Agenda item

Report (PN5) by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning

Application Nos: MW.0100/21 and MW.102/21

1.   Extraction of limestone and deposit of imported clay to achieve an agricultural restoration (part retrospective) Land at Quarry Farm North of Green Lane, Green Lane, Chipping Norton, Great Tew, Oxfordshire; and

2.   Temporary Change of Use to Mineral Processing and Storage Area 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 date for restoration and allow the importation of inert material at Enstone Airfield North, Land at Enstone Airfield North, Banbury Road, Enstone, Oxfordshire.

Applicant: Great Tew Farms Partnership

Parishes: Great Tew and Enstone

Division: Chipping Norton

RECOMMENDATION: That applications MW.0100/21 and MW.0102/21 be approved. 

The Committee considered a report by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning RECOMMENDING that planning permission for Application No’s: MW.0100/21 and MW.102/21:

(i)    Extraction of limestone and deposit of imported clay to achieve an agricultural restoration (part retrospective) Land at Quarry Farm North of Green Lane, Green Lane, Chipping Norton, Great Tew, Oxfordshire; and

(ii)   Temporary Change of Use to Mineral Processing and Storage Area 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 date for restoration and allow the importation of inert material at Enstone Airfield North, Land at Enstone Airfield North, Banbury Road, Enstone, Oxfordshire;

be approved.

The report was presented by Matthew Case, Senior Planning Officer. Mr Case noted changes to the proposed conditions set out in the report.

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

(a)  During a monitoring visit in April of last year, it was noted that materials were being extracted from the area. Officers issued a “Temporary Stop Notice” and entered discussions with the applicant. Pursuant to those discussions, the applicant agreed to submit the present planning applications.

(b)  If the Committee was not minded to approve the applications, consideration would have to be given to taking appropriate enforcement action.

(c)   The applications had been made because officers were of the view that the activities of the applicant constituted unauthorised development.

(d)  The reasons for the delay in determining the applications included objections received in response to formal and informal consultation on various issues including archaeological, landscape, biodiversity, and transport elements of the application. In response to the objections, the applicant had amended the proposed restoration scheme and landscape assessment. In addition, there had been discussion on proposed conditions, including appropriate safety signage.

(e)  The Mullin development to build a large permanent motor museum on Enstone Airfield, south-east of the site of the current application, had been granted outline planning permission by West Oxford District Council. As the current application was for a temporary development which would be restored to an agricultural field, officers were of the view that they could not support a requirement for a bridleway as part of the Mullin development to make the current application acceptable.

(f)    Initial reservations by the Highway Authority about the application had been resolved by the inclusion of appropriate signage in the proposed conditions and officers were satisfied that it was not necessary to require a Routeing Agreement to make the impacts of the development acceptable.

(g)  The Transport Officer had approved the proposed signage as a condition of the planning approval which would be enforceable and subject to monitoring by officers carrying out site inspections.

(h)  Green Lane was a tarmac road with passing places that was part of the highway, and which was sufficiently wide to allow motorised and non-motorised users, including coaches and lorries from the quarry, to pass each other in a safe manner. In addition, Green Lane served traffic to and from the airfield.

(i)    If the committee was minded to approve the application, it could include an informative to the effect that the Committee would support a requirement for a bridleway.

(j)    The processing plant that was part of the present application was land that was part of the Mullin development.

(k)   The proposed conditions included the installation of wheel washes to ensure that mud would be removed from the wheels of vehicles entering and leaving the site before travelling on the highway. Julian

As there were no more questions for officers, the Chair invited the applicant, Mr Julian Veal, and the applicant’s agent, Ms Lucy Binnie, to address the Committee.

The Committee then heard a presentation by Mr Veal and Ms Binnie in support of the application.

In response to a question by the Chair, Ms Binnie stated that the number of vehicular movements were set out in the officer’s report[1]. Vehicles leaving the site would turn left to head south.

The Chair then invited Members of the Committee to debate the application. The following points were made in the subsequent debate.

(a)  This was a small scale  operation to remove one third of the limestone beyond the Great Tew Estate which would not significantly increase the number of vehicular movements and the objections had been met by the conditions relating to signage and Green Lane.

(b)  The application would contribute towards meeting the gap in the Council’s crushed rock minerals policy with minimal transport disturbance.

At this stage in the proceedings, Councillor Constance moved that the recommendations, as set out in the report of the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, in relation to both applications be approved.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Fadlalla.

In the subsequent discussion of the motion to approve the recommendations, which included objections by the Parish Council which opposed the application, officers provided the following information.

(a)  The main objection by the Parish Council was the proposal that it was not necessary for there to be a routeing agreement. Having considered the objection, officers remained of the view that the application did not require a routeing agreement as a condition to the application being granted.

(b)  The Highway Authority had required that the sleeping policeman in Green Lane be removed as they had been laid without the necessary permission.

(c)   Regarding soil stored on the Mullin site, it was noted that various works were being carried out on the airfield in preparation for the Mullin development and any soil stored there was not part of the operation that was the subject of the planning application before the Committee.

(d)  Soho Farmhouse had been notified about the application and had made no response.

(e)   Regarding road safety concerns in relation to Green Lane, these had been addressed by the proposed conditions for appropriate signage. In addition, the Highway Authority was of the view that a routeing agreement was not necessary.

(f)    Other matters raised by the Parish Council, including ecology and archaeology had been addressed in the report.

(g)  Should the Committee approve the report’s recommendations, an informative supporting the creation of a bridleway as part of the West Oxford District Council Mullin development planning application would be included in the notices granting planning permission.

Having concluded the debate on the motion, the Chair put the motion to approve both planning applications to a vote.

The votes cast were, as follows:

For:                    7

Against:              0

Abstentions:       0

RESOLVED: That Planning Permission be granted for Application No’s: MW.0100/21 and MW.102/21 viz.

(i)    Extraction of limestone and deposit of imported clay to achieve an agricultural restoration (part retrospective) Land at Quarry Farm North of Green Lane, Green Lane, Chipping Norton, Great Tew, Oxfordshire; and

(ii)   Temporary Change of Use to Mineral Processing and Storage Area 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 date for restoration and allow the importation of inert material at Enstone Airfield North, Land at Enstone Airfield North, Banbury Road, Enstone, Oxfordshire; and

(iii)  That the notice(s) granting planning permission include an Informative supporting the inclusion of a condition requiring a bridleway in any grant of planning permission by West Oxford District Council in respect of the Oxford Mullin Automotive Park development.