Agenda item

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN6)

 

This application is for the extraction of approximately 1.86 million tonnes of sand and gravel from an area adjacent to existing workings at Caversham Quarry near Sonning Eye in South Oxfordshire. The land would be restored to agriculture and nature conservation using approximately 860,000 cubic metres of imported inert waste material. It is proposed that the extraction would take 15 years and the completion of the restoration works would take a further 2 years.   The application is being reported to this Committee as objections have been received to the proposal from local residents and Parish Councils. The main areas of concern are flooding and traffic. However, objections have also been received on grounds of nuisance and loss of amenity, impact on landscape, historic environment and wildlife, use of inert waste and the continuation of quarrying activity in this area.

 

The report describes why the proposals have been put forward and outlines the objections and other responses to the application.  Relevant planning policies are included along with the comments and recommendation of the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) on the proposal.

 

The proposed development would be beneficial in terms of contributing towards the supply of sharp sand and gravel and it is considered that the concerns raised on issues including flood risk, transport, protection of amenity, restoration, landscape and archaeology can be adequately addressed through planning condition. There would be no increase in flood risk as a result of this development.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that:

 

(a)         the Planning and Regulation Committee indicates support for application no. MW.0158/11;

 

(b)  resolves that the application be forwarded to the Secretary of Stateto provide the opportunity for the application to be called in for his own determination, should he consider that to be necessary in view of the policy issue raised;

 

(c)         that in the event of the Secretary of State not intervening the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) be authorised to approve application no. MW.0158/11 subject to the applicant first entering into a Section 106 legal agreement to cover the funding and implementation of a 20 year long term management of the restored site and subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director (Strategy and infrastructure Planning) but in accordance with those set out below:

 

 

Heads of Conditions

1.            Complete accordance with plans

2.            Commencement within 3 years

3.            End date for extraction (12 years)

4.            End date for restoration completion (2 years from completion of mineral extraction)

5.            5 year aftercare period

6.            Submission of an aftercare plan including agricultural drainage

7.            Standard working hours

8.            Restriction of permitted development rights

9.            New access to be provided in accordance with plans to be approved

10.       Provision of vision splays on new access

11.       No export of mineral from new access

12.       Lorry sheeting

13.       No deposit of mud or dust on the highway

14.       Development in accordance with approved dust suppression measures

15.       Development to take place in accordance with approved noise report

16.       Noise monitoring

17.       Noise limits

18.       White noise on reversing bleepers

19.       No external lighting, other than in accordance with an approved scheme

20.       No vegetation clearance during bird nesting season

21.       Retention and maintenance of trees and vegetation shown as retained on approved plan

22.       Scheme for protection of retained trees and hedgerows

23.       Soil protection conditions

24.       Signage on site to ensure HGV drivers are aware of permitted route

25.       Display of approved plans in site office

26.       Restriction on materials that can be used for backfill

27.       16 metre fenced standoff from Berry Brook

28.       Submission of surface water drainage scheme for each phase of extraction

29.       Submission of a surface water drainage scheme for each phase of restoration

30.       Submission of scheme to show that there shall be no surface water drainage to highway

31.       Submission of details of flood compensation for bunds

32.       Development in accordance with flood risk assessment

33.       Submission of landscape and ecological management plan

34.       Discharges to Berry Brook to be upstream of the active phase

35.       Groundwater monitoring locations around the perimeter prior to commencement of development

36.       Groundwater monitoring, including in relation to archaeology

37.       Details of conveyor crossing over Spring Lane and public rights of way

38.       Archaeological monitoring in accordance with written scheme of investigation

39.       Works to take place in accordance with ecological mitigation scheme

40.       Weed control scheme

41.       Submission of a detailed restoration scheme

42.       Development to be carried out in accordance with mitigation and enhancement scheme in ES

43.       Local liaison committee

44.       Requirement for additional otter surveys prior to each extraction phase

45.       Submission of details of screening of rights of way

46.       Submission of a flood management plan including details of safe access and escape routes

 

(d)         the Deputy Directorfor Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning)being authorised to refuse the application if the legal agreement referred to in (iii) above is not completed within 10 weeks of the date of the Secretary of State confirming that he does not wish to call the application in for his own determination on the grounds that it would not comply with OMWLP policy PE13 and the guidance set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF (in that there would not be satisfactory provisions for the long term management of the restored site).

 

 

The Committee considered (PN6) an application to extract approximately 1.86 million tonnes of sand and gravel from an area adjacent to existing workings at Caversham Quarry and part restoration to agriculture and nature conservation using imported inert waste material.

 

Paul Brown spoke as a resident of 37 years and challenged the presentation to the Committee on the grounds that it had not adequately shown the proximity of the site to Sonning Eye.  He objected to the infill restoration proposals which could exacerbate current flooding problems and tabled a graph which indicated how many additional properties could be affected by a small rise in water levels.  This was a critically sensitive area at great risk.  Flooding occurred through the sub strata not river flow and the results could be catastrophic if modelling proved to be incorrect.

 

Mr Brown then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Bartholomew – he confirmed he was speaking on behalf of residents of Sonning Eye whose objections were to the backfilling element and that residents were happy with the extraction proposals.

 

Councillor Tanner – he confirmed that as water flowed through the sub strata the backfilling element was critical. Residents’ concerns centred on removal of a large chunk of material with a certain permeability level and replacement with material which would not have the same permeability levels.

 

Ian Brazier set out his credentials in hydrology and spoke as a consultant on behalf of local residents of Sonning Eye, which  was an acutely sensitive area.  He had had exhaustive discussions with the Environment Agency and Oxfordshire County Council but the applicants had been unable to provide the information requested.  The National Planning Policy Framework was clear regarding development in high flood risk areas and the flood risk assessment in this case had been inadequate and fudged the main issues. There were unresolved matters and despite statements that there would be no loss of flood plain residents remained convinced that there would be increased risk of flooding due to backfill displacing flood water and reducing the ability for water to soak away.  All development should pass a sequential test and areas of flood plain 3 were the most sensitive.  The Atkins report had showed 5 alternative sites which had been ignored.  The landfill aspect was optional but it seemed clear that that was being pursued for purely commercial reasons.

 

Mr Brazier responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Greene – he confirmed residents would have been happier with an application which had not included proposals for backfill.

 

Councillor Bartholomew – he confirmed he was a qualified chartered surveyor.

 

Councillor Cherry – he was 100% certain that backfilling would result in an increased risk of flooding. Backfill would by its very nature be less permeable than the extracted material and he compared the end result to placing a brick in bucket.

 

David Woodward spoke for the Parish Council. Local opposition had exposed serious defects and dangers in this application. That had resulted in the undertaking of a sequential test to evaluate the site.  The site had failed that test and yet all alternative sites appeared unsuitable.  He suggested that alternative sites warranted further investigation and not dismissed on grounds of proximity to housing as that also applied to the application site. He questioned the need for the extracted material bearing in mind doubts over the accuracy of the 7 year landbank, reducing demand for material, proximity of the site to residential areas, the presumption against development in the flood plain and whether this application should be considered in the absence of an agreed minerals strategy.  Landfill could be diverted to more needy sites. Local residents could not accept the landfill element and yet a recommendation had been tabled to approve that in the face of all the information and concern expressed.  A decision needed to be defensible and yet there were good reasons to reject it and he urged the Committee to do that.

 

Mr Woodward responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Tanner – he confirmed local residents would be happier if left to water based restoration offering more protection from flooding.

 

Councillor Lilly – alternative sites were detailed in the Atkins report offering less risk from flooding to local residential areas.

 

Councillor Handley – he considered the status quo as regards river flow rate would more chance of being maintained if no backfill was deposited.

 

Councillor David Nimmo-Smith supported Henley Town Council’s comments with regard to traffic movements which would result from importation of material to the site.  Great efforts had been and were being made to improve air quality in Henley and that would be seriously affected by any increase in through traffic through the town.

 

Mike Pendock for the applicants identified this site as one which produced high quality flint gravel. No other suitable sites existed in this area.  The Company had engaged with the local community throughout the process and had incorporated where possible many of their concerns and they would continue to do that.  Detailed flood modelling had confirmed there would be no adverse effect on current levels and incidents of flooding and with regard to traffic the company had been encouraged to find a site which had access to the primary road network.  He reassured the Committee the site would be operated to the highest standard with suitable monitoring and referred to the  unique opportunity which the application presented to return best agricultural land to its original form and for some restoration to wetlands area.

 

Karen Dingley for the applicants confirmed that enhanced modelling had been carried out in strict accordance with best practice and verified accordingly. Analysis had shown some changes to flooding patterns and changes had been made to address that such as provision of a lagoon as part of the restoration which would provide additional storage for water. It was correct that inert backfill would be less porous than extracted material but she stated conclusively that extraction would not adversely affect the current situation with regard to flooding.

 

Adrian Beales spoke on behalf of the Phillimore estate who owned the site and confirmed that the estate considered the land high priority with a rich variety of habitats and since 1990 had undertaken significant new planting which would provide effective screening.  The estate had been in existence since 1851 and had in that time taken a long term view for future generations. The estate would enter into a short term lease with LaFarge to extract an important mineral resource but would remain sensitive to local concerns by ensuring a high standard restoration to agriculture and wetlands and an increase in biodiversity.

 

They then responded to questions:

 

Councillor Owen – Mr Pendock confirmed that backfill material would consist of soils and excavation soil but he could not give an indication in percentage terms of its permeability.  The area flooded now and that would continue but the response from the Environment Agency had indicated that that situation would not worsen.

 

Councillor Bartholomew – Mr Pendock confirmed the backfill element of the application had been made to ensure restoration of the best and most versatile agricultural land and increase biodiversity.  To retain one big lake would be in conflict with those aims.

 

Councillor Cherry – Mr Pendock confirmed that as the site was close to Reading the company were confident that there would be sufficient material and as stated earlier the modelling showed no increase in flood risk because of backfilling.

 

Councillor Purse – Karen Dingley confirmed that monitoring had identified that ground water levels rose with levels in the Thames.  The backfill material had some degree of permeability and would, in association with the voids created provide enough storage for excess water.

 

Councillor Phillips – Karen Dingley confirmed there would be a net increase in flood capacity and confirmed again that she was 100% certain that there would be no increased risk.

 

Responding to a suggestion from Councillor Lilly regarding the possibility of the applicants setting up a bond to protect local residents particularly in view of the discrepancy in opinions from the two hydrology experts Mrs Crouch confirmed that that had not been asked for and it seemed inappropriate to do so at this stage.

 

Councillor Bartholomew referred to the impact from transport and vehicle movements not only from the extraction process but also from importation of backfill material.  Reiterating that local people would prefer water based restoration he was perplexed why an application hadn’t been submitted with that in mind as the backfill element seemed to be at the core of the concerns expressed by objectors. 

 

Ms Nixon confirmed that the transport assessment had indicated expected transport levels from the south at 75% and 25% from the north.  The applicant had not indicated where traffic would be coming from so those figures had been based on assumptions. The expected impact on Henley equated to 1.3 movements per hour and from the south to an additional 38 movements equating to 1 every 15 minutes. That had not been considered significant.

 

Mr Periam reiterated that backfill had been proposed to ensure restoration to best agricultural land.

 

Councillor Tanner considered condition 26 concerning restrictions on material that could be used for backfill was key to the application but it was a difficult one to decide. Whilst the countryside was not improved by lakes his fears regarding flooding had been allayed and he moved the officer recommendation as set out in the report. Councillor Cherry seconded.

 

Councillor Johnston who had arrived late for the meeting and indicated he would not vote on the application stated that the key issue was indeed permeability and whether the new low level of backfill would adequately compensate for the loss of permeability afforded by the extracted material.

 

The motion was then put to the Committee and –

 

RESOLVED: (by 6 votes to 3, with 3 abstentions recorded):

 

(a)               that the Planning & Regulation Committee indicates support for application no. MW.0158/11;

 

(b)       the application be forwarded to the Secretary of State to provide an opportunity for the application to be called in for his own determination, should he consider that to be necessary in view of the policy issue raised;

 

(c)               that in the event of the Secretary of State not intervening the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) be authorised to approve application no. MW.0158/11 subject to the applicant first entering into a Section 106 legal agreement to cover the funding and implementation of a 20 year long term management of the restored site and subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & infrastructure Planning) but in accordance with those set out below:

 

Heads of Conditions

1.      Complete accordance with plans

2.      Commencement within 3 years

3.      End date for extraction (12 years)

4.      End date for restoration completion (2 years from completion of mineral extraction)

5.      5 year aftercare period

6.      Submission of an aftercare plan including agricultural drainage

7.      Standard working hours

8.      Restriction of permitted development rights

9.      New access to be provided in accordance with plans to be approved

10. Provision of vision splays on new access

11. No export of mineral from new access

12. Lorry sheeting

13. No deposit of mud or dust on the highway

14. Development in accordance with approved dust suppression measures

15. Development to take place in accordance with approved noise report

16. Noise monitoring

17. Noise limits

18. White noise on reversing bleepers

19. No external lighting, other than in accordance with an approved scheme

20. No vegetation clearance during bird nesting season

21. Retention and maintenance of trees and vegetation shown as retained on approved plan

22. Scheme for protection of retained trees and hedgerows

23. Soil protection conditions

24. Signage on site to ensure HGV drivers were aware of permitted route

25. Display of approved plans in site office

26. Restriction on materials that could be used for backfill

27. 16 metre fenced standoff from Berry Brook

28. Submission of surface water drainage scheme for each phase of extraction

29. Submission of a surface water drainage scheme for each phase of restoration

30. Submission of scheme to show that there should be no surface water drainage to highway

31. Submission of details of flood compensation for bunds

32. Development in accordance with flood risk assessment

33. Submission of landscape and ecological management plan

34. Discharges to Berry Brook to be upstream of the active phase

35. Groundwater monitoring locations around the perimeter prior to commencement of development

36.             Groundwater monitoring, including in relation to archaeology

37.             Details of conveyor crossing over Spring Lane and public rights of way

38.             Archaeological monitoring in accordance with written scheme of investigation

39.             Works to take place in accordance with ecological mitigation scheme

40.             Weed control scheme

41.             Submission of a detailed restoration scheme

42.             Development to be carried out in accordance with mitigation and enhancement scheme in ES

43.             Local liaison committee

44.             Requirement for additional otter surveys prior to each extraction phase

45.             Submission of details of screening of rights of way

46.             Submission of a flood management plan including details of safe access and escape routes

 

(d)          the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning)being authorised to refuse the application if the legal agreement referred to in (iii) above is not completed within 10 weeks of the date of the Secretary of State confirming that he does not wish to call the application in for his own determination on the grounds that it would not comply with OMWLP policy PE13 and the guidance set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF (in that there would not be satisfactory provisions for the long term management of the restored site).