Agenda item

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN8).

The application is for the extraction of approximately 415,000 tonnes of sand from an area adjacent to the existing Duns Tew Quarry. The land would be restored to a mixture of woodland and nature conservation, with geodiversity benefits. Extraction would take place on a campaign basis for up to two months in each calendar year for a period of up to 17 years. It is also proposed to import aggregate to the site for blending and merchanting.

The application is reported to this Committee because it has an EIA and there have been three objections from local residents and concerns raised by the Parish Council and local County Councillor. Concerns raised include dust, air quality, proximity to dwellings, impact on rural roads and ecology. There have been no objections from other consultees.

The report considers the proposals against relevant planning policies with comments and recommendation of the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning).

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to:

(i)           a Section 106 legal agreement to cover the matters outlined in Annex 2 to the report;

(ii)          a routeing agreement to ensure that vehicle movements from the new development are covered by the existing routeing arrangements;

that planning permission for application no. MW.0036/14 be granted subject to:

(iii)        conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) to include the matters set out in Annex 3 to the report; and

(iv)        the Deputy Directorfor Environment and Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning)being authorised to refuse the application if the legal agreement referred to in (i) above is not completed within 10 weeks of the date of this meeting 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 (PN8) an application for the extraction of approximately 415,000 tonnes of sand from an area adjacent to the existing Duns Tew Quarry. The land would be restored to a mixture of woodland and nature conservation, with geodiversity benefits. Extraction would take place on a campaign basis for up to two months in each calendar year for a period of up to 17 years. It is also proposed to import aggregate to the site for blending and merchanting.

Bryn Williams addressed the Committee as the resident of Blue Barn Farm the site presented major problems from dust, safety and ecology. Dust pollution was particularly bad as a strong south west wind prevailed throughout the year and to bring this operation closer would be overwhelming and in order to address his issues he suggested a number of measures to ameliorate the effects. He was not objecting specifically but wanted the operator to be more aware of the problems facing local people.

Tony Castle-Miller a resident of Duns Tew for 24 years endorsed the comments made by Mr Williams. Residents had learnt to live with the site but a bit more give from the operator would help everyone.  Increased operations meant increased numbers of lorries which were getting larger and whilst he appreciated the need for them to carry on their business there should be some consideration for local residents. He suggested they should restrict vehicles to 32 tonnes, contribute to measures to reinforce the side of roads and provision of passing bays.  There had been no accidents to date but larger vehicles would present a greater danger on narrow roads.

District Councillor Mike Kerford-Byrnes referred to concerns regarding dust and traffic. With regard to dust he welcomed the proposal to straighten out the eastern end of the boundary which would take working further away from Blue Barn Farm and suggested further restrictions to limit working if wind speed on the eastern boundary was above acceptable levels. On traffic it was imperative to route vehicles on the most suitable routes to the A4260 and clearly the route now used was the least suitable. The size, weight and frequency of vehicles had increased and the operator should therefore contribute to road repairs as a condition on the permission along with the change to the eastern boundary.

Mary Thompson confirmed that:

·                       implementation of proposed highway improvement works (condition 39)

·                       vehicle size and type (condition 10)

·                       limits to exported material (condition 9)

·                       dust management (condition 38)

were all covered by conditions as marked above.

The speakers then responded to questions from:

Councillor Greene – Councillor Kerford-Byrnes welcomed the straightening the eastern boundary to remove the dog-leg would be most welcome.

Miss Thompson added that a condition to amend the extraction boundary had not been recommended because the environmental work had shown that it was not necessary to do so in order to make the development acceptable. However, the Committee could if it wished choose to add such a condition and the applicant had confirmed that they would not appeal it.

Councillor Phillips – Mr Williams would have preferred 24 hour monitoring to be put in place with Councillor Kerford-Byrnes adding that anemometer measurements should be taken. Mr Castle-Miller highlighted that there were many other hauliers who were not part of the routeing agreement for Duns Tew.

Mr Layer referred to the special geology at Duns Tew which was underlain by a seam of soft sand. Quarrying had been carried out by Smithssince the 1950s with no readily alternative source in north Oxfordshire other than one some 25 miles away at Upwood Quarry. It was used extensively throughout the area in building conservation works, extensions and new builds. The quarry had a strong north Oxfordshire customer base with a consistent demand which met the local needs of local businesses. Smiths had its own liveried fleet of trucks but there was also a high proportion of customers collecting their own materials in trailers, tippers and vans which reflected the small local nature of the quarry operation. Quarrying at Duns Tew was not complicated with no complex processing, washing and silt settlement but simply dry screening of the excavated sand to sieve out any coarse material. The screened sand was then sold as is or blended with washed fine sands imported for the purpose to meet more exacting construction specifications. The quarry had one full time quarry foreman but supported 4 lorries and drivers who were local and based at the quarry. The existing routeing agreement prohibited lorries travelling through Duns Tew unless delivering locally and all company vehicles had GPS tracking. Restoration of the area west of Duns Tew road would be completed in 2016, restored to promote biodiversity, opened to the public and managed by Smiths for the next 25 years as a nature reserve. The proposed extension would enhance that geodiversity and biodiversity as well as establishing 23 acres of new deciduous native woodland with further public access and long term management. The proposal before the Committee would maintain the status quo of the last 20-30 years of operation without problem or complaint, supply of material to north Oxfordshire to meet local demand and jobs and he commended the application to the Committee.

Mr Layer then responded to questions from:

Councillor Fulljames – about 50% of trucks were not obliged to abide by the routeing agreement but for those vehicles that were then Smiths were quick to act on any breaches and that message was conveyed to all users. He quoted a recent case where a contract had been terminated.

Councillor Bartholomew – moving the boundary would in the Company’s view sterilise unnecessarily an area which would need to be found elsewhere but the Company would stand by the offer to rationalise the boundary line.

Councillor Greene – the Company would submit a dust management plan as a standard rule and also look at precedent in other quarries for limiting work in strong wind.

Councillor Cherry – Smiths were not the only users of roads in the area with farm vehicles, school buses and other haulage operators and as such demands for anything over and above the offer made to help with highway improvements would be considered unfair. The Company had offered to stop articulated lorries using the quarry.

Councillor Fatemian speaking as local member highlighted the positive approach taken with regard to this application with a lot of mitigation measures but he called for more specific discussions with regard to highway issues. He called for a specific limit to be set on imported material and a maximum size for vehicles. He believed that the Company would make every effort to respect the routeing agreement but as some vehicles to the site were not theirs he supported moves that that all vehicles to the site were fitted with tracking devices with records of vehicles circulated to the County Council and Parish Council annually. He also asked the Committee to impose the change to the eastern boundary of the site as a condition to any permission.

Councillor Lilly appreciated the comments that other vehicles used the site but bearing in mind earlier comments that if the sand wasn’t there then the roads would not be in the state they were in and he felt the Company could do more.

Officers advised that it was not a reasonable condition that all vehicles to the site be fitted with GPS tracking.

Councillor Bartholomew felt that most of the concerns had been dealt within the proposed conditions and he welcomed the amendment proposed to the eastern boundary but felt that needed to be incorporated as a condition and proposed the officer recommendation with that amendment. His motion was seconded by Councillor Johnston and on being put to the Committee it was:

RESOLVED: (unanimously) that subject to:

(i)           a Section 106 legal agreement to cover the matters outlined in Annex 2 to the report PN8;

(ii)          a routeing agreement to ensure that vehicle movements from the new development were covered by the existing routeing arrangements;

that planning permission for application no. MW.0036/14 be granted subject to:

(iii)         conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) to include the matters set out in Annex 3 to the report; and

(iv)         an additional condition preventing extraction in an area to the east of a straight line up from the south eastern corner of the site.

(v)          the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) being authorised to refuse the application if the legal agreement referred to in (i) above had not been completed within 10 weeks of the date of this meeting 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).