Agenda item

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

This is a planning application to allow extraction of limestone as an extension to the existing Quarry at Shipton on Cherwell. The site would be restored to agriculture and biodiversity use.

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

The main issues with the application are need for the mineral extraction, the case for Very Special Circumstances for inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the effect on local amenity, and the effect on the local landscape.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application no. MW.00046/18 be refused on the grounds that:-

1          The site is situated neither within the principal locations for aggregates minerals extraction nor the mineral safeguarding areas. The development is therefore contrary to policies M3 and M5 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy;

2          The development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which Very Special Circumstances have not been demonstrated. It is therefore contrary to policy C12 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy and policy ESD14 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2031; and

3          The development would cause harm to the local amenity of residents on Jerome Way through noise, dust and visual intrusion contrary to policy C5 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy.

The Committee considered (PN6) a planning application to allow extraction of limestone as an extension to the existing Quarry at Shipton on Cherwell with restoration to agriculture and biodiversity use.

Mr Broughton presented the report and confirmed in response to Councillor Sames that although the site was subject to a SSSI it was a geological SSSI and none pf the geological features would be harmed by the proposed works.

Marian Fox speaking on behalf of local residents referred to issues of:

Dust and noise which created a health hazard as well as nuisance. This had been discussed at the Liaison Group but as yet nothing had been done to mitigate the effects. The haul road was also a major source of dust and although an undertaking had been given to scrape and clear nothing had been done. Work started on site at 7am and although the bund was 9 metres high in places it didn’t prevent noise carrying to Thrupp a mile away. If this application was approved it would bring work even closer. Residents had concerns regarding breaches of conditions. Vehicles were restricted by condition to 318 per day but that was being exceeded. The site had been in existence for 80 years and if this application were approved that would affect timescales for restoration and exacerbate concerns regarding conservation areas around the canal.

She then responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston – she was a resident of Jerome Way, Shipton-on-Cherwell.

Councillor Gawrysiak – the existing bund to some extent did mitigate the effects of working but there was a persistent noise although she accepted that might not exceed legal levels.

Mr Broughton advised that the Environment agency had lodged an objection to an application for another noise attenuation bund. That was waiting to be resolved.

Gemma Crossley spoke on behalf of the applicants.  The Shipton-on-Cherwell site was not within the strategic resources area but did accord with policy M4 and therefore met the requirements of the spatial strategy. The site was enclosed by topography and openness was not seriously affected. The County Council was currently meeting its landbank requirement but there was an urgent need for reserves now with sale of rock increasing over the last few years and mineral in high demand.  The limestone material at this site met a high specification and was one of a few sites in the south east able to supply this material.  It was a small logical extension to an existing quarry with no significant amenity or environmental impacts and the bund did not affect the openness.  Quite simply there was a demand for the material which demonstrated a need.

She then responded to questions from:

Councillor Phillips – parts of the site would be visible from the canal with a narrow field of view of about 25 metres where the edge of the site could be seen.

Councillor Gawrysiak – she confirmed that although the material was not unique there were only 2 bands in the county. There were 2 different types of geological limestone and not all were able to meet the highest specification.

Councillor Webber – bunds would be constructed from material stripped from the surface prior to working and so material would be in place prior to working.

Councillor Roberts – although not completely out of date the Minerals Plan relied to some extent on information gathered over a period of time. That had included years of recession and it was widely recognised that there had been some changes in levels of demand.

Councillor Sanders – the site was still a very active site and was being sequentially restored. Quarrying was a dusty activity but the EIA submitted had considered issues of dust which didn’t travel very far and was within guidelines.

Councillor Walker – there would be no increase in permitted vehicle movements. Also she had met representatives from Oxford airport along with county officers to discuss the issue of bird strikes and it had been concluded that the pond in the extension area would not attract large birds or flocks of birds. Other small ponds could be netted.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Johnston, seconded by Councillor Phillips and carried by 12 votes to 0, with one abstention) that planning permission for application no. MW.00046/18 be refused on the grounds that:

1          The site is not situated within the principal locations for aggregate minerals extraction.  The development is therefore contrary to policies M3 and M5 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy;

2          The development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which Very Special Circumstances have not been demonstrated. It is therefore contrary to policy C12 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy and policy ESD14 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2031; and

3          The development would cause harm to the local amenity of residents on Jerome Way through noise, dust and visual intrusion contrary to policy C5 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy.