Agenda item

Extraction and processing of sand and gravel including the construction of new site access roads, landscaping and screening bunds, minerals washing plant and other associated infrastructure with restoration to agriculture and nature conservation areas, using inert fill.

Report by Head of Strategic Planning.

RECOMMENDATION

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to a Traffic Regulation Order to prohibit right-turn movements into the site from the A329 Reading Road and right-turn movements out of the site onto the A4130 Nosworthy Way first being made and a S.106 legal agreement to cover the matters in Annex 2, planning permission for MW.0115/21 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Strategic Planning, to include those set out in Annex 1.

The Planning Applications Team Leader introduced the application to the Committee for the site at White Cross Farm which was located approximately 1.5km to the south of Wallingford town centre within the South Oxfordshire District.  The land was proposed for the extraction and processing of sand and gravel, with restoration to agriculture and nature conservation and was a new site currently used as grazing land with one field used for crops.

The Committee were presented with slides detailing the geographical landscape and outlined the four phases of the extraction and restoration project, a correction to the paragraph 19 of the report.  The Committee were advised that this was the same development previously applied for under MW.0033/18, with the proposals amended to address the reasons for refusal of that application.  Most significantly, these were the restoration and afteruse proposals that would now restore the land to agriculture and nature conservation using imported inert fill.  Also, the marina afteruse was no longer proposed.

The Committee was advised that 351 third-party representations had been received, one of those supported the application, and the remaining had objected or expressed concerns.  The points raised were detailed in Annex 4 to the report.  It was also noted that the Environment Agency formally confirmed they no longer objected during the third consultation to the application following flood modelling identified in response to the second consultation.  Since the report had been published, a further representation had been received and this had been published as an addendum to the published agenda.  This had related to flooding and groundwater which had been addressed within the report, but included a further response from the applicant.  There had also not been any objections received from the Environment Agency or the lead local flood authority, and also no objections from the Environment Health Office or the Highways Authority.

The recommendation to the Committee was as follows:

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to a Traffic Regulation Order to prohibit right-turn movements into the site from the A329 Reading Road and right-turn movements out of the site onto the A4130 Nosworthy Way first being made and a S.106 legal agreement to cover the matters in Annex 2, planning permission for MW.0115/21 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Strategic Planning, to include those set out in Annex 1.

The Committee were addressed by the following registered public speakers:

·       Councillor Pete Sudbury addressed the Committee as Councillor for the Wallingford Division and as Cabinet Member whose portfolio included minerals and flooding.  He advised that he was objecting to the application due to the level of flooding that occurs every winter on the site and the impact on the local road network, which was already very congested due to its proximity to the main route from Didcot to Reading.  He also drew attention to the objections raised by the Council’s Landscape Officer and officers at South Oxfordshire District Council.  He highlighted concerns regarding the lack of communication provided to those affected by this new site, which was regrettable when compared to the level of communication offered to the applicant.

·       Vicky Beardall Richards, Environmental Coordinator for Cholsey Parish Council addressed the Committee to object to the application on behalf of the Parish Council and highlighted the inappropriateness of the site being considered.  In particular, she highlighted the close proximity to the River Thames, Ridgeway Trail and the Chilterns national landscape and the detrimental impact of an industrial development alongside the River Thames and the Thames Path.  The increased level of traffic was also highlighted as an issue, and the close proximity of a children’s nursery to the site which would be affected by noise and pollution.

·       Professor Richard Harding, CPRE and local resident addressed the Committee to object to the application and highlighted the proximity of the site to the River Thames which would be disruptive to the natural flow of the river.  He advised that the site would be subject to extensive flooding for a number of months and did not agree that any protection would be provided for by the intended straw bale bund which would be washed away during flooding.

·       Linda Rolfe, local resident addressed the Committee to object to the application and highlighted the inappropriate use of the land in an area of such exceptional natural beauty and tranquillity.  She provided historical background to the land, which provided a stable sub-stratum and a wide range of habitats for an abundance of species well documented by local wildlife groups.  The substantial risk of flooding which would be made worse by the development was highlighted, and advised that it was not possible to make a projection of the impact of the proposed gravel pit based upon past trends.

·       Dr Sue Roberts, local resident addressed the Committee to object to the application and highlighted the detrimental impact to local wildlife, in particular the population-collapse demonstrated by the latest swan-upping.  She drew the Committee’s attention to the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 which states ‘that developments should avoid the loss, fragmentation, severance or other negative impacts on the function of green infrastructure’.

·       Tom Oliver, local resident addressed the Committee to object to the application and highlighted Policy C5 of the Oxfordshire Mineral Waste Core Strategy which expects proposals for minerals and waste to not have unacceptable adverse impact on the local environment.  He highlighted the number of objections received to this application, of which he did not feel had been resolved.  In response to a question from the Committee, he advised that a 30-metre buffer zone would not be sufficient to protect the river wildlife from the construction site.

·       Simon Rees, Director of Greenfield Environment, agents for the applicant London Rock Supplies Ltd, addressed the Committee in support of the application, and highlighted the NPPF’s positive approach to development and approving an application which accords with the development plan without delay, and that a plan should be in place for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by maintaining landbanks of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and ensure that large land banks bound up in very few sites do not stifle competition.  He also highlighted the low-level environmental impact as indicated by the consultation responses received, especially those from the Environment Agency.

In response to questions asked by the Committee, Simon Rees clarified the following:

·       The current landbanks are estimated to be below 7 years for sand and gravel.

·       The use of hay bales had been used on the site for a number of years and were intended to screen the site, not act as a flood defence.  The intention was to use natural materials as a screen and would be used alongside the Thames Path as the phase moved through the site.  The size of the bales would be as standard bales and would be stacked at intervals at no more than 100 metres in length.

·       The size of the site was infinitesimally smaller than the size of the river running alongside the site, and the restoration proposed would have no impact on the hydrogeology of the area as shown in the hydrogeology risk assessment which was part of the EIA.

·       Pollutants to the site would be minimal as diesel spillages are not commonplace in a modern plant, and there was a drive towards hybrid and electric vehicles.  Any silt created by the site would be minimal and not large in comparison to the natural silt collected through the river’s natural passage.

·       Settling ponds in sand and gravel extraction sites are a common feature across Oxfordshire and many of these sites do flood.

·       It is expected that the delivery of excavated material would be used at local building sites within 20 or 30 miles from the site.

·       The applicant has its own fleet of vehicles; however all operators also have independent local contractors to move the materials.

In response to questions from the Committee, David Periam, Planning Development Manager and Mary Hudson, Planning Applications Team Leader advised the following:

·       The development would provide 0.55 million tonnes which at an APR rate of 0.96 million tonnes would add less than one year’s additional landbank.  Therefore, by the end of 2024 there would still be the need for additional sand and gravel permissions to maintain the landbank above the 7-year minimum, even if this application was granted permission.

·       Whilst other applications have been received, the landbank should be considered as it is presented at the time of making this decision, and it is not possible to assume that other applications would be approved.

·       It would be difficult to determine responsibility for any adverse impact caused by flooding at this stage.

Councillor Gawrysiak proposed to REJECT the Officers’ recommendation in the agenda which was seconded by Councillor Endosomwan.

A named vote was carried out.  Councillors Gawrysiak, Endosomwan, Fadlalla, Roberts, Rouane and Snowdon voted for the motion.  Councillors Fenton, Sibley, Johnston and Saul voted against the motion.

RESOLVED: that the planning application for MW.0155/21 be REFUSED for the following reason.

Due to its location, the proposed development would have an adverse landscape and visual impact on the River Thames, the Thames Path National Trail and on the setting of the Chilterns National Landscape (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), contrary to the provisions of policy C8 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan – Part 1 Core Strategy and policy ENV1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035.

Mary Hudson left the meeting and did not return.