Return to Agenda

Return to PN7- Annex 1

PN7 - ANNEX 1 (24 February 2003) - Annex 1
ANNEX 1 (to the July 2002 report)

COPY

PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE –
29 JULY 2002

APPLICATION FOR INTEGRATED WORKING AND RESTORATION SCHEME FOR LIMESTONE EXTRACTION FOR AGGREGATE PRODUCTION AND RECONSTITUTED STONE PRODUCTS BY ENNSTONE BREEDON LTD AT BURFORD QUARRY (FORMERLY BECKSTONES)
APPLICATION NO W2001/1592

Consultation Responses and Third Party Representations

Strongly object to the application;

Applicants have not demonstrated that there is a need to extend the area of the quarry or the speed at which quarrying takes place;

Negative impact on the area as a result of increased noise, dust, nuisance and traffic movements, the quarrying is operating on Sundays;

Issues of flooding and de-watering don’t appear to have been addressed adequately;

The development will impact upon rural amenity and use of the adjacent right of way network;

Inadequate consultation has occurred by both the applicants and by the County Council;

There would be a significant increase in traffic turning onto the A40 and using rural roads;

The archaeological importance of the site has not been fully investigated; and

The application proposes the relocation of plant and materials to that part of the site which is subject to flooding.

Environment Agency

The developer will be required to accommodate excess water and control its release into local watercourses, whether directly or by means of the local surface water sewerage system.

Dewatering the proposed excavation in winter may lower groundwater levels locally and may derogate nearby water sources. This needs to be assessed.

Letter to applicant dated 5 June 2002.

Groundwater monitoring should continue as recharge was only at average levels this winter (2001/02) and was not unusually high. All water levels data should be sent to the Environment Agency.

Highways Agency

Concerned about the application as it will result in additional turning movements for heavy goods vehicles at the A40/Burford Road junction which will be prejudicial to the free flow and safety of traffic on the trunk road unless improvements to the junction are carried out. The eastbound lay-by and the information board should be replaced. The whole area of the junction should be resurfaced with high skid resistant material.

No comments

Oxfordshire County Council – Cultural Services/Archaeology

No objection.

Rights of Way

Suitable provision and notices should be provided for bridleway users at the site access point.

Carterton Town Council

The Council is concerned that the proposal would result in a four-fold increase in traffic output from the quarry. It is also concerned that waste would be brought to the site which could have an adverse impact on the water boreholes used by residents in Stonelands.

The Council is concerned that the pumping out of water from the quarry will cause flooding in Brize Norton particularly along Kilkenny Lane and the lower part of the recreation area. Concerned about the increase in traffic along Burford Road. All HGV’s should use the A40 and not turn right along the Burford Road towards Brize.

Shilton Parish Council

Strongly object to the application and if approved would be a serious infringement on the human rights of the Shilton community.

There is no need for the extra limestone;

If approved it would be a polluting and intrusive development into greenfields and would be in close proximity to the Shilton conservation area which is in an area of High Landscape Value. It would affect the quality of amenities of Shilton residents and would be detrimental to both Shilton village and the hamlet of Stonelands. In determining this planning application the County Council should take account of this historical dimension of the landscape. The preserving and enhancing of the conservation area should be considered a material consideration. The approval of the application would conflict with polices BE4 and BE5 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan

The proposal will lead to conflicts between the new residential development at north-east Carterton;

The A40 is unable to cope with the additional traffic and there will be additional traffic on rural roads from the north-east Carterton housing developments.

The stockpiles of soils and overburden will cause a visual intrusion.

The proposal will have an adverse effect on wildlife.

Shilton Conservation Fund

Object to the application:

If approved would be a violation of local residents’ human rights;

It would intrude upon the Shilton conservation area and this area of High Landscape Value

It would affect the amenities of local residents by causing pollution, additional traffic, noise and dust;

The quarry has had a detrimental impact upon the hydrology of the area. The issue of flooding has not been properly addressed in the application.

Stockpiles of material will cause a visual intrusion.

The proposal will cause a major increase in traffic on rural roads and the already congested A40.

It will have a negative impact upon archaeology.

Ennstone Building Products claim they have consulted widely which is not the case.

Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs

The agricultural potential of the restored site is likely to be limited.

Defence Estates (MOD)

Letter dated 22 February 2002.

Objects to the wet restoration element of the plan as it would be capable of attracting and supporting waterfowl which could increase the risk of bird strike.

Letter dated 27 June 2002.

No objection to the proposal to redesign the restoration scheme to review the position on an ongoing basis to the effect that the final restoration design does not include water bodies unless specifically agreed. A legal agreement should be drafted to ensure that on going monitoring of water levels occurs.

Third Party Representations

Reasons for objections:

B: The quarry causes dust and noise. Noise from reversing bleepers is a cause for concern.

E: Devalues property

G: There is no need for the additional limestone.

H: Inadequate public consultation.

Resident of Lingermans

Objects on the following grounds: A, B,C,D, E,F,G

Resident of The Laithe

Concerned about the application on the following grounds:A,F

Resident of Homelea, Stonelands

Objects on the following grounds:B,C,D,F

Resident of Stonelands Barn

Concerned about the application on the following grounds: B,C,D,F,

Recognises that the application offers improvements with the relocation of the crushing machine and lime storage sheds and reasonable working hours.

Resident of April House, Shilton

Concerned about the application on the following grounds:B, C,D,F

Resident of Shilton Manor

Objects to the application on the following grounds:A,B,C,D,F,G

Resident of The Cottage, Stonelands,Shilton

Objects to the application on the following grounds:B,C,D,F,G

In addition the operators do not do what they say, particularly with regard to the creation of bunds to protect properties in Stonelands.

1. the development was contrary to Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan policy SD3, and the provision of paragraph 2.21 and Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2011 policy M1 in that there was no need for the additional limestone resources as a landbank of permitted reserves had been maintained throughout the plan period, in line with Government guidance;
2. the development was contrary to Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2011 policy M7 in that land would not be progressively restored within a reasonable time scale at Burford Quarry and its neighbouring quarries;
3. the development was contrary to Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2011 policy M4 in that the use of recycled products as substitutes for locally dug materials would not be encouraged;
4. the development was contrary to West Oxfordshire Local Plan policy CO7 in that it would have an adverse impact on the landscape in an area of high landscape value.

Return to TOP