Agenda item

Report by Assistant Director For Strategic Infrastructure And Planning (PN7).

 

This is a report to bring to committee for determination an application for the extraction of sand and gravel for the creation of a marina on land at Whitecross Farm, Reading Road, Cholsey. The report set outs the issue to be considered in the determination of the application which are the development plan and any other material considerations and concludes that there are a number of reasons why the application is contrary to the development plan and should be refused planning permission.

 

Subject to no additional material comments being received by the completion of the consultation period, it is recommended that application no. MW.0033/18 forPlanning Application to allow the development of an offline River Thames marina basin with fixed and floating pontoon moorings for approximately 280 boats, slipway, secure and public car parking, refuelling and pump-out dock, refuse and recycling area, marina office and café, toilet and shower block and laundry facilities, boat hire building, picnic and barbeque area, open water area, circular footpath, boat workshop, new footbridge and creation of new grazing marsh, grassland, pond, reedbed and wet woodland habitat with a construction phase involving the extraction and processing of sand and gravel, the importation of inert fill and the construction of new site accesses, landscaping and screening bunds be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1)     There is no identified need for a 280 berth marina of which 80% of the moorings would be for permanent moorings. The development is therefore contrary to saved policy R9 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, policy CSS1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2012 and policy ENV4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2034.

2)     The proposed development would constitute a dramatic land-use change that is both discordant with the landscape character of the area and detracts from the open and undeveloped countryside setting of the River Thames and Chilterns AONB. It is therefore contrary to policies CSEN1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2012, C4 and C8 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Part 1 Core Strategy and C3 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

3)     The development would harm the setting of listed buildings and the public benefit of the development is not considered to outweigh that harm. It is therefore contrary to policies CON5 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, CSEN3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2012 and C9 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Part 1 Core Strategy and Section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990.

4)     The development is not considered to be a well-designed place and does not accord with policies D1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 or policy CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2012.

5)     There would be a loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land  contrary to policy C6 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Part 1 Core Strategy.

6)     The accessibility of the site for non-vehicular modes is not considered to comply with policies T1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 and TRANS 2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2034.

7)     It has not been demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on air quality, pollution and human health contrary to elements of policy EP1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011OLP and policy C5 of the OMWCS

8)     It has not been demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety nor a severe impact on the road network contrary to policies T1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, CMS1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2012  TRANS 2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2034 and paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

9)     It has not been demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on groundwater contrary to policies C4 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Part 1 Core Strategy and policy SP7 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

10)  It has not been demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the enjoyment of existing recreational users of the river though additional water traffic generation and is contrary to policy R4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

 

 

The Committee considered (PN7) an application for the extraction of sand and gravel for the creation of a marina on land at Whitecross Farm, Reading Road, Cholsey.

 

Catherine Kelham presented the report with updates since the publication of the report which included revised comments from the County Council’s highways team and a response from the Environment Agency resulting in a revised recommendation.

 

She then responded to questions.

 

Councillor Johnston suggested that in view of the County Council having passed a climate emergency motion this application should be opposed on those grounds in addition to those set out.

 

Catherine Kelham advised that one of the reasons for refusal was air quality but she would be happy consider wording for an additional reason if the Committee so wished.

 

Responding to Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor she advised that the likely timescale for the project if approved would be between 5 – 7 years.

 

Simon Rees spoke in support of the application. The application was a relatively simple, small-scale, low-level, sustainable development that brought a range of both short term and long-term benefits to the County and the local community in the area of Wallingford. It was considered to comply fully with both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and also local planning policy and had been submitted following an extensive period of consultation with river users, local community organisations followed by a series of public exhibitions and presentations and in response to an identified need and demand for new boat moorings and marina facilities – including slipways, boathouse out-of-water boat storage and small boat repair services, together with local community water-based recreation facilities on and adjacent to the Thames Valley. In addition, the construction phase of the marina development would provide additional valuable sand and gravel supply into the Oxfordshire market. It should be noted that the site had been promoted as a small-scale mineral site and had then featured in earlier iterations of the emerging Oxfordshire Minerals Plan document.

 

The positive benefits and support for the development included:

 

·      The construction phase offered the recovery and supply to market of high quality sand and gravel that would meet a demonstrable local need noting that no valuable sand and gravel reserves situated within the marina basin would be sterilised by this development.

·      The off-line (off-river) marina clearly met an identifiable need for additional boat moorings and associated facilities for various boating user groups in the Thames Valley and reduced pressure for on-river (riverside) boat moorings. These were policies from the EA (who controlled the Thames) and the C&RT (who controlled most other waterways) to restrict and reduce on-line moorings to reduce congestion on the waterways and also direct impacts from boat users on the riversides and towpaths due to the number of boats moored end to end along long stretches of the river.

·      Support for the marina development had come from a range of local organisations including the Boys Brigade Canoe & Kayak club, Wallingford Accessible Boat club (organisation for Disabled and special needs river users) and Sport England due to the community facilities offered. There had been numerous statements of support during the exhibitions from the local community as well as river user groups due to the very limited amount of facilities available on the Thames between Oxford and Reading.

·      The economic benefits of the proposal had also been supported by the South Oxfordshire District Council Economic Development Officer due to the income generated from both the leisure facility itself and the wider tourism benefits that such a scheme could generate. A 91 page submission to Oxfordshire CC in January 2020 reviewed the existing River Thames marina facilities and, the river boat and cruiser markets and also the proposals for a 280 berth marina development with the associated boathouse/ workshop facilities at Wallingford and concluded that:

“The financial proposals confirm that a successful and sustainable marina business located within the growing Oxfordshire tourism sector can be developed at White Cross Farm, with long term revenues generated in excess of £28m over a 20 year period from both marina fees, (at occupancy rates of 80%) and from associated commercial operations, with about £1million per annum generated for the local economy during the five year construction phase”.

 

It could clearly be demonstrated that both the short-term construction phase mineral extraction and the long-term marina development would meet the needs of the local economic agenda, support community organisations that currently could not access the river Thames and help support local tourism in the Wallingford and South Oxfordshire area.

 

Regarding mitigation of potential impacts the site had been carefully selected in terms of being situated in a preferred area of Oxfordshire for future sand and gravel supply, as well as being situated outside the Oxfordshire Green Belt, not within either of the two local AONB’s and not containing any designated environmental designated site, such as SSSI’s, SAM’s etc. The development was low level and well screened from all residential properties and the Chilterns AONB. The existing riverside habitats also restricted views into the site from the River Thames itself as there was a 30m stand-off between the edge of the marina and the riverbank. The proposed landscaping, planting and soft end-uses would quickly soften the appearance of the completed development and help it assimilate into the local landscape.

 

Detailed landscape assessment and evidence from very experienced professional landscape experts made it clear there would be no direct impact on the Chilterns AONB (which would reduce further as the site matured) and no impact on the North Wessex Downs AONB. There were no clear viewpoints of the application site from either AONB.

The archaeological and heritage assessments also concluded that there were no direct impacts but that any impacts would be indirect and not substantial. It should also be noted that the Mongewell site that contained the “heritage assets” had recently gained planning permission for over 166 dwellings and that the CABI site just to the north-east of the marina on the eastern river bank (within the AONB) is a permitted housing scheme of over 90 new dwellings.

 

The proposed marina landform and its surrounding habitats and areas of biodiversity had been designed following extensive consultation with the County Ecologist. Such that the proposed scheme offered a clear Biodiversity net gain compared with the existing arable land and grazing land that formed the majority of this small area of farmland. It should be noted that the original farm had been split by the construction of the Wallingford by-pass that now formed the northern site boundary.

 

Regarding the thrust of the NPPF, it was considered that this proposal was clearly a sustainable development having significant positive economic, environmental and social/ community benefits; that it met the South Oxfordshire Local Plan policy R9 that supports “off-river” boat moorings in “purpose built facilities” and would therefore reduce the pressure for “on-river” moorings in South Oxfordshire which Local Plan policy sought to specifically resist due to the congestion they caused in the river and the loss of amenity they caused to river bank walkers and other river users.

 

In conclusion the officer’s report placed far too little weight on the positive effects of the development in terms of both sand and gravel supply which was a material consideration nor on the long-term benefits of a marina in providing additional off-river moorings, as well as facilities for river user groups and an overall positive contribution to local tourism, the local economy and biodiversity.

The report generally appeared to reduce the identified benefits and emphasised a range of “potential negative effects”, often incorrectly using a suggested lack of need for the development as a justification for certain impacts being judged unacceptable. This was not considered to be a proper approach and distorted the planning balance and the judgement to be made as NPPF did not require the need for a development to be proved. Therefore, it was not accepted that were any genuine reasons for refusing these proposals as there was no clear and robust evidence to demonstrate that the alleged impacts identified were significant, unacceptable or adverse, which was the criteria set out in NPPF. None of the key consultees had presented any clear evidence that there were any areas of potential impact that reached the threshold of unacceptability.

 

In light of the points above, he asked the not to accept the Officer’s recommendation to refuse permission but instead to either:

 

i)       grant permission subject to a range of planning conditions to provide control over both the mineral extraction and the development and operation of the proposed marina, or

ii)      defer a decision subject to a site visit to assess the potential impacts and also allow yourselves time to fully investigate further the benefits of the scheme.

 

Mr Rees then responded to questions.

 

Councillor Gawrysiak asked for comment on the responses from the Environment Agency and OOC Landscape Officer as set out on pages 88- 90 in the report. Firstly the EA had stated that the flood risk assessment supplied did not comply with requirements for site-specific flood risk assessments and there was a lack of detail with regard to pollution or unnecessary impacts to the water environment. Secondly the OCC landscape officer had considered that the development would cause unacceptable harm and impact on the landscape character and visual quality.

 

Mr Rees advised that a full EIA had been supplied in 2018 and there had been objection at the 1^st phase of consultation.  They then went through a Regulation 25 submission in January 2020.  The EA then came back in March/April saying that the flood risk assessment was out of date because the River Thames Flood Risk Model had been updated. We recommissioned a revised flood risk assessment in July and the latest position as I understand it is that the EA have not reviewed that data and so are upholding their objection until that is done.  With regard to pollution he felt that there had been some confusion and the issue was how would sewage be dealt with either through access to main sewage for which there was capacity or through a tank system which was normal for such developments. It was not intended to dispose of sewage into the Thames. On landscape they felt that a lot of work had gone into this but felt that in principle the landscape officer had not liked the scheme but had not carried out any assessments or produced any evidence to support that view and without that they could not accept that there would be adverse impact.  There had been a lot of subjective and negative comments but no evidence to support those views.

 

Catherine Kelham confirmed that further information submitted in relation to the flood risk modelling had been submitted to the Environment Agency and that the Agency had not yet had time to llok at that.  However, at this point it had not been demonstrated that the flood risk was acceptable but when the EA had reviewed the data that might change.

 

Councillor Johnston – this was a 280 berth marina with provision for 50 - 80% who paid for a mooring and 20% river traffic. That was about normal for this type of marina development. It would not in itself create additional river traffic. The Thames was a fluid system with boats moving back and for but there was a lot of pressure on mooring space.

 

Councillor Phillips asked why these applications had been conflated and not separated between County (for extraction) and the District Council (marina development).

 

Mr Rees advised that in 2015/16 he had dealt with South Oxfordshire District Council which had involved a pre application meeting and scoping but because the application involved minerals the matter had been called in by the County Council as a county matter.

 

Catherine Kelham confirmed that an application for the winning and working of materials on or under the ground or for machinery proposed in connection with that work was a county matter.   Therefore, because the application was for the winning and working of material even if at the end of that work it was proposed to create a marina it fell within the remit of a county application.  It could have been viewed as a mineral extraction with restoration to a marina but that is not how the application had been presented.

 

Councillor Thompson – Mr Rees confirmed that there would be a phased working sheme over 4 years with around 120,000 tonnes pa. There was a clear market locally for the material.

 

Councillor Sanders referring to the need for the material pointed out that the report indicated that there was no need for further sharp sand and gravel now? time?

 

Mr Rees advised that at the time of the application there had been a perceived need but it had taken so long to get to this point things had moved on.  At the time of the application there had been a clear emphasis in county policy for extraction of gravel in the south of the county away from West Oxfordshire and the application complied with that. This was essentially a short-term development for a marina with the bonus of a windfall site offering opportunities for economic development and material into the local market.  It should not be seen as a site adding to the landbank.

 

Councillor Mark Gray the local member advised that there was a massive amount of local opposition to this application including both Wallingford Town and Cholsey parish Councils.  Support by comparison was small. There was already a gravel site operating nearby which challenged the question of need for the material.  There were huge environmental issues from a dramatic change of land use on what was the longest uninterrupted stretch of the Thames which was prized by rowing clubs.  The path alongside was in constant use and not just for recreation and otters had been sighted in the area.  He was surprised that that the SODC Economic officer supported the proposed development as it had been opposed in the Local Development Plan.  This had dragged on and he urged the Committee to bring that to an end and refuse the application.

 

He then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Sanders – he was not aware of any moorings on that stretch of river.  There were a few around Wallingford and while there was a need for few more in Wallingford there was no demand for 280 or anything like that.

 

Councillor Johnston - he supported an additional reason for refusal based on the potential carbo footprint of the development.

 

Councillor Webber advised that some 30 years ago he and his family had hired a boat from a boathouse on this stretch of water but that had now closed as it was not financially viable. Would you agree that brought into question the financial viability of this scheme?

 

Councillor Gray could not recall the specific detail as to why the boathouse had closed but agreed it was likely that economics would have played a part in its closure.

 

The Committee noted the following comments from County Councillor Peter Sudbury (Wallingford) who supported the officers recommendation for refusal of the development (for well-argued reasons, with every one of which he agreed). The development would be a dreadful eyesore, creating pollution and unwanted extra river traffic. The process of building it would cause years of disruption to already overloaded roads and represented in his view wasteful environmental vandalism.

On the advice of officers Councillor Johnston advised that he would not pursue an additional reason for refusal based on the climate emergency motion as passed by Council.

 

Councillor Handley expressed some concern that refusing the application might be premature bearing in mind the potential demands in connection with the SODC Local Plan projected housing development.

 

Catherine Kelham advised that the current landbank figure indicated that there was sufficient material being produced to maintain a 7 year projection. The Committee needed to take a decision in accordance with policies which currently implied there was sufficient material.

 

Councillor Webber agreed that there was little justification for the extraction of gravel and on those grounds alone the application should be refused.

 

Responding to Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor Catherine Kelham confirmed that there would be 58 GHV movements in and out of the site with a one-way system to avoid crossing lanes of traffic.  Those roads were not part of the main network for lorry movements but were connecting roads and seen as suitable for that type of vehicle.   With regard to the size of the site SODC had provided substantial comments on that.  The original proposal had been for 300 – 350 moorings but that been reduced by the applicant. No further reduction had been discussed.

 

Councillor Sanders felt it unfortunate that due to current restrictions the Committee had been unable to visit the site which made consideration of some of the reasons such as 2 and 3 quite difficult.  He was sure this development would be welcomed by some people but he could not support it. He moved the officer recommendation as amended by deletion of reason 8 in the printed papers and the addition of the following reason:

 

“It had not been demonstrated that the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere as required by paragraph 163 of the NPPF and contrary to draft policy EP4 of the SOLP2034. “

 

The motion seconded by Councillor Phillips was put to the Committee and –

 

RESOLVED: (10 votes to 0, Councillor Handley recorded as having abstained) that subject to no additional material comments being received by the completion of the consultation period, it is recommended that application no. MW.0033/18 for Planning Application to allow the development of an offline River Thames marina basin with fixed and floating pontoon moorings for approximately 280 boats, slipway, secure and public car parking, refuelling and pump-out dock, refuse and recycling area, marina office and café, toilet and shower block and laundry facilities, boat hire building, picnic and barbeque area, open water area, circular footpath, boat workshop, new footbridge and creation of new grazing marsh, grassland, pond, reedbed and wet woodland habitat with a construction phase involving the extraction and processing of sand and gravel, the importation of inert fill and the construction of new site accesses, landscaping and screening bunds be refused for the following reasons:

1)     There was no identified need for a 280 berth marina of which 80% of the moorings would be for permanent moorings. The development was therefore contrary to saved policy R9 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, policy CSS1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2012 and policy ENV4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2034.

2)     The proposed development would constitute a dramatic land-use change that was both discordant with the landscape character of the area and detracted from the open and undeveloped countryside setting of the River Thames and Chilterns AONB. It was therefore contrary to policies CSEN1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2012, C4 and C8 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Part 1 Core Strategy and C3 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

3)     The development would harm the setting of listed buildings and the public benefit of the development was not considered to outweigh that harm. It was therefore contrary to policies CON5 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, CSEN3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2012 and C9 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Part 1 Core Strategy and Section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990.

4)     The development was not considered to be a well-designed place and did not accord with policies D1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 or policy CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2012.

5)     There would be a loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land contrary to policy C6 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Part 1 Core Strategy.

6)     The accessibility of the site for non-vehicular modes was not considered to comply with policies T1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 and TRANS 2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2034.

7)     It had not been demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on air quality, pollution and human health contrary to elements of policy EP1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 and policy C5 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Part 1 Core Strategy.

8)     It had not been demonstrated that the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere as required by paragraph 163 of the NPPF and contrary to draft policy EP4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2034

9)     It had not been demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on groundwater contrary to policies C4 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Part 1 Core Strategy and policy SP7 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

10)  It had not been demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the enjoyment of existing recreational users of the river though additional water traffic generation and is contrary to policy R4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.