Agenda item

Developments proposed:

1)    Section 73 application to continue the development permitted by planning permission no. P18/V2145/CM (MW.0093/18) for proposed new stockpile area to be used in conjunction with mineral extraction permitted by planning permission no. P16/V2694/CM (MW.0127/16)  for the storage of approximately one month supply of mineral to enable continuous supply in case of flooding for a period of up to three years from date of commencement of extraction under planning permission no. P16/V2694/CM (MW.0127/16) to vary condition 1 to enable vehicles to transport remaining sand and gravel from the stockpile to the plant site.

2)    Section 73 application to continue the development of the extraction of sand and gravel and restoration using in situ and imported clay materials to create a wet woodland habitat as permitted by MW.0094/18 (P18/V2171/CM) without complying with conditions 1 and 16, in order to extend the end date of restoration and remove the remaining stockpile of sand and gravel by road rather than conveyor. And to vary conditions 2 and 32 for the substitution of an updated restoration plan.

Report by the Head of Strategic Planning.

RECOMMENDATION:

The report recommends that applications MW.0004/20 and MW.0008/20 be approved.

The Planning Development Manager introduced the two applications for Bridge Farm Quarry, Sutton Courtenay along with those the subject of Agenda item 7.  The first application sought permission to move the remaining stockpiled sand and gravel permitted under planning permission MW.0093/18 using HGV movements instead of by the permitted conveyor tunnel beneath the B4016.  The Committee were advised that this was due to a major breakdown of the conveyor and that there were no other means of removing the material from the site.  Application MW.0008/20 was a Section 73 application to continue the development of the extraction of sand and gravel and restoration using in situ and imported clay materials to create a wet woodland habitat as permitted by MW.0094/18 without complying with conditions 1 and 16, in order to extend the end date of restoration and remove the remaining stockpile of sand and gravel by road rather than conveyor and conditions 2 and 32 for substitution of an updated restoration plan.

The recommendation to the Committee was:

The report recommends that applications MW.0004/20 and MW.0008/20 be approved.

The Committee were addressed by the following registered public speakers:

·       Mr O’Broin, Appleford-on-Thames Parish Council addressed the Committee on agenda items 6 and 7.  He highlighted the impact on the community from the adjacent development who have suffered from many negative consequences such as noise, odour and in this case traffic disruption.  The Committee were informed that they did not object to every application, only to those that interfere with the quality of life and the health of the residents.  He requested that strict conditions be applied to the applications, including that the completion date should be no later than December 2025, the restoration of the conveyor for gravel extraction and that all commercial traffic movements to and from the site should be restricted and not allowed during morning and evening rush hour.

·       Rita Atkinson, Sutton Courtenay Parish Council addressed the Committee on agenda items 6 and 7.  She advised that they agreed with all comments made by Appleford-on-Thames Parish Council and wanted to highlight the additional extension to the timescales for the completion date for restoration of the site and the use of HGVs to transport stockpiled sand and gravel across the B4016.  The Committee were informed that Sutton Courtenay Parish Council would agree to the applications provided that the S73 applications to extract gravel from 5 and 6 were rejected and would agree to the stockpile from phase 1 to 4b being moved across the B4016 to speed up the restoration of the site and to meet the end date of 2025 provided that the end date of 2025 was granted as an immutable condition.

·       Robin Draper, Vice Chair of the Community Liaison Group with Heidelberg and FCC addressed the Committee on agenda items 6 and 7.  He highlighted the delays and lack of urgency in addressing the bridge quarry project, with end dates repeatedly pushed back, with numerous S73 applications to change conditions and no enforcement taken despite clear breaches.  He urged the Committee that if they were minded to approve the applications, they should ensure that strict conditions were attached to ensure an end date of 2025 and frequently monitor the site to enable a proactive, rather than reactive approach to ensuring it is met.

·       Philip Duncan, Corylus Planning & Environment addressed the Committee on agenda items 6 and 7.  He advised that his client wished to bring the project to an end, and that these applications would bring this to a close.  The Committee were informed that three quarters of the site had been restored, and that the biodiversity of the site would be secured.

Philip Duncan responded to the Committee’s questions as follows:

·       The conveyor belt used at the site was second hand, and had since broken down.  The cost of fixing or replacing the conveyor would not be cost effective.

·       The clients had confirmed they were able to extract the minerals within the timeframe proposed, they had originally asked for a longer time period, however Officers had requested the proposed date be adhered to.

·       The end date for applications relating to agenda item 6 would be completed by June 2025, with the whole site completed by December 2025.

·       It was not possible to determine if the site would be used for the HIF1 project as this was dependent on approval by the Secretary of State.

The motion to approve the recommendation was moved by Cllr Johnson and seconded by Cllr Fenton and put to the vote.

RESOLVED: that the planning applications MW.0004/20 and MW.0008/20 be APPROVED.