Agenda item

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN6).

 

This is an application for extraction of 2.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel from an area north of the River Thames between Clifton Hampden and Culham, in South Oxfordshire. The land would be restored to a mixture of agriculture, lakes and mosaic wetland. No imported waste would be needed to achieve the proposed restoration. Clay would also be extracted for onsite engineering operations.  Permission is sought for a 10 year period. There would also be a new plant site and a new access onto the A415. The site is currently in agricultural use.

 

The application is being reported to this Committee as a large number of objections have been received, including from the local Parish Councils, South Oxfordshire District Council, the local County Councillor, Oxford Green Belt Network and CPRE. Over 500 letters of objection from local residents were received during the initial consultation period. 

 

The Transport Development Control team has also objected to the application, as the development would have severe traffic impacts in terms of delays, safety and amenity. The Transport Strategy and Policy team has objected to the application on the basis of the potential conflict with the protection of a potential route for a new road and river crossing.

 

Other than the transport concerns the proposal is considered to generally  accord with development plan policies. Previous concerns regarding the landscape and visual impacts have been overcome by the provision of an improved landscape mitigation scheme. The proposal is not fully consistent with policy directing development to the areas of least flood risk.  However a site specific flood risk assessment has demonstrated that the development would not increase the risk of flooding.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that Application MW.0039/16 (P16/S1192/CM) be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

 

i)             The additional vehicle movements arising from the development would lead to severe highways impacts contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF; would not maintain the safety of road users and the efficiency of the road network contrary to OMWCS policy C10 and would contribute to congestion, disruption and delays on the road network, contrary to LTP policy 02.

 

ii)           The additional vehicle movements arising from the development would worsen queuing at the local junctions leading to stationary vehicles with associated air emissions, causing unacceptable adverse impacts on environmental amenity, contrary to OMWCS policies C5 and C10.

 

 

 

 

The Committee considered (PN6) an application for extraction of 2.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel from an area north of the River Thames between Clifton Hampden and Culham, in South Oxfordshire.

 

Ms Thompson presented the report advising that the statutory Highway Authority objection had been resolved and drawing attention to the amended recommendation for approval set out in the addenda. She, together with Peter Day and Geoff Arnold then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Glynis Phillips – The 7 year land bank target was a minimum and the fact of having greater than the minimum was not a reason for refusal.

 

In respect of the alternative river crossing the Committee was advised that there were 2 proposed routes, one of which affected the site. No choice had been made between the routes. Officers considered that even if the route over the site was chosen it would not affect the road going there, as it was a temporary development which would not preclude the provision of the river crossing, although it could affect costs.

 

Councillor Alan Thompson – The traffic survey had been carried out in May to avoid school holidays when the roads would be quieter.

 

In respect of the archaeological sites these had been taken into account as set out in the report. There had been geo physical work and trial trenches. The only significant site was the barrow cemetery and this was not under any threat.

 

Councillor Bob Johnston – The landbank of permitted reserves does not include dormant Review of Old Mineral Permission (ROMP) sites.”

 

Councillor John Sanders – It was explained that on the condition that no peak period trips were allowed on the two junctions where concern had been expressed then officers were satisfied that the impact would not be severe: which would have to be the case under the National Planning Policy Framework to justify refusal.

 

Councillor John Howson – the Committee was advised of the survey undertaken in May and that queues outside the peak hours were far less. The figures related to the site access and the two adjacent junctions. If approved the conditions would be monitored and consideration given to the taking of enforcement action as necessary. The routeing agreement would also be monitored and any breaches identified addressed.

 

Councillor Mrs Anda Fitzgerald-O’Connor – A comprehensive flood risk assessment had been carried out and there was no impact on the Thames Path. Page 52 of the report showed an area of land given over to allow for flooding.

 

Councillor Lawrie Stratford – One hundred trips were planned over 10 hours at a time when the network was better able to cope.

 

Councillor Judy Roberts – it was confirmed that one of the proposed routes for the river crossing would go across the new lakes area.

 

Suzi Coyne, SCP, spoke against the application feeling that to approve it at this stage would prejudice the local plan led approach. It would automatically become a site, undermining and pre-determining the Part 2 Site Allocation Plan. There was no need for a decision now as demand continued to dip. An approval would also undermine the South Oxfordshire Landscape Strategy.

 

Kirsten Berry, Hendeca, spoke against the application on the basis of the environmental impact on Fullamoor residents. Fullamoor was on an escarpment so that despite an enormous bund (itself incongruous in the environment) the site would still be visible. She noted that a physical assessment of the site had not been carried out by the applicant’s landscape advisors. Fullamoor Farmhouse had recently been listed and this made the historic agricultural setting more important. It needed to be preserved within its setting.

 

She then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Howson – Fullamoor Farmhouse was a domestic premises but its setting was still very agricultural. Whilst acknowledging the vernacular architecture of the 17^th and 18th Century with views of the railway, the building had been listed recently and recognised in its current setting.

 

 

Ian Mason, Burcot & Clifton Hampden for the Protection of the River Thames (BACHPORT) spoke against the application on the grounds of: the impact on the proposed river crossing which was the only strategic solution to dreadful traffic issues in the area and that it was a poor choice of site, being highly valued, alongside the Thames. He spoke of the environment and noise impacts of the site and believed that it was not justified by immediate need. There was sufficient supply available to give time to do Part 2 of the Minerals & Waste Plan looking at site allocations.

 

Katherine Canavan, Senior Planner at South Oxfordshire District Council referred to the objections raised by South Oxfordshire and the Vale of the White Horse DCs. She stated that there continued to be principle planning issues that could not be resolved. She highlighted the Thames crossing as a key part of the area’s infrastructure and the impact on one of the proposed routes that ran through the site. The scale of the excavation would undermine the proposed route and additional work would affect viability and could hinder the plans for housing and employment growth. In addition it was contrary to the Local Plan policy to protect the river corridor and there had been insufficient time to assess the implications of the recent listing of Fullamoor Farmhouse.

 

Jason Sherwood, Locality and Infrastructure Manager – South, OCC, spoke against the application as approval would prejudice one of two preferred routes for a river crossing. There would be significant cost implications if the site went ahead with impacts on a number of projects including Science Vale, the Growth Deal, Didcot Garden Town and Enterprise Zone, housing growth and the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) bid.

 

He then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Bob Johnston – the HIF bid was a bid to central government for funding to realise housing and economic growth.

 

Councillor John Howson – It was expected that work on the ground would begin on the river crossing in 2022.

 

Councillor Glynis Phillips – There were currently two routes and the next phase of work would be to explore detailed feasibility for both routes. There would be a better understanding of what each involved but not a final choice by the first or second quarter of next year.

 

Councillor John Howson – The Cambridge Expressway was a complementary piece of work that did not affect the river crossing. The river crossing would be needed anyway.

 

The Committee then heard from the applicant.  Keith Hampshire, Chartered Landscape Architect highlighted that officers had not found any non-compliance. He highlighted the key characteristic of the site as meadow land with some intensive arable land. Hedgerows would be reinstated as far as possible. The proposals would improve bio-diversity in the long term. Mr Hampshire explained the landscape mitigation measures and the progressive restoration of the site with the eventual loss of only 13 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land.

 

Kevin Archard, spoke on the traffic issues and detailed the vehicle movements that would result if the application was approved. He stressed that they did not constitute ‘severe’  and that the access arrangements had been agreed by highways. Emissions were Euro 6 compliant with the site being well placed to serve local markets. With regard to the river crossing it was not yet known if, where or when the river crossing will be but they were willing to work with others once this was known. He highlighted that there was even a benefit to the scheme in having the site there as it could provide engineering fill. The costs had been notified to them quite late in the day and they were not able to comment on them.

 

Lucy Binnie, responded to points made by speakers so far and commented that despite the very recent listed building the NPPF was clear that the Committee could consider approval if it was in line with other benefits. Minerals were the building blocks for future development in the local area and the site would not compromise the SODC Local Plan or the river crossing. Minerals were needed for these developments. The land bank was not a cap and the application was in line with the Core Strategy. It was right to bring forward proposals and tshe had been working on this application on behalf of Hills for 10 years. With regard to construction, house building had not been at the targeted level but a quantum leap was now expected and there was more than sufficient demand for this and other sites.

 

Peter Andrew, indicated that it was a family business and a major player in Oxfordshire. He was personally familiar with all the company’s sites and the company knew the local markets. Fullamoor was a sound proposal and the company was a good operator with a good record of restoration. He referred to a previous site that had been granted on appeal and which was running with no issues.

 

They then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Bob Johnston – the trees to be planted in the restoration were mostly British species. Some poplars and willows were included for their speed of growth.

 

Councillor Mike Fox-Davies – There was no design detail available about the river crossing. The road would go across a flood plain irrespective of the quarry. The quarry operation could save money as materials would be available.

 

Councillor Alan Thompson – A lake was included in the restoration as they did not want to import additional material due to the additional impacts on local residents and the environment that this would bring with it. The length of the site operation would be lengthened without the lake.

 

Councillor John Howson – There were plans to ensure that supply would be maintained in the event of a flood so that vehicle movements could be maintained and there would be no need for additional movements once the flooding was over. Phase 7 would be kept as a temporary phase to work in the event of extreme flooding.

Councillor Lynda Atkins, local member for Wallingford, spoke against the application referring to the impact on Culham Science Centre of the noise and dust. She commented that the Atomic Energy Authority still had concerns about dust issues which had not been addressed. The standards for local residential and industrial buildings should not be applied to a site of international importance with very specific standards and requirements around vibration and dust. Councillor Atkins also referred to the impact on the new river crossing.

 

Councillor Lorraine Lindsay-Gale, local member for Berinsfield & Garsington highlighted local concerns including: the existing traffic gridlock in Culham and Clifton Hampden each morning, the inadequate offer to prohibit vehicle movements and the pollution that would be caused; the river crossing that was a vital scheme and the possible serious difficulties posed by approving the quarry. She asked that if the Committee were minded to approve that they would demand rigorous enforcement of the vehicle movement restrictions.

 

Councillor Glynis Phillips proposed deferral but withdrew it on hearing an alternative proposal from Councillor Stratford, to refuse the application on the grounds set out in the original report together with additional grounds. The Committee was advised of Counsel’s advice that there was no argument on prematurity based on Part 2 not yet being available. Following an adjournment Mr Kenneford advised the committee that a refusal of planning permission could lead to an appeal against the refusal and the possibility of costs being awarded against the County Council should the appeal be upheld and it be found that the council had acted unreasonably. It was then proposed by Councillor Stratford, seconded by Councillor Matelot and:

 

RESOLVED:    (by 11 votes for with 1 abstention) that Application MW.0039/16 (P16/S1192/CM) be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

 

(i)        The additional vehicle movements arising from the development would lead to severe highways impacts contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework; would not maintain the safety of road users and the efficiency of the road network contrary to Oxfordshire Minerals Waste Core Strategy policy C10 and would contribute to congestion, disruption and delays on the road network, contrary to Local Transport Plan policy 02.

 

(ii)       The additional vehicle movements arising from the development would worsen queuing at the local junctions leading to stationary vehicles with associated air emissions, causing unacceptable adverse impacts on environmental amenity, contrary to Oxfordshire Minerals Waste Core Strategy policies C5 and C10.

 

(iii)      The development would prejudice the future development of a new link road and Thames crossing along one of the routes safeguarded by policy TRANS3 of the emerging South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2033 and core policy 18 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 contrary to these policies.

 

(iv)      The development is inappropriate in the Green Belt contrary to Oxfordshire Minerals Waste Core Strategy policy C12, South Oxfordshire Local Plan policy GB4 and National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 87, 88 and 90 and no very special circumstances exist to justify making an exception to these policies.