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

 

1.     Application 1: MW.0057/21

Importation of inert material for use in restoration of the site

 

2.     Application 2 MW.0058/21

 

Section 73 application to continue the development of limestone quarry extension permitted by 18/02008/CM (MW.0027/18) without complying with condition 1, condition 2, condition 8 and condition 26 in order to amend the approved restoration scheme, extend the end date for restoration and allow the importation of inert material

 

RECOMMENDATION

That applications MW.0057/21 and MW.0058/21 be refused. 

 

The Committee considered a report by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning recommending that the following applications be refused –

 

i.       MW.0057/21: importation of inert material for use in restoration of the site; and

ii.      MW.0058/21: Section 73 application to continue the development of limestone quarry extension permitted by 18/02008/CM (MW.0027/18) without complying with condition 1, condition 2, condition 8 and condition 26 in order to amend the approved restoration scheme, extend the end date for restoration and allow the importation of inert material.

 

Matthew Case, Senior Planning Officer, Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, presented the report that was before the Committee.

 

Representations on Behalf of the Applicant

 

Mr Antony Cook of David Jarvis Associates Ltd gave a presentation in support of the applications.

 

In response to questions by Members of the Committee, Mr Cook provided the following information.

 

(a)  Regarding the amount of construction waste generated within the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) vis-à-vis what would be imported from outside, Mr Cook stated that the volume [of inert waste] proposed was 118,000 m³. However, he had no further information on the volume of waste being generated.

(b)  Referring to the consented scheme, Mr Cook stated that the quarry had been overworked and there wasn’t sufficient material on the site for restoration purposes, and there was no consent to import material to the site.

[Mr Periam confirmed that the current consent did not provide for the importation of any material].

(c)   Concerning the number of lorry movements, Mr Cook stated that 58 lorry movements per day were permitted during the operation of the quarry and the same number of lorry movements were being sought for the proposed additional 18 months working.

(d)  Mr Cook stated that, for the purposes of the restoration, the application was for a three-year extension comprising 18 months of importation of materials and 18 months completing the restoration work.

(e)  In response to a question by the Chair, Mr Cook stated that Earthline Exchange Ltd [the potential infilling operator] had subsequently confirmed that, if they were to be carry out work at the site, they would operate within a much closer radius of the site as it was not cost-effective to haul inert materials long distances, particularly given increasing fuel costs.

The applicant stated that if the infilling operator had Castle Barn Quarry within their portfolio, they would focus on developments within Chipping Norton, Stow on the Wold, and nearby towns to ensure they could generate the material within a locally sourced area and were not hauling materials great distances.

(f)    Regarding the biodiversity net gain and who would create, manage, and monitor the scheme, and how this would be assured if the scheme was approved, Mr Cook stated there was an expectation there would be a Planning Condition requiring a detailed restoration and after-care scheme which would set out a five- or 10-year monitoring period. In addition, it was proposed that there would be annual monitoring of the scheme, in conjunction with the local authority, to ensure that the scheme was carried out and had become self-sustaining by the end of the monitoring period.

(g)  In response to a question about the quarry having been overworked, and the application possibly being refused, Mr Cook stated that, if the restoration was to be carried out, it would be necessary to submit a further Planning application.

(h)  Mr Cook confirmed that it would not be possible to restore the site without bringing material on to the site. He stated there was an option to bring 50,000 m³ on to the site which would achieve a satisfactory restoration outlined in the consented restoration scheme.

 

As there were no more questions for Mr Cook, the Chair stated that the decision for the Committee was whether the applications constituted major development in an AONB. If the Committee deemed the applications to be major development, they should be refused, unless there were exceptional circumstances, and the development could be demonstrated to be in the public interest.

 

In the subsequent discussion, the following points were raised.

 

(a)  In response to a question about the dangers of leaving a large void in the area, Mr Periam noted that this was a closed quarry and that Health and Safety matters where the remit of other agencies. Mr Case confirmed that both restoration schemes included areas of geological interest which consisted of exposed quarry face.

(b)  In response to several questions by Members of the Committee, Haidrun Breith, Landscape Specialist, Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, provided the following information –

i.       For the reasons set out in the report (see Paragraphs 27 et seq), Ms Breith stated that she remained of the view that the benefits of the proposed restoration did not justify the impacts associated with the proposed level of infilling. Therefore, on balance, she did not support the application.

ii.      Regarding biodiversity, Ms Breith stated there was merit in the present application but, when compared with the consented restoration scheme which did not involve HGV lorry movements, the consented scheme was to be preferred when considering issues of tranquillity.

iii.    That it was possible to have a scheme which provided similar biodiversity gains without the requirement to infill site in the manner proposed by the present application. That is, the biodiversity net gain was not dependent upon the amount of infill but on the nature of the restoration scheme.

iv.    If the Committee were to decide that the application did not fall within the category of major development, it still had to conform with other policies that would influence the decision-making process, such as those relating to the importation, purpose, and suitability of fill materials.

v.     In terms of biodiversity habitats, the proposed scheme was to be preferred to the consented scheme. However, landscaping and levels of infill could vary and, if infilled to the level before the quarrying operation, it would be possible to restore the agricultural fields. However, it would not be out of character to have a dip in the landscape and there were many former quarries that were rich in terms of biodiversity.

Referring to the Plans that were before the Committee, Ms Breith noted that no habitat was shown on the consented scheme, but the site was not as bare as it appeared on the Plan.    

(c)   The previous operator would have known that the quarry was being overworked and that this may not have been apparent from monitoring the operation.

(d)  Under the consented scheme, it would take the operator nine months to import the materials necessary to restore the quarry. As the restoration being proposed went beyond the original scheme, it was considered reasonable to allow the operator 18 months in which to import the materials necessary for the revised scheme.

(e)  In response to a question as to why officers viewed the proposals as constituting a major development, Members were informed that this was the first time there had been an application to import infill materials to the site. In accordance with the requirement that each application be considered on its merits, it was necessary to consider the application in accordance with the relevant AONB policies. In so doing, officers were of the view that importing 118,000 m³ material requiring 28,000 HGV movements over the specified period constituted major development.

The quarry should have been restored using on-site material and this work should have already been completed. Therefore, the current position was that there was no permission for the HGV movements required to import the amount of material proposed in the application. However, deciding whether this constituted a major development was a matter for the Committee to determine.

(f)    Regarding Core Strategy Policy W6: Landfill and other permanent deposit of waste to land, there was a requirement that there be an environmental benefit which had to be considered within the context of the number of HGV movements required to import the material.

(g)  Referring to Paragraph 61 on page 24 of the agenda pack, officers confirmed that the HGV movements would be within the AONB.

(h)  It was confirmed that Oxfordshire County Council was responsible for monitoring the quarry operations.

(i)    Presently, there was no permission to import materials as the restoration of the quarry was to have been carried out using materials that were on site. If there had been an application to import materials necessary to restore the quarry in accordance with the consented scheme, it is possible that officers may have recommended approval of such an application. The application before the Committee was to import twice the amount of material required to restore the quarry. Therefore, the present application went beyond what was required to restore the quarry in accordance with the consented scheme.

[Mr Periam advised the Committee of the various matters it should take into consideration when determining whether the present application constituted major development].

(j)    Regarding imposing conditions that would address the concerns of the Landscape Officer and any concerns of Committee Members, officers proposed that the current application went beyond the requirements of the consented scheme. Should the Committee decide to refuse the application, it was open to Members of the Committee to instruct officers to liaise with the applicant, without prejudging the matter, on what might be required if the applicant was to submit a revised application.

 

At this stage in the proceedings, Councillor Stefan Gawrysiak moved the following motion.

Motion

That the Committee approve the application for the following reasons –

 

i.       Following discussion, it was the Committee’s view that the application did not constitute “major development”;

ii.      The additional HGV movements required to import material did not vary significantly from the number of HGV movements when the quarry was in operation; and

iii.    The proposals included a gain in terms of biodiversity and landscaping.

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor Bloomfield.

 

In the subsequent debate regarding the motion during which officers, including the Legal officer, advised the Committee Members, a document comprising a proposed list of Planning Conditions, an Informative, and a Statement of Legal Requirements, was circulated by officers in anticipation of the Committee approving the application.

 

At the conclusion of the debate, the mover of the motion, Councillor Gawrysiak, amended the motion, to include the proposed Planning Conditions, subject to the conditions being suitably renumbered, the Informative, and a Section 106 Agreement, including there being no geographical restriction on the routeing of the waste, circulated by officers. Councillor Bloomfield seconded the motion, as amended.

 

 

The votes cast were, as follows:

For:             10

Against:         1

Abstentions:   1

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.     To approve Planning Permission for application numbers:

i.       MW.0057/21: importation of inert material for use in restoration of the site; and

ii.      MW.0058/21: Section 73 application to continue the development of limestone quarry extension permitted by 18/02008/CM (MW.0027/18) without complying with condition 1, condition 2, condition 8 and condition 26 in order to amend the approved restoration scheme, extend the end date for restoration and allow the importation of inert material.

2.     Subject to the inclusion of the suitably amended list of the Planning Conditions, Informative, and a Section 106 Agreement, as circulated by officers at the meeting.