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 12.5 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 because it is a resubmission of an application that was previously refused by the committee, contrary to officer advice (application MW.0039/16). Additionally, a large number of objections have been received, including from local Parish Councils, South Oxfordshire District Council and CPRE as well as over 300 letters of objection from local residents.

The report provides a factual update for members and invites the committee to consider whether the reasons for refusal of the previous application have been overcome.

 

That members consider whether the application overcomes their previous concerns and so reasons for refusal with regard to application No. MW.0039/16 and EITHER

 

  a)      if not, refuse for one or more of the following reasons:

 

i)       The additional vehicle movements arising from the development would lead to severe highways impacts contrary to paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework; would not maintain the safety of road users and the efficiency of the road network contrary to the Oxfordshire Minerals and 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 local junctions leading to stationary vehicles with associated air emissions, causing unacceptable adverse impacts on environmental amenity, contrary to Oxfordshire Minerals and 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 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 and Waste Core Strategy policy C12, South Oxfordshire Local Plan policy GB4 and National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 143, 144 and 146 and no very special circumstances exist to justify making an exception to these policies.

 

OR

 

b)      if so,

 

i)       subject to the consultation period closing without any new material considerations arising following consultation with the committee Chairman and deputy Chairman; and,

 

ii)     if members conclude the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the application first being referred to the Secretary of State to provide the opportunity for the application to be called in for his own determination, as required under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009; and

 

iii)    the Secretary of State not calling in the application for his own determination following referral to him as set out in point ii) a routeing agreement to ensure the vehicle movements from the new development use only the HGV routes on the A-Road network as proposed by the applicant and a Section 106 legal agreement to cover the matters outlined in Annex 1; and

 

iv)    the Director of Planning and Place being authorised to refuse the application if the legal agreements referred to in iii) above are not completed within 10 weeks of the date of this meeting on the grounds that it would not comply with OMWCS policy M10 in that there would not be satisfactory provisions for the long-term management of the restored site

 

 that planning permission for application no. MW.0074/18 be granted 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 (PN6) an application for the extraction of sand, gravel and clay including the creation of new access, processing plant, offices with welfare accommodation, weighbridge and silt water lagoon system with site restoration to agriculture and nature conservation including lakes with recreational afteruses and the permanent diversion of footpath 171/15 and creation of new footpaths at Land at Fullamoor Plantation, Clifton Hampden, Abingdon.

 

Ms Catcheside presented the report along with an addenda setting out corrections to the report and points of clarification, further consultation responses and amended recommendations.

.

Suzi Coyne – SCP, speaking on behalf of Clifton Hampden & Burcot Parish Council spoke against the proposed application made the following key points of objection.

 

Landscape character. The proposals would have a detrimental effect on the North Wessex Downs.

 

Amenity value. Loss of the amenity value of the exiting footpaths and Thames Path route.

 

Harm to a scheduled monument.

 

There were no questions from the Committee.

 

Ian Mason – Bachport & Fullamoor Residents, opposed the application noting that the changes from the previous application did not address Parish Council concerns sufficiently. The reduction in bund size was marginal. The reduction in lorry movements and movement restrictions were not effective nor enforceable. Mr Mason argued that there was no need for a new quarry pointing out that production was 30% lower than forecast and the existing land bank figures ranged from 18 years to 22 years if a 10-year rolling average was used. There was clear harm to the landscape and heritage and very special circumstances are required to be demonstrated to overcome the harm to the green belt which he argued had not been shown.

 

Responding to a question Mr Mason explained that due to the topography of the site where the embankment looked down on the site the bunds had to be higher than normal.

 

Councillor Lindsay-Gale, local councillor for Berinsfield & Garsington spoke against the application on the grounds of the impact on roads and vehicular movements, damage to the green belt and the lack of need noting strong local opposition. Councillor Lindsay-Gale referred particularly to the danger posed by large vehicles causing an obstruction to children crossing at the A415 to access the school.

 

There were no questions from the Committee.

 

Councillor Lynda Atkins, local councillor for Wallingford, speaking against the application emphasised the following points: The application was for a processing plant, a huge concrete structure within the green belt. As such the regulations required that there be exceptional circumstances and she argued that there were none. There was a lack of need due to the land bank position. Councillor Atkins highlighted the traffic difficulties in the area that would be made worse by the application proposals with pollution and noise a constant problem. The mitigation referred to in the report was not satisfactory and the application was very little different to the earlier application that had been rejected.

 

Alan Pardoe, Chairman, Hills Quarry Products Limited speaking in support of the application highlighted his pride in being part of a successful family business. The company employed 700 people and was part of the local communities, supporting 350 community projects where the company was working. Mr Pardoe stressed that the company took their responsibilities seriously, had delivered some great landscapes and would contribute here to the local environment. 

 

Pete Andrew, Managing Director, Hills Quarry Products Limited, speaking in support of the application addressed the technical issues set out in the report and highlighted that it was a sound proposal for local production to support local developments. Mr Andrew recognised that traffic was clearly of concern and commented that they invested heavily in their fleet meeting Euro 6 Emission standards. They were used to operating to strict routing agreements and drivers were trained and tracked. The company had won awards for its restoration of sites and the application would bring meaningful and tangible benefits.

 

Lucy Binnie, Environmental Consultant, spoke on behalf of the applicants highlighting the changes that had been made to address environmental/traffic concerns. Ms Binnie recognised that traffic was a concern but stated that with development there would be construction traffic. The application would save one million lorry road miles and reduce carbon emissions. She added that the land bank figures were not the whole picture referring to paragraphs 80-88 of the report. There would be a shortfall in 2022 and there was a need for increased production.

 

Katherine Evans, TLT Solicitors, spoke on behalf of the applicants highlighting the officer responses in the report and that in the special circumstances of need, that there was no reason to refuse the application.

 

The applicants then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Carter – the application improved the crossing by the school and there was a 20% change in traffic levels.

 

Councillor John Sanders – In relation to the statement that company fleet vehicles were Euro 6 compliant, private contractors would mostly be using their own vehicles.

 

Councillor Johnston – Case law supported the need for aggregates constituting special circumstances. In addition, the application was for a temporary use and the site would be restored leading to gains in bio-diversity and increased public access.

 

Councillor Roberts – the bunds would be visible but were necessary for mitigation purposes. Although they would be visible this did not necessarily mean that the site was not open in green belt terms.

 

Councillors Thompson & Webber– the additional years to the proposed lifetime of the site allowed for a lower volume of traffic. The 20% reduction was about a balance between a viable level of extraction and lower traffic movements. The restoration would be done with local consultation. The proposed buildings were hypothetical at this stage.

 

Councillor Haywood – In response to concerns about bunching of vehicle movements between 9.15 am and 4 pm it was recognised that the restrictions would affect the rates of vehicles going out, but these had been discussed with the highway engineers.

 

Councillor Carter – Subject to highways approval the company was happy to add to the routeing agreement.

 

Councillor John Sanders – The quarry hours would finish at 6 pm and it was expected that most lorries would be out by 4 pm.

 

Ms Catcheside, Peter Day and Ian Marshall, Principal Engineer then responded by way of clarification to a number of questions from:

 

Councillor Hibbert-Biles – Paragraph 36 of the report makes it clear that there would be harm in the absence of the peak hour and other restrictions. If conditions are applied, then essentially those objections could be withdrawn.

 

Councillor Carter – Paragraphs 112 -122 assess the impact on the Grade II listed building and heritage assets and officers do not recommend that as a reason for refusal.

 

Councillor Gawrysiak – The figures used for the land bank are calculated using the figures in the Local Aggregate Assessment and set out at paragraph 84.

 

Councillor Haywood – Oxfordshire had been able to consistently maintain a land bank over the minimum figure but the amount by which it exceeded the minimum varied.

 

Councillor Carter – The impact on the primary school would be considered as a material consideration. Factors including emissions. Pollution, noise, dust and vibrations had been assessed and officers are satisfied that there are no harmful levels of impact. There was no expectation that a pedestrian crossing would be funded from the £20k that had been identified for footway improvements

 

Responding to questions from several councillors on the impact of the SODC Local Plan Ms Catcheside explained the status of the emerging plan and the weight they were able to attach to it. Officers were unable to recommend the previous ground (iii) set out in the addenda relating to prejudice to the future development of a new link road and Thames crossing.

 

Councillor Johnston proposed refusal of the application for reasons (i), (ii) and (iv) on the addenda together with a reason based on paragraphs 21 -23 of the report relating to the impact on the Grade II Listed Fullamoor Farmhouse. He proposed that reason (iii) as set out on the addenda not be included in the grounds for refusal. Councillor Carter seconded the motion.

 

During discussion:

 

Councillor Reynolds supported reason (iv) but was concerned that with reasons (i) and (ii) the committee would be going against the advice of officers.

 

Councillor Sanders highlighted two issues. Firstly, he was not satisfied that the traffic mitigation was sufficient. Secondly in his view the bund was oppressive and did affect the openness of the green belt.

 

Councillor Carter stated that he had supported the motion refusing the application due to harm to the listed building and heritage site. He also expressed concern over routing issues.

 

Councillor Webber supported the motion but commented that the company had acted honourably and honestly throughout. It was simply that the application was not suitable.

 

Councillor Roberts in supporting the motion to refuse highlighted the impact of additional vehicle movements and also supported the inclusion of a reason for refusal linked to the impact on the landscape and the impact on heritage assets.

 

Councillor Handley indicated that he would be abstaining from the decision as in his view it was premature to bring the application to Committee before the consultation had been finalised and there was uncertainty around the SODC Local Plan. Officers advised that no decision would be issued on the application prior to the close of the consultation period and following consultation with the committee Chairman and Deputy Chairman should any further responses be received. If necessary, the matter would come back to the September meeting for reconsideration.

 

Members voted on the motion proposed by Councillor Johnston, and seconded by Councillor Carter that the application be refused on the following grounds:

 

i)    The additional vehicle movements arising from the development would lead to severe highways impacts contrary to paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework; would not maintain the safety of road users and the efficiency of the road network contrary to the Oxfordshire Minerals and 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 local junctions leading to stationary vehicles with associated air emissions, causing unacceptable adverse impacts on environmental amenity, contrary to Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policies C5 and C10.

 

iii)The less than substantial harm caused to the setting of, and therefore the   significance of, the Grade II Listed Fullamoor Farmhouse would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal and the development would therefore be contrary to policies CON5 and CON7 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan, CSEN3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, and C9 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

iv)The development is inappropriate in the Green Belt contrary to Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policy C12, South Oxfordshire Local Plan policy GB4 and National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 143, 144 and 146 and no very special circumstances exist to justify making an exception to these policies.

 

RESOLVED:             Subject to the consultation period closing without any new material considerations arising and following consultation with the committee Chairman and Deputy Chairman Application MW.0039/16 be refused for the following reasons:

 

iii)  The additional vehicle movements arising from the development would lead to severe highways impacts contrary to paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework; would not maintain the safety of road users and the efficiency of the road network contrary to the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policy C10 and would contribute to congestion, disruption and delays on the road network, contrary to Local Transport Plan policy 02.

 

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

 

iii)The less than substantial harm caused to the setting of, and therefore the   significance of, the Grade II Listed Fullamoor Farmhouse would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal and the development would therefore be contrary to policies CON5 and CON7 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan, CSEN3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, and C9 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

iv)The development is inappropriate in the Green Belt contrary to Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policy C12, South Oxfordshire Local Plan policy GB4 and National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 143, 144 and 146 and no very special circumstances exist to justify making an exception to these policies.

 

Councillor Handley requested that he be recorded as having abstained from the vote.