Agenda item

Report by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning (PN7).

 

The planning application to extend the existing Shellingford Quarry to the west for mineral extraction was taken to Planning & Regulation Committee on 15 July 2019. The resolution to grant planning permission was subject to the signing of Section 106 agreement.

 

Dust was outlined as a key issue and concern by the committee. Approval was granted subject to a detailed dust management plan to be submitted to committee for final approval before work commenced having first been submitted to the public health and the environmental health teams and reflecting the comments raised by members to secure a robust and meaningful scheme.

 

The planning application was finally issued on the 24 September 2020. The applicant has now submitted a Dust Management Plan (DMP) under details pursuant to condition 25 of the planning permission P18/V2610/CM (MW.0104/18). The DMP was informally sent out for rounds of consultation in January and March, and document is attached to the report under Annex 1. The DMP is required in order to monitor and mitigate any potential air quality significant impact on local residents.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that Application MW.0090/20 be approved.

 

 

 

 

On 15 July the Committee had resolved to grant planning permission to extend the existing Shellingford Quarry to the west for mineral extraction subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement. At that time the Committee had also outlined dust as a key issue and concern and so approval had also been subject to a detailed dust management plan to be submitted to committee for final approval before work commenced having first been submitted to the public health and the environmental health teams and reflecting the comments raised by members to secure a robust and meaningful scheme.

 

The applicant had now submitted a Dust Management Plan (DMP) under details pursuant to condition 25 of the planning permission P18/V2610/CM (MW.0104/18). That plan had been informally sent out for rounds of consultation in January and March and had been attached to the report (PN7) which also considered the detail and responses received to it.

 

Matthew Case presented the report and responded to questions from members of the Committee.

 

Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor – he confirmed that using sticky pads to monitor was not as effective as real time monitoring. There was also a cost element between the two with the latter more expensive.  He understood the sticky pads would be taken away every two weeks for analysis.

 

Councillor Roberts – he understood the site was monitored 2 to 3 times per annum and confirmed there would be a daily visual log and record of what work was being done on the site and weather conditions to support the sticky pad analysis.

 

Councillor Mathew – the recommendation had been based on the information in the dust management plan and it was for the Committee to consider whether or not the system as recommended should be supplemented with periodical real time monitoring.  However, the PM10 particles had not been shown so far to be that significant.

 

Mike Wright on behalf of Shellingford parish meeting group confirmed their rejection of the Revised Dust Management Plan. There had been no conclusive monitoring to date of harmful particulates, nor was any rigorous monitoring proposed. They wished to make two key points:

 

Firstly, the Plan failed to meet the commitments, made by the Applicant, at the July 2019 Council Meeting, as documented in the minutes and who had stated  that “monitoring would be undertaken at the school.”  The Council’s approval had been based on that commitment, which the Applicant was now failing to honour.

 

Secondly, visual assessment and sticky pads did not quantify dangerous PM10 dust pollution as stated by the applicant.

 

Subjective visual assessment of fugitive dust, to determine when mitigating action was triggered, was both unscientific and pointless. Sticky pads did not quantify particulate levels or size and their use was, by definition, retrospective. PM10 and 2.5 emissions were both invisible and the most dangerous to health. The use of sticky pads contradicted clear guidance given by Public Health England as stated in the officer report. Indeed, the Applicant had stated: “The sticky pad method is not intended to provide monitoring for a health-based assessment, it measures disamenity dust.”  Furthermore, in March 2019, the Applicant offered to incorporate gravimetric real time measurement of PM10s within the village. Nobody knew what the particulate emissions in Shellingford were in dry months, because they were never measured. The only data came from one wet spring month when levels would have been low because of those conditions.  This fact was recognised by Public Health England, who recommended a whole year of gravimetric measurement. The cost and effort involved in real-time gravimetric PM10 dust monitoring was relatively trivial. Without effective monitoring, neither the Applicant, nor the Council, nor the residents had any reassurance that harmful levels or particulate emissions would not endanger the residents. They did not understand the Applicant’s reluctance to honour its adoption at the proposed locations in the village and so were asking for a whole year of real time particulate monitoring in the village. There would be no point in an annual review if there were no PM10 measurements to review and he understood that real time monitoring equipment would cost between £500 and £5000 per annum.

 

He then responded to questions from members of the Committee:

 

Councillor Gawrysiak – there had been an undertaking for one monitoring location at the school. That would be an absolute minimum necessary to provide confidence locally. However, the applicant was now proposing to undertake monitoring only at the perimeter of the site.

 

Councillor Mathew – there were 25 members of the Shellingford Parish Meeting Group, He confirmed that the applicants had paid for monitoring to date but that they should now honour the commitment given in July 2019 and pay for future monitoring as promised.  There had been some discussion in the village about meeting the cost themselves and he referred to a system used by some London councils called TSI Blue Sky costing £350 which was a trivial amount when compared to the multi million pound contract being discussed but would give reassurance regarding PM10 levels and provide continuous monitoring.  There were varying costs and the TSI Blue Sky wouldn’t give the best level of accuracy whereas more expensive systems provided more accuracy.  What they as a village were requesting would cost up to £5,000.

 

Gemma Crossley the Agent for the Applicant stated that the Shellingford Quarry Dust Management Plan (DMP) had been prepared by DustScanAQ, independent air quality experts. It met the requirements of condition 25 attached to consent MW.0104/18 for mineral working, infilling and restoration of a western extension to Shellingford Quarry. A robust consultation had been carried out involving Public Health England, Public Health Oxfordshire, District Environmental Health and the Shellingford Village Group and the DMP had been modified to address the comments received. The technical consultees were now satisfied with the DMP as it stood.

 

The outstanding objections from the village and local resident had been answered during the rounds of consultation. In summary, they were as follows:

 

·           Real‐time monitoring: Real‐time monitoring had been carried out in April 2019 for Total Suspended Particles (TSP), PM10 and PM2.5 as requested and approved by PHE and EHO. This recorded baseline levels (at Shellingford School) and levels associated with quarrying activities (at Church Farm).

 

·           Additional PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring: Additional monitoring of PM10 and PM2.5 was not required as proven by the results of the baseline monitoring and Air Quality Assessment (the background levels being so low that guidance stated the proposed development was unlikely to result in an exceedance of the Air Quality Objectives). If changes occurred, the DMP allowed for further monitoring to be undertaken.

 

·           Sticky Pad monitoring: These directional depositional dust samplers were a recognised method for measuring and monitoring nuisance dust. They were not being used at Shellingford as a means for monitoring PM10 and PM2.5, as these had been proven to be sufficiently low and, therefore, not requiring ongoing monitoring.

 

·           Conditions on the road: The quarry access on to the A417 and number of HGV movements would not be changed by permission MW.0104/18. However, the avoidance and mitigation of debris on the public highway had been addressed via condition 26 with details submitted to OCC for approval. Existing and additional mitigation measures included a re‐surfaced haul road, wheel spinner, wheel wash, road sweeper, daily checks, water bowser for dust suppression, vehicle speed limits, limited daily HGV movements and limited hours of operation.

 

·           Additional monitoring locations in the village: This was not necessary because the monitoring locations used for baseline measurements and those proposed for future monitoring represented the nearest receptors, therefore providing a robust worst‐case assessment.

 

It should be noted that the DMP was a living document, which meant it could and would be reviewed during the life of the approved development and amended and updated if material changes were made to operations, equipment, guidance, or baseline air quality objectives. The DMP had been prepared by independent air quality experts; followed national air quality guidance; included good practice measures; had been approved by expert technical consultees and met National and Local Planning Policy.

 

She then responded to questions from members of the Committee:

Councillor Mathew – the monitoring in April 2019 had been real time monitoring and so had been recorded instantly and sent to the applicants air quality consultants.  It was then turned into an average for comparison against guidelines and was found to be sufficiently below thresholds for the consultant to suggest that the proposed development would not exceed the air quality objectives.

 

Councillor Roberts – the data had been provided in full in the air quality assessment addendum. circulated to county officers and technical consultees and available as part of the planning application documents on the website.

 

Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor – the results of the April monitoring had been presented to the planning consultants in May and would normally then appear on the website within a few weeks.  The village representatives would have seen a copy of that.

 

Having regard to the information set out in the Dust Management Plan (specifically section 2 sub section 2.2) Councillor Johnston moved and Councillor Haywood seconded that the officer recommendation as set out in the report be approved both having accepted an amendment to their motion by Councillor Mathew that the applicant undertake real time information monitoring for PM10 and PM2.5 particles as a minimum twice a year.

 

The motion was put to the Committee and RESOLVED (by 12 votes to 0, Councillor Reynolds recorded as abstaining) to approve Application MW.0090/20 subject to the Dust Management Plan being first amended to include an undertaking that the applicant undertake real time monitoring for PM10 and PM2.5 particles as a minimum twice a year.