Return to Agenda

Return to PN7

PN7 - ANNEX 1 (24 February 2003)

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

Report by Director of Environmental Services

1. Burford quarry produces limestone used for reconstituted stone block manufacture, agricultural lime and aggregates. Ennstone Breedon Limited have applied for planning permission to extend the Burford Quarry and to implement a new restoration scheme. The proposal is classed as a Schedule 2 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) project as the rate of extraction would exceed 30,000 tonnes per annum, and an environmental statement (ES) has been submitted with the application.

Site Description and Planning History (refer to plan)

2. Burford Quarry lies just outside the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty approximately 0.7 km south of the A40. The site lies within an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV) as designated by the West Oxfordshire Local Plan. Carterton lies approximately 0.7 km to the south. The village of Shilton lies 0.7 km to the south-west. The settlement of Stonelands which consists of several dwellings lies immediately to the north of the quarry. The nearest residence is Stonelands Barn which abuts the northern boundary of the quarry. Stonelands, The Cottage and Homelea also lie to the north of the quarry approximately 140 m, 120 m and 100 m distant respectively. Lingermans and The Laithe lie approximately 350 m to the east of the quarry. The site is bordered to the west by a minor road from Stonelands to Shilton, and beyond that by open agricultural land. A bridleway runs along the eastern boundary of the quarry for approximately 1.1 km to Kilkenny Lane. It then turns westwards towards Shilton. Access to the site is gained from Burford Road.
3. Permission was granted for limestone extraction at Burford Quarry in 1952. Since then, there have been numerous applications to extend the quarry and vary conditions. The hours of working at the quarry are unrestricted throughout the summer. A legal agreement requires that the crusher should not be operated before 7 am and after 6 pm between 1 November and 13 April inclusive.
4. The quarry is currently being worked southwards with limestone being extracted by blasting. This material is transported to the processing plant located within the northern part of the existing quarry. The limestone is crushed and graded and the processed stone stockpiled.
5. Under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995, the current planning permissions are due to be reviewed in July 2002. The review process would involve the applicants producing a comprehensive schedule of planning conditions for the whole site. However, this minerals review would be superseded by the approval of this planning application.
6. The existing quarry covers an area of 16.59 ha. Current permitted reserves are approximately 1.3 million tonnes of limestone. There is currently a restriction on production from the site of 45,000 tonnes per annum. The quarry is currently producing stone which is crushed and milled and used within the reconstituted stone block manufacturing process together with the production of agricultural lime. Based upon current rates of production (approximately 30,000 tonnes per annum) the quarry would be worked for a further 42 years. Once the quarrying has been completed the quarry would be left restored at the excavated level. There is no currently approved restoration plan although one would be required under any Minerals Review approval.

The Proposal

7. The application for an extension would extend the quarry to both the south and west by a further 13.65 ha giving a total application area of 29.14 ha and a total of 2 million tonnes of potential reserve. The extension area is currently agricultural land. The applicants have submitted restoration proposals which include creating new habitats, in support of the Oxfordshire Biodiversity Action Plan, consisting of an extensive area of pasture and wet grassland. They propose a long term management plan for the restored area to be secured by a legal agreement. The majority of the areas of proposed pasture would be managed to create the potential for areas of species rich calcareous grassland (14 hectares). There may be some seasonal wetness in the southern section of the site. Water would be monitored during working to ensure that water levels are not such that a permanent water body would be left in the restored quarry. They also propose to ensure that no water body would be established following final restoration, to be secured by legal agreement, unless agreed with the Ministry of Defence.
8. The western area of the restored quarry would be planted as woodland with a mix of native species. Open scrub land is proposed in the southern section of the site. Hedgerows removed by the quarrying process would be reinstated.
9. The materials required for the restoration would come from within the site; no materials would be imported. The quarry would be restored progressively. Restoration would be completed by 2022.
10. This application seeks to increase output from the quarry from 45,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) to 200,000 tpa, primarily for aggregates. Production of stone for reconstituted stone products would be maintained. The increase in productivity would enable the quarry to be worked out within 20 years.
11. The proposal involves moving the crusher and lime shed away from the northern boundary of the site to a more central location in the quarry.
12. Highway improvements are proposed to be undertaken consisting of passing places on the Burford Road and improvements at the junction of the Burford Road with the A40. These would include vision splays and a ghosted right hand turn to help vehicles turning eastwards onto the A40.
13. The applicants have agreed to enter into a legal agreement securing the revocation of the block works at the end of the life of the quarry. All plant would be removed and the area restored in accordance with the restoration proposals.

Consultation Responses and Third Party Representations

14. Refer to Annex 1.

Comments of the Director of Environmental Services

15. As with any planning application, the application should be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The relevant policies are set out in Annex 2.
16. This application has raised considerable concern in the local community and parishes around the quarry. Many issues have been raised which I will address in turn.

Is there a need for the additional limestone?

17. Reserves of chalk and limestone suitable for aggregate use in Oxfordshire stand at 6.4 million tonnes. This is more than enough to allow aggregate supply at 300,000 tonnes per year, as envisaged in paragraph 2.21 of the MWLP, to continue in accordance with Government guidance and Structure Plan policy M1a which both require a 10 year landbank for limestone and chalk aggregate.
18. Although aggregate production has exceeded 300,000 tonnes pa in recent years, at other times it has been below this level. Landbank provision is meant to take a longer term view based on average production over an extended period. If change is needed, it would be better to address these supply figures in the forthcoming review of the Minerals & Waste Local Plan (MWLP), in light of Government advice on modifications to MPG6 ‘Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England’ which is anticipated shortly.
19. The quarry at Burford is currently limited by planning condition to extraction of 45,000 tonnes of limestone pa. I am concerned that the market may not be able to accommodate the substantial increase of limestone aggregate in Oxfordshire proposed in this application (an additional 155,000 tpa).
20. Gloucestershire limestone quarries producing aggregate are the large Huntsman quarry near Stow-on-the-Wold and Daglingworth quarry north of Cirencester on the A417. The Huntsman quarry is producing a higher quality aggregate than is found in Oxfordshire, some of which is suitable for use as a roadstone. The Daglingworth quarry has a niche market in the local area. Neither of these quarries are in direct competition with the Oxfordshire quarries as the quality of limestone in Gloucestershire tends to be higher. Therefore, they have no effect on meeting any of the 300,000 tpa demand on Oxfordshire limestone quarries.
21. The currently working Oxfordshire quarries of Worsham, Ardley, Burford, Shellingford and Rollright (near Chipping Norton) are capable of producing more than 300,000 tpa and with Whitehills, which is currently dormant and the closest to Burford Quarry, could maintain a production of 300,000 tpa without any increase at Burford. An increase in production at Burford could well cause some of these other quarries to slow production or to close – lengthening the period before restoration.
22. Alternatively, if supply exceeds demand at Burford I am concerned that the rate of production at this quarry would slow down and the promise of a reduced life for the working compared to the current one of 42 years may never be realised.
23. The applicants have submitted information, in confidence, to the County Council seeking to justify the overall demand for the additional material. The information relates to enquiries for the stone. However, even if translated into effective demand, the requirements could well be met from other quarries or from sand and gravel pits.
24. Government guidance promotes the use of recycled and secondary aggregates, although the use of such materials cannot always be a direct substitute for primary won materials. However, the more new reserves that are permitted the less incentive there is to encourage and promote recycling.
25. I would prefer to see the existing quarry at Whitehills worked out and/or restored before this quarry is extended. However, Whitehills is not owned by the same operator and the Council has no control over when Whitehills might commence production. The worst case scenario would be that production could occur at Worsham, Whitehills and Burford at the same time which could have a negative impact in terms of increased traffic flows on the A40, and would almost certainly mean that the quarries took longer to restore.
26. I conclude that there is no need to grant permission in order to meet a need for limestone aggregates. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to OSP policy M1(a) and to MWLP policy SD3, which requires extensions to limestone quarries to be considered against policies in the Structure and Local Plan. It is also contrary to paragraph 2.21 of the MWLP which states ‘planning permission is also likely to be refused if existing permissions provide a 10 year landbank (3 million tonnes).’

Traffic impacts

27. I have received a considerable number of objections from people who are concerned that the increased traffic flows from the quarry would have a detrimental impact on the Burford Road and the A40. I have undertaken the appropriate consultations with the Highways Agency. Although there would be a substantial increase in traffic flows on the Burford Road and the A40 I am satisfied that the increase in traffic flows could be dealt with by the improved design at the junction with the A40 and Burford Road. The proposal then would not be contrary to OSP policy T18 or MWLP policy PE1. The details of the design have been approved for the highways scheme for the north east Carterton development area. The applicants have also submitted details showing passing bays along the Burford Road. The number of HGV movements could be restricted by condition. In the event that planning permission were granted for this proposal the applicants have agreed to enter a legal agreement ensuring that the planning permission would not be implemented until the highway improvements are in place and a routeing agreement signed to ensure all HGVs turn left out of the quarry towards the A40.
28. The Highways Agency have requested that the whole area of the junction should be resurfaced with high skid resistant material. However, this would not be necessary as the junction improvements show a ghost island junction for traffic turning right onto the A40. Thus there would be no stationary traffic in the road.

Impacts upon the water environment

29. Local residents have raised concerns about the impact of the proposal on the local water environment. The quarry has been linked to both the cause of localised flooding and the drop in the water table. I have consulted the Environment Agency on these matters and they are satisfied that the quarry is not causing these problems. However, they require on going groundwater monitoring during the working of the quarry. This monitoring would ensure that the quarry’s activities do not lead to a drop in the water table. The details of the regularity of the monitoring and location of boreholes could be secured by a legal agreement and conditions. Therefore, I conclude that, subject to legal agreements, the proposal would not be contrary to OSP policy EN1 or MWLP policy PE1(i) and PE4.
30. The Environment Agency recommends that restrictions are imposed on the discharge of surface water from the site. The applicant would be required to accommodate excess water and control its release into local watercourses. Dewatering and surface water discharge controls could be secured by condition in the event of planning permission being granted. Such a condition would be in accordance with WODC LP policy CO18. West Oxfordshire District Council are concerned that the plant would be located to a part of the quarry subject to flooding. As the plant is mobile it can be moved to avoid areas liable to flood.
31. Defence Estates (MOD) initially objected to the restoration of the site as it would have resulted in the creation of a lake. The lake could attract and support waterfowl which could increase the risk of bird strikes as the site is under the flight path to Brize Norton Airfield. After consultation with the applicants it has been agreed that on going monitoring of the water levels of the site should occur, which may be necessary beyond the aftercare period. Further restoration proposals may also be necessary to ensure that no water bodies are created unless specifically agreed. Control of water levels and approval of further restoration proposals could be secured by legal agreement to ensure that water bodies are not created beyond the life of the quarry.

Impacts upon the area in terms of noise and dust

32. Local residents have raised concerns about the noise and dust emissions that arise from the quarry. A major cause of noise for the residents of Stonelands Barn is the crusher located on the northern boundary. In the event that planning permission was granted for this proposal the applicants have said that they will move the crusher to a more central location within the quarry. Such a relocation would offer a great advantage to the residents of Stonelands in terms of noise reduction. If permission was refused the applicants have stated that they would not seek to relocate the crusher. It is unclear at this stage whether it is possible to secure the relocation of the crusher through the Review Process required by the Environment Act 1995. In any event, conditions could be attached to any permission granted to ensure that noise levels are not excessive although satisfactory noise levels are much more likely to be attained through plant relocation. Such conditions could be drafted in consultation with the West Oxfordshire Environmental Health Officer (EHO) following Minerals Planning Guidelines Note 11 and the proposal would be in compliance with MWLP policy PE18.
33. The proposed erection of bunds close to the northern boundary and the relocation of stocking to a more central area of the quarry away from that boundary would also reduce the potential for noise intrusion.
34. Dust emissions are also a cause for concern for local residents. Quarrying operations have a potential to generate dust. Dust can only be controlled by adequate control of all on-site operations. A variety of dust suppression methods have been put forward by the applicants such as the use of water bowsers on haul roads and spraying of stockpiles during dry conditions, and the imposition of speed restrictions. These measures would be secured by condition in the event of planning permission being granted and compliance would be achieved with MWLP policy PE18.

Property Prices and Human Rights

35. I have received letters from local people concerned that their property would be devalued in the event that planning permission were granted. However, the possible effects of a planning proposal on property in financial terms is not a planning consideration.
36. I have also received a letter from Shilton Parish Council claiming that permitting this application would result in the violation of local residents’ human rights. Since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in October 2000, there has been increased emphasis on the human rights of those affected by planning decisions. It is inevitable that such decisions can impinge on human rights, including the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (First Protocol, Article 1). However, these rights are not absolute. They are qualified by the recognition that the State (in this case in the guise of the local planning authority) has a right to act in accordance with the law and (in broad terms) in the wider public interest. The human rights of individuals may, for example, be sufficiently protected by the imposition of conditions on a planning permission. Also, the Human Rights Act 1998 protects the rights of ‘victims’ of unlawful interference with human rights; a representative organisation such as the Parish Council would not normally be a ‘victim’ unless it was itself directly affected. I do not consider that the application would violate the human rights of residents of the Shilton community as the impacts of the quarry in terms of noise, dust and nuisance can be controlled by condition.

Archaeology

37. An archaeological field evaluation has been completed at the site and the report lodged with the Oxfordshire Sites and Monuments record in accordance with MWLP policy PE8. Medieval pottery was recovered during the evaluation but none came from a recognisable archaeological context. Evidence of ridge and furrow was also observed. However, none of these findings are of such importance as to preclude the principle of mineral extraction.

Landscape and visual impact on the amenities of the surrounding area

38. Letters of objection have raised concern about the impact of this proposal upon the amenities of this local area and the surrounding settlements. I do not consider that the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the long term development of the area as the restoration proposals provide for a much better scheme for the area than the current restoration programme and is in accordance with MWLP policy PE13. The bridleway should not be affected by the extension as long as suitable signage is provided for bridleway users at the site access point. This mitigation could be secured by condition.
39. I do not consider that the setting of Shilton Conservation Area would be unduly affected by the proposal. A thorough landscape and visual impact assessment has been submitted as part of the Environmental Impact Statement. This assessment considered the visibility of the site from the villages of Shilton and Carterton. No views of the site were obtained from this direction due to the effect of distance and the absence of quarry plant of any significant height within the predominantly flat landscape.
40. The visual intrusion from the quarry is greatest from Burford Road and Shilton Road. It is proposed to reduce the visual impact by relocating the primary crusher to the centre of the quarry. Further mitigation of the potential visual impacts from the existing quarry and the proposed extension area could involve retaining all perimeter hedges with additional planting of low screening mounds (soil bunds) on key boundaries and removal of the northern stocking area to a more southerly position. In order to avoid visual intrusion from the soil mounds in the flat landscape they would be placed on the quarry side of existing hedges, not exceed 3m in height and be grass seeded and mown to maintain a tidy appearance. A height restriction would be placed on stockpiles. All those mitigation measures could be secured by condition and would satisfy the requirements of MWLP policy PE18.

Hours of Operation

41. Concern has been raised by consultees that the quarry is working on a Sunday. In the event that planning permission was granted for this proposal conditions would be attached in line with hours of working as set out in the Minerals & Waste Local Plan Code of Practice. Sunday working would not be permitted. The blockworks is independent of the quarry operation and it has caused intrusive noise at unsocial hours. The applicant is willing for all activities within the quarry boundary, including the blockworks, to be limited to the standard hours of working in the Code of Practice by a legal agreement.

Inadequate Consultation

42. A comment has been received stating that both the applicant and the County Council have failed to undertake adequate consultations. The applicant is not obliged to undertake pre-application consultations although was encouraged to do so. Oxfordshire County Council certainly advertised this application in the appropriate way. In addition, since this application was submitted the applicants have established a local liaison meeting for residents living adjacent to the quarry to raise their concerns. A public exhibition was held relating to the proposal at Warwick Hall, Burford and local residents and parish councils were invited to discuss the proposals.

Other objections to the proposal

43. Carterton Town Council is concerned that waste could be brought into the site for restoration. The proposal does not make provision for waste disposal and any permission granted would have a condition attached to ensure that no waste was deposited at the site without the benefit of planning permission.
44. Local residents and local parishes are concerned that the expansion of the quarry combined with the development of NE Carterton could lead to a cumulative impact in terms of traffic which would result in a loss of amenity and quality of the environment. I acknowledge that any development in this relatively underdeveloped part of the county does have an impact. However, as lorry traffic accessing the quarry would only use the Burford Road between the quarry and the A40 it would seem the cumulative traffic impact is not such that it would justify refusing this application.
45. I have received a response concerned about the proposal having an adverse effect upon wildlife in the area. I acknowledge that habitats would be disturbed during the quarrying process. However, in the event of planning permission being granted conditions could be attached to the permission to ensure hedgerows would not be removed during the bird nesting season in line with OSP policy EN5. English Nature has been consulted on this application and has not raised any objections to this application on grounds of the impact it may have upon local wildlife. In any event the restoration proposals for the quarry are such that they should improve long-term habitats for the development of both flora and fauna in accordance with OSP policy EN6. The applicant has also agreed to long-term maintenance of the restored quarry to be achieved by legal agreement.

Blasting

46. Blasting occurs at the quarry which has led to concerns from local residents that vibrations from the blasts are damaging properties. Any blasting that does occur could be controlled, in terms of size and timing by condition. Ennstone Breedon have agreed to undertake some monitoring of vibration at properties during blasts. This requirement could be secured by a legal agreement in the event that planning permission is granted. The development would, therefore, satisfy OSP policy PE18 in that the effects of blasting could be controlled by agreement.

Conclusion

47. I consider that the arguments in favour and against this proposal are finely balanced. On the one hand, the proposal would increase the amount of limestone aggregate available on the open market by 155,000 tonnes per annum. At present the Oxfordshire landbank is such that it is not necessary to release this additional material, and to do so would be contrary to both parts of the development plan relating to landbanks.
48. On the other hand, the application offers some long-term environmental benefits. These include the relocation of the crusher, stockpiling and lime shed and bunding along the northern boundary, the revocation of the blockwork permission and the long term management of the site to a scheme which would promote the biodiversity of the area.
49. On balance, I consider that the benefits outweigh the objections on grounds of need. Other planning objections can be overcome by conditions and/or a legal agreement.
50. I am concerned that the determination of this application has already taken longer than the Government’s target of 16 weeks for one supported by an environmental statement. If the Committee resolve to approve this application further time will be required to conclude legal agreements. I consider that a 6-month deadline should be set for concluding these agreements. If the agreements are not concluded within this period, I consider that the application should be refused on the following grounds: (i) contrary to OSP policy M1, MWLP policy SD3 and MWLP paragraph 2.21 in that there is no need for additional reserves of limestone aggregate; (ii) contrary to OSP policy T18 and MWLP policy PE1 in that the impact of generated traffic, the highway access and safety to highway users are not acceptable and material harm would be caused to the environment; (iii) contrary to OSP policy EN11 and MWLP policies PE1 and PE4 in that the water environment is not adequately protected nor are water supplies and resources and that groundwater levels would be adversely affected; (iv) unacceptable as it would cause risk of bird strike hazard for operations at Brize Norton Airfield; (v) contrary to MWLP policy PE18 in that a planning obligation has not been achieved to prevent the possibility of vibration damage to nearby properties from blasting activities; (vi) contrary to MWLP policy PE13 in that satisfactory proposals for securing restoration and afteruse in the long-term have not been achieved.
51. As the application is contrary to policies OSP M1, MWLP SD3 and paragraph 2.21 of the MWLP, with respect to need, any approval should be subject to completion of departure procedures to allow the Secretary of State the opportunity for calling in the application for his own determination.

Environmental Implications

52. These are outlined in the report.

Financial and Staff Implications

53. There are no financial or staff implications other than those that would arise if the applicant appealed to the Secretary of State against any refusal of planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION

54. It is RECOMMENDED that application W2001/1592 be advertised as a departure from the development plan and subject to the Secretary of State confirming that he does not intend to call in the application for his own determination, planning permission be granted for the proposed development subject to:-

1. prior completion of appropriate legal agreements to the satisfaction of the Director of Environmental Services and Solicitor to the Council to secure:

1. funding of long term maintenance of the restored quarry;
2. monitoring of water levels in the quarry and restored area to ensure that no water bodies are created;
3. necessary and reasonable highway improvements which include the following:

1. the implementation of the new junction design as approved in applications W97/0843 and W98/1392 for the North East Carterton development;
2. access arrangements and proposed passing bays along Burford Road.

4. On going monitoring of blasting at the following properties: Lingermans and The Laithe.
5. Removal of the Blockworks at the end of extraction;
6. Extension of standard hours of operation to all activities within the quarry.

2. conditions to be determined by the Director of Environmental Services to include:

1. end date of 2020;
2. removal of all buildings and structures and restoration by 2022;
3. complete compliance with plans and particulars;
4. standard working hours;
5. noise limits and controls;
6. controls of reversing bleepers;
7. dust prevention measures;
8. blasting controls;
9. aftercare details;
10. no mud on the public highway;
11. limitation on number of HGV movements per day;
12. monitoring and control of surface water discharge and dewatering within the site;
13. no hedgerows to be removed during bird nesting season;
14. erection of bunds at quarry margins;
15. relocation of plant and stockpiles to the centre of the quarry;
16. limiting height of stockpiles to 3 metres;
17. submission of restoration plan; and
18. warning signing of bridleway.

DAVID YOUNG
Director of Environmental Services

Background papers: Files ‘Burford Quarry – Integrated working and restoration scheme for limestone extraction’ 8.5/2709/2 pts 1 and 2, Land Use Division, Environmental Services, Speedwell House, Oxford

Contact Officer: Amanda Ford, tel: Oxford 815884

4 July 2002

Return to TOP