Agenda item

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure (PN9).

This report considers an application for the temporary siting of a concrete batching plant at Dix Pit, a former quarry and current landfill site. The application site is within the area also covered by the landfilling permission and a concrete batching plant was located on the site until 2014. The proposed new plant would occupy the same footprint and is located 180 metres from the Devil’s Quoits, a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM).

The plant would use aggregate from Bridge Farm quarry in Appleford until Stonehenge Farm quarry in Northmoor became operational.

The application site is in an area to be restored to open countryside following the completion of waste disposal operations in 2028. The proposed development would be sited on an area subject to ongoing waste management activities but would not prevent or delay the restoration of this area following the end date for those activities.  As the timescales for the proposed concrete batching operations are shorter than the approved timescales for landfilling, there would be no significant further harm to the landscape character of the area or value of the countryside.

The proposals would not cause significant harm to the setting of the Devil’s Quoits SAM and any potential harm that would be caused would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. The development also complies with policy with regard to impacts on amenity, rights of way, traffic and biodiversity.

The Planning & Regulation Committee is RECOMMENDED that subject to:

i)              an agreement to ensure thatvehicles associated with the development are routed via the A415 and the A40 to avoid Sutton; and

ii)           planning permission for MW.0126/12 (P12/V1729/CM) first being issued;

that Application MW.0053/15 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) but in accordance with those set out in Annex 1 to this report.

The Committee considered a report on an application for the temporary siting of a concrete batching plant at Dix Pit, a former quarry and current landfill site. The application site is within the area also covered by the landfilling permission and a concrete batching plant was located on the site until 2014. The proposed new plant would occupy the same footprint and is located 180 metres from the Devil’s Quoits, a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM).

Mary Thompson introduced the contents of the report. The site was currently vacant and well screened. It would be visible from the scheduled monument but due to distance there was no significant impact. Referring to paragraph 12 she informed the Committee of a correction as taking into account the routeing agreements in place the distance between the 2 sites was 29 miles.

She then responded to questions from:

Councillor Mills – the developer would have details on the number of movements per day from Stonehenge Farm. During later discussion the number of movements per day was clarified by reference to paragraph 16 of the report.

Councillor Hudspeth – The applicant had advised that there was no space at Linch Hill.

Councillor Bartholomew – The application site was on the same footprint as the previous plant.

Bob Smith, for Hanson UK spoke in support of the application. Concrete plants were regularly associated with sand and gravel works. The company had permission for sand and gravel extraction at Stonehenge Farm but had a short term need to service the Westgate Centre redevelopment. There was a Liaison Group at Sutton Harcourt and usually the proposal would have been raised with them but the timing of meetings was not compatible. They had been advised in writing in March. The location was a former concrete plant and although a modern facility this was the same basic process. It would require aggregate importation for the first 18 months. The company was more than happy to sign up to the routeing agreement.

Mr Smith then responded to questions from members:

Councillor Greene – The plant would cease operation when the Stonehenge Farm permission ended.

Councillor Hudspeth – With regard to Stonehenge Farm significant capital funds were required to develop reserves of this nature and it had not been possible to bring forward. In order to comply with the permission a token amount had already been extracted but this remained on site.

Councillor Cherry – There would be tracking devices to monitor the routeing agreement. Not only was there a routeing agreement but also a routeing monitoring agreement.

Councillor Charles Mathew, speaking as a local councillor and as the Chairman of Sutton Harcourt Parish Council raised a number of difficulties with the application: the distance between the sites was a considerable distance and he queried whether large lorries driving over this distance was environmentally sound in line with green policies; there was no current permission for Bridge End Farm; he did not accept that the Linch Hill site was not large enough and it had 2 major advantages with regard to the noise impacts and sightlines; timing as the permission for Stonehenge Farm was 7 years behind so it could be in use until 2028/29 which was not clear from the report and there would be 36 lorry movements per day.

Mary Thompson confirmed that the distance between sites taking into account the routeing agreement was 29 miles. It was clear that Bridge End Farm did not have a current permission and that no permission for this application would be granted until the permission for Bridge End Farm was in place. Currently the permission for Stonehenge Farm ended in 2021. It was possible that the firm could work faster than planned and finish on time.

The Chairman expressed some unease and queried whether there was a feeling from the Committee that a deferral would be appropriate. Councillor Tanner supported the recommendations and stated that it would be unreasonable to refuse. He was delighted to see the use of local materials in the Westgate Centre redevelopment. The points raised by Councillor Mathew had been answered and the fall back was that the source of the gravel had to be in place before the permission was granted. He could see no grounds for refusal and felt that any such refusal would be lost on appeal.

In response to concern from Councillor Bartholomew that the time limit in paragraph 12 was not referenced in the recommendations an amendment was proposed to include an 18 month time limit.

Councillor Purse expressed concerns that the applications were the wrong way about and that if it was so urgent then the Bridge End Farm site permission should have been resolved. She sympathised with concerns over the mileage between sites. She noted what was said about the scheduled monument but was still uneasy about the impact on it.

Mary Thompson confirmed that routeing agreements were routinely monitored.

Councillor Hudspeth in supporting the use of local cement queried what would happen if Stonehenge Farm was not working in 18 months. He would encourage working with West Oxfordshire District Council to bring forward proposals for the western bypass to alleviate transport issues. He still believed that it would be better to be at Linch Hill as he expected that if Stonehenge Farm was not dug out by 2021 there would be an extension of the permission.

David Periam clarified that the Bridge End Farm permission would not need to come to Committee as they had already determined it and it was awaiting implementation once agreement was reached.

The motion as amended on being put to the vote by a show of hands was agreed by 9 votes to 1 with 1 abstention and it was:

RESOLVED:           that subject to:

i)                an agreement to ensure thatvehicles associated with the development are routed via the A415 and the A40 to avoid Sutton; and

ii)               planning permission for MW.0126/12 (P12/V1729/CM) first being issued;

that Application MW.0053/15 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) but in accordance with those set out in Annex 1 to this report and an additional condition imposing a time limit of 18 months for the supply of sand and gravel from Bridge Farm Quarry in line with paragraph 12 of the report.

NB. Councillor Purse asked that she be recorded as having voted against the application and Councillor Hudspeth asked that he be recorded as having abstained.