Agenda item

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

 

The report sets out the two proposed developments for which planning permission has been applied under application nos. MW.0057/21 and MW.0058/21. Having considered the report against the development plan and other material considerations including consultation responses and representations received it is recommended the two applications are refused.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application MW.0057/21 be refused for the following reasons:

 

i)          The development is Major Development in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty for which exceptional circumstances do not exist and for which it has not been demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Therefore, the development is contrary to paragraph 177 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy C8 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Part 1 Core Strategy, policies EH1 & EH2 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan and policies CE1, CE4, CE10, CE11, CE12 & CE13 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018.

 

ii)        The development is not necessary in order to achieve the satisfactory restoration and afteruse of the existing quarry in a timely manner contrary to Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Part 1 Core Strategy policies W6 and M10.

 

iii)       The development would not minimise carbon emissions nor make effective use of natural resources contrary to policy C2 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Part 1 Core Strategy and policy OS3 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application MW.0058/21 be refused for the following reasons:

 

i)          In combination with the importation of inert material proposed in application no. MW.0057/21 which the proposed variations to the existing planning permission18/02008/CM (MW.0027/18)would facilitate, the development is Major Development in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty for which exceptional circumstances do not exist and for which it has not been demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Therefore the development is contrary to paragraph 177 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy C8 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Part 1 Core Strategy, policies EH1 & EH2 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan and policies CE1, CE4, CE10, CE11, CE12 & CE13 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018.

 

ii)        In combination with the importation of inert material proposed in application no. MW.0057/21 which the proposed variations to the existing planning permission18/02008/CM (MW.0027/18)  would facilitate, the development is not necessary in order to achieve the satisfactory restoration and afteruse of the existing quarry in a timely manner contrary to Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Part 1 Core Strategy policies W6 and M10.

 

iii)       In combination with the importation of inert material proposed in application no. MW.0057/21 which the proposed variations to the existing planning permission18/02008/CM (MW.0027/18)  would facilitate, the development would not minimise carbon emissions nor make effective use of natural resources contrary to policy C2 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Part 1 Core Strategy and policy OS3 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan.

 

 

The Committee considered (PN7) a report setting out two applications in relation to Castle Barn Quarry. One (MW.0057/21) sought permission for the importation of inert material for use in restoration of the site and the second (MW.0058/21) a Section 73 application to vary certain conditions attached to planning permission MW.0027/18 regarding importation of material and an extension to the restoration date to 31 December 2024.

 

Officers presented the report.

 

Responding to questions officers advised that the statement by the applicant’s counsel on page 44 of the report had unsurprisingly stated that this application did not constitute major development and was in the public interest because of benefits from the proposed scheme and improvements to safety on the site. However, under the NPPF a view had to be taken on any application in an AONB and it was for the Committee as decision takers to decide on whether advice given by officers in this case was correct or not. There had been a quarry there for many years and the original permission had been for restoration using on site material but, for whatever reason, more material had been removed from the site and as a result some imported material would now be required. However, the level of import being proposed was twice what was required to infill under the existing scheme.

 

While giving a higher bio-diversity net gain the new scheme would also result in more HGVs and carbon emissions so a balance was needed between the benefits to be derived from any net gains against the disbenefits from 27,00 additional vehicle movements when restoration could be achieved without that. There was a duty of regard for the management of AONBs.

 

The Highway Authority had initially raised some concerns but not now, subject to routeing agreements

 

Antony Cook for the applicant.  Castle Barn Quarry had historically been worked for building stone but in 2015 that changed to allow surplus waste mineral to be crushed and exported as aggregate enabling the quarry to be worked in a more efficient and effective manner while creating a viable product from finite mineral resources.  However, adequate safeguards had not been established by that permission or those that followed to ensure retention of sufficient waste material on site for restoration, which now meant that the approved restoration scheme could not now be delivered without importing inert material.  While this was an issue that could have been prevented and was a problem inherited by the applicant (as landowner) who was now responsible for delivering the restoration of the quarry the scheme as now proposed presented an opportunity to deliver  significant improvements through development, which sought only continuity of the nature and scale of the quarry operation that had existed on this site between 2015 and 2020 with a maximum three-year extension to complete  restoration works.  However, it was anticipated that the infill operation would be completed within eighteen months with the only discernible difference between the previous mineral operation and the proposed infilling of the remaining void being that associated HGVs would import rather than export material with the number of daily vehicle movements remaining the same. Central to the officer recommendation was the implied impacts of maintaining HGV movements in the AONB but recent development history for the application site included three planning permissions across 2015, 2017 and 2018 each of which approved 58 daily HGV movements from the quarry and in assessing the impact of these applications county officers had consistently stated that 58 HGV movements exporting mineral did not comprise major development in the AONB and did not result in any adverse impact upon the landscape, including the Cotswolds AONB. How could that be different from the same number of HGV movements importing clean, unrecyclable inert material over an 18 month period and if it was that such adverse impacts existed then there should be compelling evidence resulting from the previous mineral operation. But that was not the case.  The officer report referred to the lesser number of movements required to deliver the existing ‘satisfactory’ restoration scheme but policy dictated that quarry restoration schemes must strive to be more than satisfactory especially within an AONB landscape. The consented scheme was almost entirely agricultural with limited biodiversity gains and a retained void resulting in a landform uncharacteristic of the designated landscape and he doubted whether the scheme if it were to be determined today would secure planning permission whereas the proposed development presented an opportunity to reinstate the pre-extraction landform in this part of the AONB; deliver wide-ranging and significantly enhanced biodiversity gains that were not achieved by the consented restoration and remove a large and hazardous void only a matter of metres from a public right of way all through 18 months of importation at a scale of development consistent with that which had currently existed at this site, without issue or detriment, for roughly 6 years and supported by the Parish Council.  Extending HGV movements would be central to any decision making process but as the material proposed to be used to fill the void already existed in the form of soils and clays from construction sites which, because of its unsuitability for use as recycled aggregate, would in any event need to be transported for management purposes.  He accepted that there was a consented restoration scheme that could be delivered within a shorter timeframe but that would still require importation of inert material while resulting in at best nothing more than a satisfactory outcome whereas now there was an opportunity to deliver long term landscape, biodiversity and public safety benefits while representing ‘exceptional circumstances’ in accordance with national policy to provide justification to allow these planning applications to be approved.

 

Responding to questions from Councillors he:

 

Confirmed that waste would be supplied by a local haulier in North Oxfordshire.

 

The operation would use inert waste and be subject to an Environmental Permit.

 

The number of HGVs had been deliberately framed to be consistent with existing limits.

 

They were aware of surrounding traffic restrictions in settlements such as Chipping Norton.

 

As local member Councillor Leffman was well aware of the history of this site and did not consider this application constituted major development. What was being proposed would result in a complete infill of the site with a return to agricultural use and substantial improvements to both biodiversity and ecology.  There had been traffic movements here for many years comprising tractors and lorries with no complaints and problems resolved through appropriate routeing to avoid neighbouring settlements. There had been no ecology objections or objections from neighbouring communities who accepted that the application would allow a return to agriculture with other major benefits. She considered that the application should be approved.

 

Councillor Constance supported the views put forward by the local member. Her expectation was that major development would be above ground rather than filling in below ground level. It seemed clear to her that there was an ambition here to restore this area to a higher standard, that there were exceptional circumstances and it was in the public interest with a net gain in biodiversity.

 

The Chairman reminded the Committee that the main question was whether the development was major development in the AONB. While there was the potential for biodiversity gains and clearly a desire locally to get on with restoration the question remained about development in the AONB along with concerns regarding the balance to achieve that against increased carbon emissions.

 

Councillor Roberts referred to the concerns of Chipping Norton residents who were very exercised about pollution and that they might find it difficult to recognise the benefits to their community. Chipping Norton was also an AQMA and this seemed to be going against that. She agreed that more information was needed as this was a very tight balance.

 

Councillor Rouane advised that environmental officers had not commented on the AQMA issue  he did not see that as a problem and if it wasn’t classed as a major scheme before then why should it be now.

 

Officers advised that Policy C8 and Policy C11 and Appendix 9 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan offered guidance on the issue of major development and whether the proposal had a material impact on the AONB. The Cotswolds Management Plan stated that material should address local needs and come from within the AONB. Given the opportunity could become good biodiverse sites and there were landscape benefits to the proposed scheme but to do that here would require traffic movements estimated at around 28,000 HGVs with increased CO2 emissions. This was an infill application and restoration of the quarry did not have to be completed in this way as there was an alternative approved scheme as set out in the existing planning permission. The question which needed to be asked was why this restoration scheme required so much more material than the original permission. Care was also needed to ensure a precedent was not set for other schemes.

 

It was clear from the full discussion that some Members felt that more information was needed in order to reach a conclusive decision and Councillor Edosomwan moved that the applications be deferred. Seconding the motion Councillor Bennett added that the restoration scheme as now proposed seemed an improvement on the original scheme but agreed that in order to address the issues raised and reach a satisfactory conclusion more information was required to support a decision.

 

The motion was then put to the Committee and:

 

RESOLVED: (by 7 votes to 3) that Applications MW.0057/21 and MW.0058/21 be deferred to a future meeting for further information specifically relating to:

 

·                Biodiversity - to include a comparison of the approved and proposed schemes but more generally whether the proposed restoration scheme was exceptionally better than the approved scheme in order to support the need to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and whether the public interest test had been met if it was concluded that it was major development in AONB terms.

·                Landscape – Landscape Assessments to be provided by applicant for consideration.

·                More detail on the two sites/operators in the north of Oxfordshire which the applicant’s agent had identified as the likely sources of the inert material.

·                An assessment of the CO2 emissions associated with the importation of inert material to the site as proposed.