Agenda item

Report by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning (PN6)

As resolved at the meeting of the Planning & Regulation Committee on 7 September 2020, the report provides an update on progress with regard to the work on the application and Environmental Statement for the review of conditions for the ROMP permission areas DD1 and DD2. The report also provides an update on the progress with planning application no. MW.0075/20 for processing plant, a conveyor and a Bailey Bridge for the removal of mineral extracted from part of the ROMP permission areas DD1 and DD2.  It is recommended that a further update report be provided to the meeting of the Planning & Regulation Committee on 19 July 2021.

It is RECOMMENDED that:

A)         The Planning & Regulation Committee’s previous conclusion from its meeting on 9 September 2019 (Minute 39/19) that mineral working on the Radley ROMP site has permanently ceased and that there is a duty to serve a Prohibition Order is not rescinded but that the service of the Prohibition Order is held in abeyance pending:

i)       the progression and determination of application no. MW.0075/20 for processing plant, a conveyor and a Bailey Bridge for the removal of mineral extracted from part of the ROMP permission areas DD1 and DD2; and

ii)     H. Tuckwell and Sons Ltd providing an update, accompanied by documentary evidence, on progress with regard to the work on the application and Environmental Statement for the review of conditions for the ROMP permission areas DD1 and DD2 to the meeting of the Planning and Regulation Committee on 19^th July 2021.

B)         Officers are instructed to investigate whether it is possible to serve a partial Prohibition Order should it be concluded that mineral working has permanently ceased over part but not all of the ROMP permission areas DD1 and DD2

The Committee considered a report (PN6) providing an update on progress with regard to the work on the application and Environmental Statement for the review of conditions for the ROMP permission areas DD1 and DD2. The report also provided an update on progress with planning application no. MW.0075/20 for a processing plant, conveyor and Bailey Bridge for the removal of mineral extracted from part of the ROMP permission areas DD1 and DD2 and also noted thata further update would be made to the Planning & Regulation Committee on 19 July 2021.

Officers presented the report.

Andrew Coker addressed the Committee both as local resident and on behalf of other families living at Thrupp and the owner of the nearby lake off Barton Lane, Steve Clarkson.

He asked the Committee to note some corrections namely that on the maps provided to the Committee the area of the proposed gravel extraction included  woodland in his ownership and Mr Clarkson’s land and lake. There was no gravel there as it that had already been removed and from their records that had been extracted in 1994.  Therefore, it wasn’t 21 years since extraction had ceased but 27.  That same date should be given for the extraction next to former lakes H and I, known locally as the Orchard Lake with gravelling ceasing in this area nearly 30 years ago.

Confusion and shifting time scales had been a characteristic of this planning blight. Whilst huge interest had been shown at times in extracting the gravel, none, apart from that in 1994, had been done and it had been a tactic to keep things ticking over whilst other sites were used.  The extraction at Sutton Wick kept being extended and then, when it looked like coming to an end, the Nyatt Field became a live issue again and residents had lived with that blight. Tuckwell plan to submit a ROMP application and EIA in spring-summer 2022 but what is there to stop that timescale slipping progressively, as every past timescale seemed to have done. He asked the Committee to hold the interested companies to a strict timetable and make them abide by it. 

He also asked that the company make a full disclosure of their plans as their piecemeal approach merely led to further confusion. Residents wished to know when extraction was planned to take place, how they intended to do that, what measures would be taken to protect them from noise and dust pollution and most importantly how long this was going to take and what would happen thereafter.

He pointed out that this year the Nyatt Field had flooded twice and higher than before with water in the field for over 4 weeks. If there had been an extraction hole, the water would still be there, needing to be pumped out, an extremely noisy operation for those of us living here.

A large area of woodland next to the River Thames had been removed since the Committee had met in September last year. Supposedly because it was diseased but he felt it more likely to have been in preparation for the extraction. The large timber lorries carry an enormous amount of mud from the Nyatt field onto the Sustrans pathway making it impossible for people to get through without becoming filthy. This is very disrespectful to the thousands who enjoy this walk and should be addressed by the owners of the land and their agents.

If this extraction was to take place then it needed to be in accordance with environmental best practice and with this Committee holding the companies to account at every turn.

Richard Dudding spoke on behalf of Radley Parish Council who believed that the Committee should decide now to proceed with a prohibition order for the area north of the disused railway. If that meant the order for the wider ROMP area would not be pursued, then they would, very reluctantly, need to accept that.

There remained a good case for an order for the wider area but county officers did not seem convinced and decisive new evidence was unlikely to emerge by July. Current surveys would drag on bit by bit and the Tuckwells planning application for processing could not sensibly be decided ahead of decisions on extraction of the minerals to be processed.

Rather than put things off until the July meeting the parish council  believed it would be better to face these realities now and act on the one thing where the facts were clear cut namely a prohibition order for the area north of the disused railway. 

The parish council could see no legal reason to prevent an order being made for part only of the ROMP area. The area was easily delineated with no complicated overlaps and was treated separately by the applicants as it fell outside their agreement. It was not covered by the current environmental surveys and was unaffected by the Tuckwells application for processing.

Most importantly the legal tests for a prohibition order for this area were clearly met:

·      No mineral extraction had taken place here since 1979.

·      The applicants agreed that the reserves were exhausted.

·      They had made no proposal for future minerals use.

If a prohibition order was not made for this area the current minerals permissions would prevent it being restored until 2043.

So deciding now to proceed with this area, but not for the whole ROMP area, would provide greater certainty for all concerned.

For the whole ROMP area:

·      it would help the Radley Lakes Trust and Parish Council with their masterplan for nature conservation and quiet recreation.

·      it would help the minerals operators plan ahead commercially.

·      provide a framework for considering how these objectives could best be reconciled through dialogue.

For the area north of the railway:

·      it would enable OCC to get ahead with restoration requirements

·      the District Council to decide on appropriate future land uses.

The Parish Council urged the Committee to decide accordingly.

Responding to Councillor Johnston Mr Dudding agreed that this needed to be resolved in order to provide a clear plan ahead.

Nick Dunn spoke on behalf of H Tuckwell and Sons. Since the September Planning Committee Tuckwells had made further significant financial investments of 10s of thousands of pounds in the ROMP Area as detailed in the Committee report. They would continue to make further significant investments over the coming 12 months, to have the ROMP Application submitted, as is common in the Environmental Impact Assessment process and were of the view that the information as submitted provided sufficient evidence of a genuine intention to extract minerals and that the Prohibition Order should, therefore, be quashed. They considered a clear timetable for work had been produced with clarity regarding operations at Sutton Wick and Radley.

They had been disappointed with the officer recommendations which only created more ongoing uncertainty and costs for both Oxfordshire County Council and Tuckwells. The officer recommendations were also flawed because the ROMP Area was not reliant on the grant of the Thrupp Lane Plant Application, as the mineral could feasibly be processed elsewhere, if the Plant Application was not granted.  This was already the case with the current Planning Permissions for this area. It would, therefore, not be pertinent to consider pursing the Prohibition Order on the land to the north of the railway line.

Tuckwells were again respectfully requesting that this ongoing uncertainty was ended and that an evidence-based decision was made to quash the Prohibition Order today rather than delaying a decision. Finally, having reviewed the representations from local residents and groups they considered these to be, in principle, the same as those rejected by the Inspector in 2014 as being irrelevant and not based on evidence.

Responding to Councillor Johnston Mr Dunn advised that the significant investment made by the company represented a genuine intention to work the material and, with regard to alleged slips in the timetables for work, emphasised that this was not an exact science and work programmes could slow down for various reasons.

Councillor Johnston advised that these issues had been ongoing since he had first been elected to the council in 1982.  In his opinion the work undertaken had been minimal and he had no confidence that any timetable put forward by the company would be adhered to.  He moved, with Councillor Gawrysiak seconding, that the officer recommendations as set out in the report be approved.

The motion was put to the Committee and RESOLVED (unanimously) that:

(a)          the Planning & Regulation Committee’s previous conclusion from its meeting on 9 September 2019 (Minute 39/19) that mineral working on the Radley ROMP site had permanently ceased and that the duty to serve a Prohibition Order should not be rescinded but that the service of that Prohibition Order be held in abeyance pending:

i)    the progression and determination of application no. MW.0075/20 for processing plant, a conveyor and a Bailey Bridge for the removal of mineral extracted from part of the ROMP permission areas DD1 and DD2; and

ii)   H. Tuckwell and Sons Ltd providing an update, accompanied by documentary evidence, on progress with regard to the work on the application and Environmental Statement for the review of conditions for the ROMP permission areas DD1 and DD2 to the meeting of the Planning and Regulation Committee on 19^th July 2021;

(a)          officers be instructed to investigate whether it was possible to serve a partial Prohibition Order should it be concluded that mineral working had permanently ceased over part but not all of the ROMP permission areas DD1 and DD2.