Agenda item

Cabinet Member: Growth & Infrastructure

Forward Plan Ref: 2010/108

Contact: Peter Day, Minerals & Waste Policy Team Leader Tel: (01865) 815544

Report by Head of Sustainable Development (CA7).

The Minerals and Waste Development Framework will set out how minerals will be supplied and waste managed in the county.  The Core Strategy will include a vision and strategic objectives, spatial strategy, core polices and a monitoring and implementation framework.  The report includes a set of principles to underpin the minerals part of the Core Strategy.  It describes the current pattern of mineral working in Oxfordshire and explains the development of, consultation on, and assessment and testing of options for the location of sand and gravel, soft sand and crushed rock workings over the next 15 to 20 years.

A preferred spatial strategy for mineral working needs to be selected for public consultation, as the next stage in preparation of the minerals part of the Core Strategy.  The recommendation of the Minerals and Waste Plan Working Group on a preferred strategy approach and timetable for consultation is reported.  This takes into account work that is to be carried out over the next two months to establish a locally derived assessment of the requirement for aggregates supply in Oxfordshire over the plan period.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)              agree the guiding principles for the minerals strategy (paragraphs 3 to 5 of Annex 1);

(b)              agree that the County Council’s preferred approach for mineral working in the short to medium term is:

(i)                 sand and gravel – concentration of working in existing areas of working, at Lower Windrush Valley, Eynsham/ Cassington/Yarnton, Radley, Sutton Courtenay and Caversham, subject to the ability of these areas to provide for the medium to longer term being re-assessed when the requirement for sand and gravel supply has been established and consideration being given to new areas of working if the re-assessment indicates this is necessary;

(ii)               soft sand – working in three existing areas: south east of Faringdon; Tubney/Marcham/Hinton Waldrist; and Duns Tew;

(iii)             crushed rock – working in three existing areas: north of Bicester to the east of the River Cherwell; south of the A40 near Burford; and south east of Faringdon;

(c)               agree the next steps set out in paragraph 19 of this report, including public consultation on the preferred minerals strategy in spring 2011.

Cabinet considered a report setting out the recommendation of the Minerals and Waste Plan Working Group on a preferred strategy approach and containing a timetable for consultation. 

Councillor Anne Purse, Shadow Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure, referred to the seriousness of the decision which would have far reaching effects. She expressed concern at the over reliance on West Oxfordshire and hoped that consideration would be given to the concerns of the Highways Authority and Environment Agency. Everything possible must be done to avoid stockpiling materials and she would have preferred a more hybrid solution taking something from the other options. She expressed concern over the future of the wet meadows which were important habitat.

Councillor Charles Mathew  referred to the recent decision on Stonehenge Farm where the Council had been hampered by the land bank and lack of supporting evidence.  He referred to the figures and commented that very little extra gravel would be needed for some years to come. Even less was required when builders gravel was taken into account. He felt that residents got no benefit from the option proposed and that any new sites should be based on market proximity. Responding to a question Councillor Mathew highlighted the negative effects on local residents of traffic, environment, noise and dust. This was made worse when routing agreements were ignored.

Councillor Lorraine Lindsey -Gale, speaking as a local member, expressing the anger of local residents who were threatened by gravel extraction when she felt there was no need. Councillor Lindsay-Gale commented that she had consistently supported the option of continuing to work existing areas. Option 1 was the only sustainable option but consideration should be given to the proposals around Nuneham Courtenay which would be an entirely new site.

Councillor Don Seale, speaking as a local member  welcomed the proposal to continue with existing sites. He referred to difficulties in his local area with the proximity of RAF Brize Norton. Water based leisure facilities would not be possible. Local roads and bridges were inadequate to handle the traffic. He referred to the planning blight around Bampton and Clanfield and asked that Cabinet consider including a statement that these areas would not be a site for gravel extraction for the foreseeable future. He would like to see this adopted as planning guidance.

Mr John Bowler, for AGGROW, spoke in support of the recommendations referring to the unique characteristics of the flat Upper Thames Valley that would be at risk if either of the other options were agreed.

Mr John Taylor for the PAGE Campaign spoke in support of Option 1. He welcomed the use of consultants to look at need and hoped that his group could be involved. He supported the comments of the Growth & infrastructure Scrutiny Committee concerning the use of recycled aggregates. Responding to a question he explained why Radley Parish Council had not been allowed to join the PAGE Campaign.

Ms Julie Hankey for the OUTRAGE Campaign   spoke against further extraction in her area. A lengthy planning process had just been concluded to their detriment and the proposals for more extraction flew in the face of localism. It would be an imposition on local people and would be fiercely opposed.

The Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure in introducing the report stated that he had visited all sites. He took on board issues around reinstatement and agreed with Councillor Mathew with regard to the land bank issue and the problems due to the lack of the strategy document. It was important that figures were robust and evidence based. He emphasised the current central Government view about the allocation figures.

Following discussion it was:

RESOLVED:            to:

(a)               agree the guiding principles for the minerals strategy (paragraphs 3 to 5 of Annex 1);

(b)               agree that the County Council’s preferred approach for mineral working in the short to medium term is:

(i)                 sand and gravel – concentration of working in existing areas of working, at Lower Windrush Valley, Eynsham/ Cassington/Yarnton, Radley, Sutton Courtenay and Caversham, subject to the ability of these areas to provide for the medium to longer term being re-assessed when the requirement for sand and gravel supply has been established and consideration being given to new areas of working if the re-assessment indicates this is necessary;

(ii)               soft sand – working in three existing areas: south east of Faringdon; Tubney/Marcham/Hinton Waldrist; and Duns Tew;

(iii)             crushed rock – working in three existing areas: north of Bicester to the east of the River Cherwell; south of the A40 near Burford; and south east of Faringdon;