Agenda item

Report by the Director for Planning & Place (PN8).

This report considers whether Prior Approval should be granted for the installation and use of a concrete batching plant to produce ready-mixed concrete at Faringdon Quarry (planning permission no. MW.0068/19). It is an application for Prior Approval of Permitted Developmment under Part 17, Class B of the General Permitted Development (England) Order (As Amended) 2015.

The application is being reported to Committee because the local County Councillor, Little Coxwell Parish Council, Faringdon Town Council and three third parties have objected to the application on the grounds of use of the planning system, traffic, local amenity and need citing that the application has been submitted in a mis-application of the planning system, there is no need for the development as there is no indigenous materials to be used, the amenity of local residents will be impacted by noise dust and visual intrusion and that the increase in HGV movements will be dangerous and the highways network is already at and above capacity.

The development accords with the provisions of the General Permitted Development (England) Order (As Amended) 2015; Part 17, Class B as an installation of plant that is ancillary to the existing mining operations using indigenous material from the existing quarry. However, prior approval is required from the Mineral Planning Authority on the siting, design, and external appearance of the plant to be installed under Permitted Development. There is limited scope for the council to condition or refuse the application.

It is RECOMMENDED that the prior approval is granted for the installation and use of a mobile Concrete Batching Plant to produce ready-mixed concrete for sale under Part 17, Class B of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), and in accordance with the detailed proposals for the location, height, design and appearance of the plant, as contained within the application and listed in the Schedule of Approved Plans and Documents.

Schedule of Approved Plans and Documents

(i)     Request letter dated 09.07.19

(ii)   Location Plan – Drawing No. DG.EST.FAR.CBP.01

(iii)  Concrete Batching Plant Location Plan – Drawing No. DG.EST.FAR.CBP.02

(iv)  MCM60 & MCS50 Silo Layout Plan – Drawing No. Wiltshire MCM60 Layout

(v)   MCM60 & MCS50 – Silo Elevation Plan – Drawing No. Wiltshire MCM60 Elevation Layout

(vi)  Technical Note dated 29.05.19

(vii)   Faringdon CBP Technical Note Addendum Noise 21.08.19

On condition that the submission of a screening planting scheme is submitted to and approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority and implemented prior to the installation of the mobile batching plant.

The Committee considered (PN8) a report on whether Prior Approval should be granted for the installation and use of a concrete batching plant to produce ready-mixed concrete at Faringdon Quarry (planning permission no. MW.0068/19). This was an application for Prior Approval of Permitted Developmment under Part 17, Class B of the General Permitted Development (England) Order (As Amended) 2015 and was being reported to Committee because objections had been received from the local County Councillor, Little Coxwell Parish Council, Faringdon Town Council and other third parties.

Mr Periam presented the report together with additional information set out in the addenda which included a revised recommendation.

Glen Yarwood on behalf of Little Coxwell Parish Council and residents considered the introduction of a concrete batching plant wholly unacceptable, completely disproportionate and a major departure from the initial quarrying of local materials for onward sale. Objections related to noise, traffic, dust and pollution, impact on the rural countryside, water supply and commercial considerations. Little Coxwell was a rural location with a large number of walkers on local footpaths and horses located in the fields opposite the site and all using local bridleways and roads. Noise from the machinery would have a huge effect as would the visual impact. Dust and pollution would be distributed over a wide area and it was dismissive to suggest this would or could be mitigated by modern dust collection systems. That was clearly not the case as evidenced at other similar sites. The investment made in this sort of equipment suggested an intent to gain as much revenue as possible and, therefore, activity on site would inevitable increase. There was likely to be a higher increase in traffic than had been suggested with a more realistic figure of 10 vehicles an hour if equipment was used at full capacity. That investment also seemed to be contradictory to the site closing in 2026 which suggested an extension to the working life of the quarry. The potential for dust and pollution from cement dust which can be extremely harmful was considerable and it made little sense to introduce this sort of risk in an area when no demonstrable need for the material had been shown to exist. A 7-metre high piece of equipment would be visible and it was not acceptable to suggest that it would blend in on an existing industrial site or increase what was already an eyesore in the rural community. Water supply could be affected if the plant was on the same supply as the local community which already suffered from low water pressure. The parish council were strongly requesting that the application be refused.

Endorsing the above comments County Councillor Judith Heathcote emphasised the rural and agricultural location of this site and the consequences for the surrounding area. The site stood adjacent to the A420 where traffic levels were steadily increasing and with the expansion of Swindon safety levels were decreasing to such an extent that the road had been identified for inclusion in the Major Roads Network Proposals and had been the subject of numerous A420 safety meetings with officers and other local county councillors whose divisions straddled the road.  The A420 had many junctions notably Buckland, which had been improved, Buckland Marsh, Littleworth, Little Coxwell and Great Coxwell and it is was these that accounted for the majority of accidents with drivers at the Littlewroth junction preferring to turn left out of Littleworth rather than risk a right turn across oncoming traffic. That manouvere was being replicated at other junctions. Commercial traffic did not follow advisory signing to use the A34 to the M4 preferring instead the A420. Little Coxwell had one junction onto A420 where traffic was moving at and often exceeding 60 mph and to suggest that that junction was acceptable with sufficient splays and sightlines was at best questionable.  Water requirements for the batching plant via a storage tank would affect local water pressure.  I would urge the Committee to take on board the concerns I and other local residents have raised regarding conditions on the A420, impact on a rural and agricultural area, health and welfare from pollution, dust and noise and the serious need for the Little Coxwell junction to be improved.

Responding to Councillor Sames she confirmed that road improvements had not been carried out and residents did not want to see dirt and pollution problems experienced at similar sites replicated here.

Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor expressed concern regarding pollution and dust and agreed that any additional movements onto the A420 would be a major concern.

Mr Periam explained that the type of conditions which could be imposed on this type of application were limited to those which reduced injury to the amenity of a neighbourhood from a particular development or whether it could be sited elsewhere. Regarding the latter officers had felt that the location here where suitable material for concrete production was worked would contribute to meeting market demand in this part of the county and surrounding areas.  Regarding the former and in response to specific questions he confirmed that it would not be possible to condition or refuse permission on highway capacity or safety impacts.  However, a condition to mitigate against noise and dust could be considered as an impact on local amenity and a limit on vehicle movements to 22 per day to protect local horseriders and local inhabitants and residents.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Johnston, seconded by Councillor Roberts and carried by 6 votes to 3, Councillor Sames, Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor recorded as voting against and Councillor Webber recorded as abstaining) that the prior approval be granted for the installation and use of a mobile Concrete Batching Plant to produce ready-mixed concrete for sale under Part 17, Class B of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), and in accordance with

(a)           the detailed proposals for the location, height, design and appearance of the plant, as contained within the application and listed in the Schedule of Approved Plans and Documents.

Schedule of Approved Plans and Documents

(i)            Request letter dated 09.07.19

(ii)           Location Plan – Drawing No. DG.EST.FAR.CBP.01

(iii)         Concrete Batching Plant Location Plan – Drawing No. DG.EST.FAR.CBP.02

(iv)         MCM60 & MCS50 Silo Layout with existing 10m screws – Drawing No. Wiltshire MCM60 Layout

(v)          MCM60 & MCS50 – Silo Layout with existing 10m screws (colour) – Drawing No. Wiltshire MCM60 Elevation Layout

(vi)         Technical Note dated 29.05.19

(vii)        Faringdon CBP Technical Note Addendum dated 21.08.19

(b)          on condition that the submission of a screening planting scheme be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority and implemented prior to the installation of the mobile batching plant and additional conditions (under Part 17, Class B.2(2) of the GDPO) to protect the amenity of the neighbourhood to:

(i)            Limit the number of vehicle movements to 22 per day

(ii)           Ensure robust dust and noise monitoring

(iii)          Ensure use of wheelwashing facilities