Agenda item

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN7).

 

This application is for the extraction of 2.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel at a new quarry between Cholsey and Wallingford in South Oxfordshire. The land would be restored to agriculture using imported inert infill material. The development would take 18 years to complete extraction and a further two years to complete restoration.  A new plant site and access onto the A4130 is proposed.

 

The application site is currently an open field in agricultural use.

 

The application is being reported to committee because it is accompanied by an Environmental Statement and because objections have been received from the local Parish, Town and District Councils.

 

South Oxfordshire District Council have objected on the grounds of prematurity. Concerns raised by the Parish and Town Councils include lack of need for the mineral, working method, potential flooding and impacts on landscape, traffic and amenity. There is also an objection from the Chilterns Conservation Board.

 

The report outlines the relevant planning policies along with the comments and recommendation of the Director for Planning and Place.

 

The development accords with the Development Plan as a whole and with individual policies within it, as well as with the NPPF. It is considered to be sustainable development in terms of environmental, social and economic terms. The proposed development would beneficial in terms of contributing towards Oxfordshire’s supply of sharp sand and gravel and providing a high quality restoration. It is considered that potential impacts can be adequately addressed through planning condition and legal agreement.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to:

 

(i)           a Section 106 legal agreement to include matters set out in Annex 2;

(ii)          a routeing agreement to ensure that HGV movements associated with the new development accord with the County Council’s Lorry Routeing Strategy; and that

(iii)        that the Director for Planning and Place be 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 OMWCS policy M10 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.

 

application no. MW.0094/16 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director for Planning and Place to include the matters set out in Annex 1 to this report.

 

The Committee considered (PN7) an application for the extraction of 2.5 million tonnes (MT) of sand and gravel at New Barn Farm, Cholsey, Wallingford, Oxfordshire.

 

Mary Thompson, Senior Planning Officer, presented the report and addenda confirming that there would be no need to divert the footpath, no dewatering and with restoration back to agricultural land. She outlined the routeing agreement and referred to paragraph 93, confirming that the viewpoint referred to was within the AONB but that this did not change the views of the Environmental Strategy Officer. She then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor John Sanders – The numbered phases indicated the order of development and restoration. Section 1 was chosen to be developed and restored first as it was closest to the housing.

 

Councillor Mrs Anda Fitzgerald O’Connor – All vehicles leaving the site would turn left, then use the roundabout if they wanted to go right.

 

Henry Thornton, speaking as a local businessman spoke against the application that he felt would harm Oxfordshire. The application was in the wrong location close to AONBs  and popular amenities and close to a care home, medical centre, a hospital and two schools. He commented that the report was all about damage limitation and highlighted the huge amount of opposition to the proposal. It had been removed from Part 1 of the Core Strategy and this was an attempt to reintroduce what was already rejected. He commented that there was a sufficient supply of sand and gravel and this application was premature. Work should be completed on Part 2 of the Core Strategy on site allocations.

 

Wallingford Town Councillor Adrian Lloyd, speaking on behalf of Wallingford Town Council stated that they had consistently opposed the application. He commented that the report did not make clear that the public right of way was the Agatha Christie Trail which 1000’s walked each year. He argued that the applicants had been wrong to use wind information from RAF Benson and that Cholsey Hill was a closer meteorological site. Data from 2012 was publicly available and using this data the noise would carry into the new housing site.

 

He then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Matelot – He had a technical background having worked in wind farms and his opinion was based on experience.

 

Councillor Judy Roberts – He confirmed that in his opinion the wrong wind direction information had been used so the information regarding noise was incorrect.

 

Councillor Howson – He confirmed that for part of the local area, including the community hospital, nursing home and nursery school the information was correct. With regard to dust Wallingford Town Councillor Lloyd commented that the houses were not on the same level and that smaller particles would travel further. He felt that it was likely that dust would travel into the affordable housing areas affecting families and young children. He noted that the site would work on Saturday mornings meaning the noise nuisance would continue at a time when many people would be hoping for a lie in after the working week.

 

The Committee then heard from the applicant, Andrew Short, Grundons, explained the context of their interest in the site and advised that changes to the proposal had been made following consultation and exhibition. They had worked with the Council and the report and officer conclusions supported their application. He addressed the question of prematurity which had been carefully considered by officers (paragraph 67). The application was in line with the recently adopted core strategy that provided for local building materials for local development.

 

Peter Wilsdon, agent to the applicant, believed that all consultees had agreed that with the proposed mitigation there was no adverse impact. He outlined the proposed mitigations including, dewatering, a traffic routeing agreement and progressive restoration that reduced the overall impact. The application was the most sustainable opportunity to provide a local supply of sand and gravel.

 

They then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Judy Roberts and Councillor John Howson – Peter Wilsden explained the phasing of works on the site and the use of a conveyor system.

 

Councillor Alan Thompson – The route to be used was an advisory lorry route with satisfactory junctions. The highways authority had no objections.

 

Councillor Lynda Atkins, local councillor for Wallingford, spoke against the application expressing particular concerns for residents living adjacent to area 17 and 18. Area 18 contained the plant and there was a gap in the noise protection to allow access to the site. Area 17 was one of the last areas to be worked and was immediately adjacent to the new housing which was closer than existing buildings and which needed an equivalent barrier. She was concerned at the impact on residents of Saturday working and expressed concern at the impact on the heritage railway of having a bund along half of its length. Councillor Atkins responding to a question from Councillor Stratford commented that she felt it perfectly possible that the new housing would be built and sold quickly.

 

Councillor Mark Gray, local councillor for Benson & Cholsey highlighted the amenity impact of the application. In addition to 2 nursing homes there were 2 listed buildings nearby. Heritage assets were irreplaceable and impacts on them should be given considerable weight. Councillor Gray also argued that the local roads were not suitable for the traffic from the site. He also expressed concern that the inert waste for the restoration had not been identified and he feared that it would not happen. He suggested that the application was premature in predetermining where extraction should happen in advance of Part 2 of the Core Strategy.

 

Councillor Gray responding to a question from Councillor Howson explained that the quarry would destroy the setting of the Grade II listed building.

 

During discussion Mary Thompson responded to further questions confirming that the new housing had been taken into account when looking at environmental impacts; that the phasing allowed the central haul road to progressively shorten and speed restoration. Members expressed some concern over traffic along local roads and site access onto the main road.

 

Councillor Sibley proposed, it was seconded by Councillor Phillips and it was:

 

RESOLVED:             (by 3 votes for, 3 against with 5 abstentions, on the Chairman’s casting vote) that subject to:

 

(i)           a Section 106 legal agreement to include matters set out in Annex 2;

(ii)          a routeing agreement to ensure that HGV movements associated with the new development accord with the County Council’s Lorry Routeing Strategy; and that

(iii)         that the Director for Planning and Place be 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 OMWCS policy M10 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.

 

application no. MW.0094/16 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Director for Planning and Place to include the matters set out in Annex 1 to this report.