Agenda item

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

 

The report sets out the proposed development for which planning permission has been applied under application no. MW.0075/20. Having considered the application against the development plan and other material considerations including consultation responses and representations received the officer recommendation is that subject to the completion of a section 106 Agreement for the provision of a permissive path and to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director of Strategic Infrastructure and Planning it be approved.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to the applicant first entering into a section 106 agreement for the provision of a permissive path to provide a link between Thrupp Lane and the disused railway line as part of the restoration of the site that planning application no. MW.0075/20 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 PN7.

 

The Committee considered an application (PN7) setting out proposed use of the existing processing plant site to process sand and gravel from the nearby 94 acre Review of Old Mineral Permission (ROMP) site along with installation of a field conveyor system to the site boundary and ancillary facilities for the transportation, storage and processing of the sand and gravel and the use of the existing haul road.

 

Mr Periam presented the report.

 

Roger Thomas accepted that, if the Nyatt mineral was going to be extracted, then it would need to be processed but there were, though, some big unanswered questions about this application. Firstly, why was this permission needed now? Extraction wasn’t planned to start until perhaps 2025 so why was this permission needed so far in advance? To an onlooker, it didn’t make sense and the officer report did not help much in that regard. In due course, the Committee would be considering a ROMP application for modern planning conditions to cover the Nyatt extraction. That application had to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement covering all the environmental impacts of the Nyatt quarrying, including processing but, because the processing arrangements were being dealt with separately, they wouldn’tt be covered by the Statement which again made no sense. Oxfordshire County Council had requested an Environmental Statement for the present application, but as Tuckwell had successfully appealed that the environmental impacts of this application hadn’t been fully assessed. Arrangements for extraction and processing were, in effect, a single operation so why were they being considered in isolation from each other? This was bound to cause problems as the conveyor only ran to the edge of Tuckwell’s land so how would material be moved from the quarry to the start of the conveyor, a distance of around a kilometre? All this meant that it was impossible to see things in the round so how could the public be assured that, in terms of the environment and the community, this was the best option for processing? An Environmental Statement would have looked at alternatives but this application did not do that. If the decision was to grant permission then it should be made very clear that the permission was entirely without prejudice to future decisions on the best processing arrangements and all options for processing needed to be reviewed, once the full ROMP application for the quarrying and its Environmental Statement were available.

 

Speaking for Radley Parish Council Richard Dudding advised that if minerals were to be extracted in the ROMP area the Parish Council’s view had always been that the Tuckwells yard would be the most suitable location for servicing the operations and processing the minerals once extracted. Nevertheless. They had concerns about the application and a year ago had registered an objection to it. Since then there had been developments namely that it had become clearer that Tuckwells had a genuine intention to extract minerals at Nyatt. Secondly county officers have said that this application for processing should be determined now without waiting for the related application for extraction. The parish council still felt that was not the best approach as the two were inter-connected but needed to address the application as it stood today. Third, Tuckwells had indicated a willingness to work with the local community and the Radley Lakes Trust and although there was nothing in writing it was hoped they would confirm their intentions to do that in their statement to the Committee at this meeting. The parish council in particular hoped that they would confirm their intention to  work co-operatively with the Radley Lakes Trust on implementation of the Radley Lakes Masterplan; build and manage their proposed bailey bridge and conveyor across the old disused railway spur in a manner which allowed safe pedestrian access along this much used historic path, which was of great importance to the masterplan and provide, as part of the site restoration, a new permissive path across their land from Thrupp Lane to the railway spur shortly before it joined the Byway Open to All Traffic. The Parish Council asked the Committee to satisfy itself on these three points and, if they resolved to grant permission, bind them into the approval documentation.

 

He then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Bloomfield – if the application was not considered now then the likelihood was that an appeal would be submitted on grounds of non-determination.

 

Councillor Gawrysiak – protection of the existing footpath was vital in order to maintain safe access as this was a well walked footpath. The parish Council hoped that when the Tuckwell site was restored it would include a new permitted path which had been proposed some years before but there was now an opportunity to move that forward.

 

Councillor Bob Johnston endorsed the comments made by Richard Dudding adding that he couldn’t see any reason to refuse the application but would like to see 2 additional conditions requiring wheelwash facilities and improved screening to be approved in writing between the applicants and the Planning Authority.

 

Nick Dunn for the applicants. Allowing access with plant to the ROMP Area with the ability to then transport mineral back by conveyor to Tuckwells yard at Thrupp Lane clearly provided an environmentally preferable option when compared to refusal of the application which would mean access to and from the site passing close to properties at Thrupp Farm and requiring the use of Thrupp Lane resulting in an unnecessary increase in noise and HGV movements and their associated emissions. That was clearly something which needed to be avoided if possible. Referring to some very late comments from a third party, principally on Newts, it was not clear to him from those comments whether the author had had sufficient training. He queried the methodology used in the surveys which they claimed to have done and asked why they had been undertaken in the first place. What was clear, however, was that this third party had accessed the land without consent from the Landowner whereas in contrast, the ecological assessments they had provided had been undertaken by two professional ecological consultants with a combined 60+ years’ experience who were both full Members of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management; Chartered Environmentalists and held protected species survey licenses, including that for Great Crested Newts and who had clearly detailed the standardised methodologies used.

 

Furthermore, the site had been visited this summer by the County Council’s ecological advisor and a planning officer who had walked the site to assess the issues raised and these concerns had not been upheld. There had since been two further submissions, which continued to be contested by both your ecological advisors and the trained ecologists who undertook the surveys. In summary the Newts had been adequately surveyed and considered in the planning application. Nevertheless, as a failsafe, in the unlikely event that newts or other animals were found, Planning Conditions 13 would require that:

 

‘a suitably Qualified Ecologist will be present prior to works commencing, to ensure that no animals are present. Should they be found, the Ecologist shall move them to a safe location’.

 

In light of the extensive specialist technical input into, and support, for this Planning Application and the protection offered by Condition 13 there was clearly no material technical reason to refuse or delay this application on ecological grounds and asked that the Committee take an evidence-based approach and support the officer recommendations, recognising the benefits this development would provide.  In conclusion he thanked County officers and their advisors for the time and effort they had put into this application over the last 14 months.

 

He then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Webber – a similar permission some eight years before had lapsed because no legal agreement had been secured. That had now been done evidencing the commitment of the company to the operation.

 

Councillor Gawrysiak – the request for conditions with regard to wheelwashing and screening as raised by Councillor Johnston were acceptable as was the S106 permissive path provision. Protection of the existing path would be required under quarry safety regulations.

 

Councillor Bennett – the application had been submitted now to allow it to be added to the EIA.

 

James Lodge for the applicants noted that the proposals sought to renew a planning application previously granted by OCC in 2012. That had lapsed before it was commenced but the only fundamental change was the inclusion of a bailey bridge but, unlike the 2012 Application, the current application had resulted in objection from some in the local community and so he had spoken to representatives of the Friends of Radley Lakes and Thrupp Lane residents and could now confirm that access on the Old Branch Line would not be severed. He was also in the process of purchasing the Old Branch Line and was discussing provision of a car park, as proposed in the Radley Lakes Masterplan with the local community. He recognised the importance of the Old Branch Line, which was why he had proposed a permissive path to join Thrupp Lane when the site was restored. He was in regular and positive discussion about the management of restored areas as they arose and had opened discussions about restoration of the ROMP area and how that could be incorporated into the Radley Master Plan and had discussed with those residents living closest to the ROMP Area about the need to avoid HGVs passing their properties and as a result their support for the Application.  He was confident that he had addressed objections raised by the local community and would continue to do so going forward to maximize the ecological and amenity benefits from his land and the ROMP Area and help deliver the vision of the Radley Lakes Master Plan. He also thanked officers and their advisors for their work on this application and urged the Committee to support their recommendation. 

 

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Webber, seconded by Councillor Gawrysiak and amended with their consent by Councillor Roberts and carried unanimously) that subject to the applicant first entering into a section 106 agreement for the provision of a permissive path to provide a link between Thrupp Lane and the disused railway line as part of the restoration of the site that planning application no. MW.0075/20 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 PN7 subject to additional conditions and informative to secure:

 

·                     Provision of wheelwashing facilities;

·                     Details of screening for the site to be submitted for prior approval (amendment to Condition 10);

·                     The period for commencing the development be reduced from 5 years to 3 (amendment to Condition 2);

·                     Informative that Tuckwells work co-operatively with the Radley Lakes Trust on implementation of the Radley Lakes Masterplan.