it would also not comply with general Structure Plan policies G1, G2 and EN1, which seek to protect the environment, character and natural resources of the County and to resist development which would damage the environment. No very special circumstances are offered by the applicants or are apparent which would justify an exception to the fundamental conflict with Green Belt policy and consequently the application should be refused planning permission.
53. As a consequence compliance with the enforcement notices would then need to be pursued, together with the subsequent removal of the haul road and restoration of the lake area under the terms of the clay extraction permission. Time for compliance with the enforcement notice, which allowed 30 weeks to remove the waste has now expired and in principle compliance with the notice could be pursued immediately. However, the County Council has to take a reasonable approach and consequently I would suggest that the same period for compliance is now allowed from the committee date. However, if after 12 weeks there is no serious attempt to clear the waste from the site, then prosecution proceedings for non-compliance with the notice should be started.
    
    Return to TOP