Agenda item

Report by the Acting Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN6).

The report sets out an update to the application for the proposed extension of ironstone extraction, revocation of existing consented mineral extraction, export of clay, construction of temporary and permanent landforms, retention of an existing overburden store, relocation of consented stone saw shed, replacement quarry, farm and estate office building, erection of a new shoot store and multi-purpose building at Great Tew Ironstone Quarry.  The Planning & Regulation committee in May 2016 resolved to approve the application pending the signing of the Section 106 agreement. The legal agreement is yet to be signed, and due to unauthorised development, the application was not implementable. Since May, the applicant has submitted amended supporting statements, amended working scheme and three schemes relating to hydrology, arboriculture and biodiversity. No further objections to the proposed scheme have been received.

It is RECOMMENDED that  subject to a legal agreement first being entered into to secure that the mineral permitted under the “clay bank” is not further worked, and a 20-year long term management plan that planning permission for application MW.0078/15 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Acting Director for Environment & Economy including those set out in Annex 2 to this report. 

In May 2016 the Planning & Regulation Committee had approved subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement an application for the proposed extension of ironstone extraction, revocation of existing consented mineral extraction, export of clay, construction of temporary and permanent landforms, retention of an existing overburden store, relocation of consented stone saw shed, replacement quarry, farm and estate office building, erection of a new shoot store and multi-purpose building at Great Tew Ironstone Quarry. However, as that agreement had not been signed, together with unauthorised development which had taken place, the permission had not been implemented.

Since that approval the applicant had submitted amended supporting statements, an amended working scheme and three schemes relating to hydrology, arboriculture and biodiversity and the Committee were now considering (PN6) a report setting out those changes. No further objections to the proposed scheme had been received.

Mr Case confirmed that the S106 agreement had taken some time to finalise and that in the meantime some unauthorised development had taken place. The agreement was now completed but approval to the amended scheme would be required. 

Mr Periam added that enforcement had been issued against the unauthorised development and not against a breach of conditions. However, if approval was now forthcoming then the enforcement notice would be withdrawn.   He also confirmed that the County Council were unable to recover costs for the work involved to date

Apologising on behalf of the applicant for the premature start of work Mr Keyte explained that that situation had arisen due to a combination of delays in finalising the agreement and therefore implementation of the permission and continuing increased demand, which had risen sharply following the Brexit result. However, there had been no further work since the stop notice had been served and in the meantime the applicant had worked closely with the county council to reach agreement. As the only supplier nationally it was vital that the application now before the Committee was agreed in order to secure the long term future of the site, its workforce and those of ancillary businesses.  Supplies of consented materials had now been exhausted so he asked the Committee to support the officer recommendation.

He then responded to questions from:

Councillor Phillips – he was only qualified to deal with issues relating to actual quarrying of material and was therefore unable to offer an explanation why the need to meet demand had justified work starting on the building of the new office block.

Councillor Bartholomew – consented reserves had been forecast to expire at the end of 2016 and regrettably work had been started prematurely to replenish supplies.

Councillor Johnston – the quarry directly employed 8 but supplied a number of other processing companies.

Recognising the benefits of compliance monitoring, which had brought the breach to the notice of officers there was general agreement that the reasons given for the breach were at best dubious. However there seemed to be very little option but to agree the recommendation and Councillor Greene so moved.  Councillor Sanders seconding.

The motion was then put to the Committee and –

RESOLVED: (by 11 votes to 0, Councillor Reynolds recorded as having abstained) that subject to a legal agreement first being entered into to secure that the mineral permitted under the “clay bank” was not further worked and a 20-year long term management plan that planning permission for application MW.0078/15 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Interim Strategic Director for Communities including those set out in Annex 2 to the report PN6 and as amended in the tabled addenda sheet namely the deletion of Condition vii and amendment to condition xxxiv requiring reptile translocation prior to removal of any trees or hedgerows, in line with the Translocation Mitigation strategy provided that the area for the translocation was defined as the green area on paragraph 2.1 of the Habitat Management Plan and that soil and vegetation removal in this area did not commence until the translocation of reptiles had been completed.