Agenda item

1)                 Continuation of the development permitted under permission STA/SHE/8554/8 (extension of areas of extraction of limestone and sand and restoration to agriculture at original ground levels using inert fill over total quarry area and retention of existing facilities) without complying with conditions relating to approved plans, bund details, access, depth for working dewatering and water discharge, removal of bagging and processing plant, the importation of aggregates, restoration details, and sand martin habitat and extension of the time period for operations at the site;

2)                 An extension of the existing quarry to the east for the extraction of limestone and sand with restoration to agriculture at original ground levels using inert fill

Report by Deputy director for Environment & Economy – Growth & Infrastructure (PN6)

This report describes 2 applications for developments at Shellingford Quarry, near Stanford in the Vale, in the south corner of the county.  The first application seeks consent to vary a number of conditions on the existing permission for the quarry, principally dealing with changes to the phasing of sand and limestone extraction (with subsequent infill operations), the depth of working of the site and an extension of the time period for completion of the development.  Any new consent issued would be accompanied by a new set of conditions to control the development.

The second application seeks permission for an extension to the east of the existing quarry to extract further sand and limestone with subsequent restoration to agriculture using inert waste material.  The application seeks permission for an 8 year development with restoration within a year.

The report describes both applications, sets out the policy context and outlines the objections (and consultation responses) received to the applications together with the comments and recommendation of the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy - Growth & Infrastructure.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be granted for the developments described in Applications STA/SHE/8554/12-CM and STA/SHE/8554/11-CM subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy -Growth & Infrastructure to include the matters set out in Annex 1 (with regard to Application 1) and Annex 2 (with regard to Application 2)to the report PN6..

Continuation of the development permitted under permission STA/SHE/8554/8 (extension of areas of extraction of limestone and sand and restoration to agriculture at original ground levels using inert fill over total quarry area and retention of existing facilities) without complying with conditions relating to approved plans, bund details, access, depth for working dewatering and water discharge, removal of bagging and processing plant, the importation of aggregates, restoration details, and sand martin habitat and extension of the time period for operations at the site;

To consider an extension of the existing quarry to the east for the extraction of limestone and sand with restoration to agriculture at original ground levels using inert fill

The Committee considered (PN6) 2 applications for developments at Shellingford Quarry, near Stanford in the Vale the first of which sought consent to vary a number of conditions on the existing permission for the quarry, principally dealing with changes to the phasing of sand and limestone extraction (with subsequent infill operations), the depth of working of the site and an extension of the time period for completion of the development.  The second sought permission for an extension to the east of the existing quarry to extract further sand and limestone with subsequent restoration to agriculture using inert waste material over a period of 8 years with restoration within a year.

Mr Bowley thanked county officers for their work during the pre-application stage. That had helped to allay many concerns regarding the applications and the only real area of concern seemed to relate to traffic.  The site had direct access onto an A road with proposed improvements to the access if the application was approved. There would be no increase to current levels of traffic and the applicants, as one of many users of the A417 did not consider it necessary to impose any limits on traffic movements.  However, if the Committee were so minded then limits should only apply to south bound vehicles.  The Company were sympathetic to the concerns of local residents regarding the impact of lorries but felt the best way forward was through management. The Company were therefore proposing a formalistion of current practice through a code of practice for all hgv drivers which would deal with issues such as driving behaviour, speed, sheeting of loads and wheelwashing. The company were also suggesting a hot line to deal with any problems and reinstatement of the quarry liaison committee.  He referred to a number of conditions which related to the old site which duplicated the activity of other agencies.  He asked the Committee to support the officer recommendation.

He responded to questions from:

Councillor Tilley – an average figure for vehicle movement was 140 daily but that did fluctuate.

Councillor Armitage – he clarified that the vast majority of the proposed conditions were relevant but some for example relating to groundwater, landfill gas and leachate referred to areas of activities of other agencies.

Councillor Seale – he agreed that southward lorry movements presented more of a problem for Wantage and there was little that could be done to alleviate that but the company were not proposing any increase in movements.

Mr Dance confirmed that the conditions set out in the report gave an indication of the matters which needed to be covered.   It would be possible to add conditions but not remove any.  He suggested that the Committee consider delegating authority to the Director for Environment & Economy to finalise conditions to adequately cover the matters in Annex 1 to the report with a further delegation regarding traffic, possibly in consultation with the local member, to agree a precise number of vehicles leaving the site southwards in order to properly protect Stanford in the Vale.   

Presenting the report Taufiq Islam clarified that the proposal if agreed would increase the County landbank but that the rate of production at the site would not change.  He also referred to amendments to the recommendation set out in the addenda regarding traffic levels and monitoring arrangements.

Councillor Tilley considered a limit of 50 vehicle movements would be too restrictive.  The real problem related to speeding, lack of sheeting and wheelwashing which the Company were proposing to deal with. They had made huge efforts to improve liaison. She supported the introduction of a company hotline and reinstatement of the liaison committee and wanted the company to comply with conditions.

She moved that the application should be approved as amended in the addenda sheet but with no restriction imposed on vehicle movements over and above current hgv traffic levels.  The motion, seconded by Councillor Patrick was put to the Committee and –

RESOLVED: (13 votes to 0) that subject to:

(a)               an agreement to secure the required funding for independent monitoring of traffic movements and destinations;

(b)               no restriction being imposed on vehicle movements over and above current limits  levels (change agreed at 23 May meeting);

that planning permission be granted for the developments described in Applications STA/SHE/8554/12-CM and STA/SHE/8554/11-CM subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy -Growth & Infrastructure to include the matters set out in Annex 1 (with regard to Application 1) and Annex 2 (with regard to Application 2) to the report PN6 and to the following additional condition requiring access to the operators weighbridge records to be given to the Council’s monitoring team.