Agenda item

Report by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning (PN8).

The quarry has identified a need for the provision of a wider range of aggregate products within the local area and proposes to meet this demand by providing the local community with a wider range of aggregate products.  Planning permission is therefore being sought for the importation, handling and resale of 10,000tpa of aggregates within a small section of New Barn Farm Quarry. It is anticipated that 30% of the imported aggregates would be secondary and/or recycled and would largely comprise compost soil blend with the proportion of secondary and/or recycled aggregates is expected to increase as more supplies become available. 

Subject to a supplemental routeing agreement first being entered into planning permission MW.0114/20 be APPROVED subject to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning to include those set out in Annex 1 to the report PN8.

The Committee considered (PN8) an application from Grundon Sand & Gravel Ltd for provision of a wider range of aggregate products from its operation at New Barn Farm to the local community. Planning permission was, therefore, being sought for the importation, handling and resale of 10,000tpa of aggregates within a small section of the Quarry. It was anticipated that 30% of the imported aggregates would be secondary and/or recycled and would largely comprise compost soil blend with the proportion of secondary and/or recycled aggregates expected to increase as more supplies became available. 

Having presented the report Mr Periam confirmed that the configuration of the site access prevented any right turn out of the site.

Stuart Darby who had been due to speak had been unable to attend. A copy of his submission had been made available to members prior to the meeting in case of connectivity problems and so members of the Committee were aware of the grounds of Mr Darby’s objection.

Councillor Pete Sudbury addressed the Committee and also spoke on behalf of Mr Stuart Darby.  Outlining a number of main objections to this application he first advised that one of those concerns regarding potential loss of trade for other local suppliers seemed to have now been addressed following confirmation from local merchants that it was no longer an issue of concern for them. Other objections and concerns included what he referred to as the “bridgehead problem” where development could be allowed on the outside of the line of the Wallingford bypass in addition to the significant development already taking place inside the line of the road. That could lead to more traffic congestion and further erode the purpose of the bypass to keep traffic away from the centre of Wallingford.  It was clear from the Grundon application that this proposal was aimed at creating a significant retail operation and any development allowed outside the line of the road meant that other applications including ones for residential development would be hard to resist. The coalescence of areas such as Brightwell and Wallingford was not the way forward and if that was allowed to happen then the bypass would become a through road with lower speed limits, more local traffic and more traffic encouraged to cut through Wallingford exacerbating current air quality issues in the town centre  As a major route from Didcot to the south and Henley the A4130  pre-Covid had already been congested at peak times and current levels of traffic were neither indicative or representative of what we might return to. Future residential development both locally and in Didcot meant this road should be regarded as a future pinch point and he did not accept that the extra traffic generated would be trivial as indicated by modelling assumptions but continue to be busiest at peak times and not spread out equally through the day. Access to the site was unsuitable for non-commercial traffic with the potential for accidents and tailbacks whereas the access to Highcroft had an extensive entrance, long slip roads, visibility improvements and lighting etc, yet the quarry site had nothing like that allowing unaware members of public to just drive out into 60mph traffic on an unlit road? Regular users (ie HGV’s) would be aware of the access requirements and limitations, but public traffic would not and so the access arrangements as presently built were unsuitable and dangerous. Furthermore because of the left-hand turn requirements on leaving the site, all traffic would have to travel along both carriageways of the bypass between Hithercroft and Winterbrook roundabouts at each visit, to enter or return depending on their final destination. He considered this an unnecessary development in the wrong place and should be refused.

The Committee noted the following written representation received from Brightwell cum Sotwell Parish Council objecting to the application. They pointed out that when planning permission had been granted it had been on the proviso that when the quarry was finished with extraction it would be turned into a lake for boating, wildlife and the like. There had never been any mention of a shop and we are very concerned that this might be the precursor for more development on the site which would be totally unacceptable. Also at the time the Parish Council had argued there was no need for a gravel pit at this site as there were plenty of alternative sites locally so the idea that gravel would be brought into this site from these other places seemed wrong. The parish council felt that traffic levels would increase and if there were to be any new building retail outlets in this area they should be sited on the other side of the road where an extension to the Hithercroft trading estate was already being built.  They were also concerned that business would be taken away from the several established builders’ merchants in the area.

Councillor Haywood left the meeting at 4:30.

Monika Gogol for the applicants advised that New barn Farm quarry had been operating for nearly a year to help meet the needs of the local construction industry.  The site was permitted to extract 140,000 tonnes of sand and gravel per year and to be restored using 120,000 tonnes per year of imported soils and clays giving a total throughput of 260,000 tonnes per year.  The quarry operated with dust and noise management schemes in place, both of which were monitored on a quarterly basis. Vehicles were routed to avoid travelling through Cholsey and Wallingford. The County Council monitored the site and had been to date satisfied that the site was compliant. The proposal was to import up to 10,000 tonnes per year for resale and involved the use of recycled aggregates and waste soils for blending with sand dug from the site to produce various products and a soil blend for landscaping. In addition small quantities of other aggregate would be imported for resale. Importation levels would be capped to ensure it remained ancillary to the main quarry operation and removed before restoration and so was a temporary use using part of the current gravel stocking area and the same machinery as the current operation which had been are considered satisfactory. County and District officers were satisfied that there would be no additional or potential impacts.  Importation cap limits, vehicle numbers and the routing agreement meant that no vehicles would travel through Cholsey or Wallingford with County Highways officers satisfied that there would be no adverse impact.  Grundon had been a local company for over 70 years and was the Districts’ second largest private employer. The operation complimented and offered a different range of products to the usual builder’s merchant range and they operated similar enterprises at other quarries in West Oxfordshire and North Hampshire. Whereas builders’ merchants supplied only 20kg small bags or 0.9 tonne bags this operation offered other quantities which could be loaded onto trailers without the resultant need for bags.  The product range offered was also different with inquires for products already being received together with letters of support for the application.  The NPPF encouraged a diverse economy and choice and competition and this application would ensure that customers could obtain the appropriate goods at the best price for them.  She asked the Committee to accept their officer recommendation to approve.

She then confirmed that there would be no soil available for purchase on site as that material was needed for restoration.

With regard to monitoring and enforcement officers confirmed that the quarry was subject to monitoring visits and that would continue.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by the Chairman, seconded by Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor and carried by 4 votes to 2, with 3 abstentions. Two councillors had been unable to vote due to absence from part of the debate) that subject to a supplemental routeing agreement first being entered into that Application  MW.0114/20 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning to include those set out in Annex 1 to the report PN8.