Agenda item

Cabinet Member: Growth & Infrastructure

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/190

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

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Growth & Infrastructure (CA6).

The Minerals and Waste Core Strategy will set out the vision, objectives, spatial strategy, core policies and implementation framework for the supply of minerals and management of waste in Oxfordshire to 2030.  The County Council carried out consultation on draft Minerals and Waste Planning Strategies in September/October 2011.  Responses were received from 779 individuals and organisations, including 548 objections to a new mineral working area at Cholsey.

Overall the consultation has not resulted in any substantive issues being raised that call into question the principles of the draft strategies.  But a number of more detailed issues have been raised, in response to which some changes to the strategy policies are proposed.

The consultation responses, issues raised and possible changes to policies have been considered by the Minerals and Waste Plan Working Group; and the Growth and Infrastructure Scrutiny Committee on 27 February 2012 considered key issues arising from the consultation and proposed changes to policies in response to them.

The report sets out the key issues arising from the consultation and actions that have been undertaken in response to them.  It draws conclusions on where changes need to be made to polices and it puts forward a set of proposed changes to the minerals, waste and core polices and the minerals and waste vision and objectives, for inclusion in a revised Minerals and Waste Core Strategy.

The next stage in the process, subject to approval by full Council, is for the revised Minerals and Waste Core Strategy to be published for public comment and submitted to the government for independent examination.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)              agree the amended minerals, waste and core policies in Annex 1 and the amended minerals and waste vision and objectives in Annex 2 as the basis of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document for approval by the full County Council.

(b)              delegate authority to finalise the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document, including amendments to the supporting text, to the Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure.

(c)               delegate authority to finalise the County Council’s responses to the comments made in response to the Minerals Planning Strategy and Waste Planning Strategy Consultation Drafts, September 2011 to the Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure.

(d)              RECOMMEND to the full County Council that the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document as finalised by the Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure be approved and be published to enable representations to be made and submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

The Cabinet had before them a report (CA6) which set out the vision, objections, spatial strategy, core policies and implementation framework for the supply on minerals and management of waste in Oxfordshire to 2030.

Councillor Mathew stated that, in his opinion, none of the substantial issues and conflicts had been addressed when preparing the final draft and that the fundamental matters which had been stressed ad nauseam were conspicuous by their absence.  The matter of gravel miles; the north/south of the Thames dichotomy of the source versus the need, the effect of cumulative excavation, the lack of clarity of mathematics in the document on the calculation of primary and secondary gravel excavation and need, the lack of coordination with neighbouring counties had again been completely ignored.  For these reasons, he feared the core strategy remained unsound and in grave danger of being rejected.

Mr Chris Hargreaves, Policy Manager, West Oxfordshire District Council, spoke to express the concerns of that Council to the proposed minerals strategy. He referred to the previously expressed concerns about West Oxfordshire continuing to be the main supplier of sand and gravel within the County but focussed on the likelihood of the minerals strategy being found to be sound by a Planning Inspector expressing concerns that the proposed strategy was neither justified nor effective. In particular he suggested that for the strategy to be justified it must be the ‘most appropriate when considered against the reasonable alternatives’ and that there were genuine reasonable alternatives that should be explored in more detail before the plan is finalised. In terms of effectiveness of the strategy he stated that the Inspector would be looking at the extent to which the strategy is sufficiently flexible and what contingencies cater for a change in circumstances. He expressed the view that very few contingency measures had been put in place with all the County Council’s eggs in one basket and a lack of flexibility which could be provided by considering the alternatives. Finally he questioned the internal coherence of the strategy referring to the stated objective to ‘minimise the distance minerals need to be transported by road’ as against the proposed locational strategy which continued to separate the areas of working from the main locations of growth.

Mr Adrian Hatt, a solicitor from Hedges in Wallinford, spoke on behalf of the Communities against Gravel Extraction (CAGE) against the proposal to site a new gravel pit between Wallingford and Cholsey. He stated that it was not too late to make sensible changes to what they believed was a flawed strategy. He referred to two emails sent to Cabinet Members and the attachments: the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) map and the matrix produced by Susie Coyne, well-respected minerals consultant aspects of which would be addressed by other speakers. He stated that when looking to site a new gravel pit it was common sense and sound planning to locate it in an area least likely to impact on local people. He argued that there were several possible alternative sites in South Oxfordshire and queried how Cholsey and been selected. In addition he queried the quality and quantity of gravel at Cholsey and combined with the need to import crushed rock stated that this could blight an unspoilt area for 50 years. He referred to the second email that suggested that the wording in the strategy be extended to refer to areas in South Oxfordshire rather than to Cholsey alone allowing time for a fair comparative assessment to be undertaken. He noted that there was 8 years before the site was needed. He concluded that if it went ahead as it stood then CAGE would continue to protest strongly and would challenge the strategy at public enquiry.

Councillor Patrick Greene, speaking as the local Councillor for Cholsey including Winterbrook spoke in support of the work carried out by CAGE in respect of their third party and even handed investigations by an expert.  He noted that Cholsey was singled out at a late stage in deciding on matters of Policy M3. He referred to a number of matters that would be fundamental to the proposed strategy such as – AONB final decisions for both Chilterns and North Wessex Downs, planning matters and views from RAF Benson on bird strike. These matters could all stop extraction at Cholsey with an inspector finding our strategy unjustified and unsound

He expressed concern that if policy M3 went ahead there would be blight on the area of Wallingford and Cholsey. For the next 8 years with property prices falling. He referred to the impact on Wallingford and Cholsey of the proposals and in particular the heavy transport on adjacent roads. He stated that it is many peoples opinion that under these circumstances businesses will not be attracted to the area, and tourists will stay away. He drew attention to other areas for potential gravel extraction in South Oxfordshire which were far more rural and with many less residents close to any one particular site.  It can be envisaged that economies in such areas would not effected as badly as would the economy of Wallingford and Cholsey and the knock on effect to Oxfordshire’s economy as a whole. He supported the change to the strategy proposed by the previous speaker.  He referred to the huge number of objections (some 700 or so) to the siting of gravel extraction in Cholsey and suggested that the Council could increase its credibility in the population’s eyes if it gave a little more thought and time to this issue particularly as there is plenty of time to do so before Sutton Courtenay gravel extraction runs out in approximately 8 years time.  He urged the Cabinet to use their discretion and take on board the suggested amendment wording to policy M3.

Councillor Lynda Atkins, speaking as a local Councillor for Wallingford indicated that her views were supported by Wallingford Town Council. She focussed on the risks around the identification of Cholsey as a site for mineral extraction and in particular referred to 2 outstanding issues that cast doubt on the deliverability of the Framework. Firstly the views of the AONB’s stated on 9 March that expressed concern about the impact on them and secondly the issue of bird strikes on aircraft operating from RAF Benson.  The site lay directly below the flight path from one of the runways and so could not be adequately addressed in specific planning applications as suggested. Either issue could result in the site not being delivered and with the two potentially fatal flaws the framework being considered could not be said to be deliverable.

Mr Mark Gray, spoke as Chair of Cholsey Parish Council and indicated he was also a member of CAGE. He supported the views previously expressed by Mr Hatt and focussed on other sites that could have been short-listed. He questioned the approach used in determining a new site which was not based on finding the areas where sand and gravel are located and then weeding out the most constrained sites. He referred to the arguments from officers that detailed analysis was not needed at this stage and would be for site allocations in the future. However local residents had always known that the proposed area around Cholsey comprised three adjacent sites and not some broader area. He referred to the concerns of CAGE and the Parish Council that had led to the engagement of a minerals specialist to assess the alternative sites in South Oxfordshire. He highlighted that the three Cholsey sites were bottom of the ten sites considered. Those at the top were: land near Drayton St Leonard; Land at Culham; Nuneham Courtenay and Stadhampton. He referred to the matrix circulated to Cabinet Members and suggested that the Cabinet should be asking whether any of those sites that came out on top in the independent report the Parish Council and CAGE had commissioned were constrained by being AONB or nature reserves, were in flood zones, near rivers, bounded by listed buildings or subject to MOD objections and the answer was no. Additionally they generally had no archaeological interest, important amenities or rights of way through them. He accepted that all the sites including Cholsey had good road access but in comparison Cholsey was constrained by the other factors mentioned.

Mr John Taylor, Chairman of PAGE (Parishes Against Gravel Extraction) spoke in support of policy M1 with a target of at least 0.9 million tonnes of secondary and recycled aggregate a year.  However, rather than encourage the production and supply of secondary and recycled aggregates, PAGE asked that Oxfordshire County Council should proactively work with appropriate stakeholders to develop an action plan to achieve and surpass this target.  He further urged the County Council to adopt a more progressive policy towards the use of secondary and recycled aggregate in order to preserve the Oxfordshire landscape from future land-won minerals working.  The establishment of further permanent and temporary sites should be a focus for future planning policy.

PAGE cautiously supported policy M2 with a planned sand and gravel extraction rate of a maximum of 1.26 million tonnes a year.

In relation to policy M3, PAGE supported the policy for the locations of land-won aggregates, particularly as the County had now reviewed the expected locations of economic development growth over the next 15 years with a 50:50 balance between north and south Oxfordshire.   PAGE further supported the selection of Cholsey as the south Oxfordshire site to replace Sutton Courtenay as it was nearest to the centres of demand and has limited flood risk.

Councillor Anne Purse, whilst acknowledging that a lot of work and discussion had gone into preparing the strategy, expressed concern that too much weight had been placed on West Oxfordshire to provide gravel which was not in proportion to the level of development in that part of the County.  The west of the County had already seen the destruction of meadows that should still be there.  She further recognised that safeguarding had been put in place in certain areas, but felt that this meant even more intense extraction in other areas.

In relation to waste, she sought assurance that archaeological and Paleontological finds would be protected should they be found on waste sites

Professor John Dowling expressed reservations about the validity of the core strategy on the basis that the Council was in a period of change and should not be making fundamental decisions which could be opposed by the new Cabinet in May.

Councillor Lorraine Lindsay-Gale, Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure in moving the recommendations asked for approval to submit the revised polices in the Minerals & Waste Core Strategy to full Council on 3 April. She noted that this would mark the end of a very long process which had included two previous consultations. She informed cabinet that in September 2011 the Strategy had gone out for a third Consultation. Responses have been assessed by the Minerals & Waste Working Group and considered by the Growth & Infrastructure Scrutiny Committee on 27^h February 2012. Overall this work had not led to any new substantive issues being put forward that call into question the principles on which the draft strategies were prepared. She referred to the huge amount of time officers had spent working on this consultation and she was confident that they had carefully addressed all the concerns and issues raised by local residents, producers and contractors.

She outlined why there was a vital and pressing need to provide clarity and certainty within the county’s minerals and waste planning process for all concerned, and hoped that if colleagues agreed the changes today, the Core Strategy could take another decisive step towards official adoption by central government.

Councillor Lindsay-Gale highlighted two issues:

Firstly the robustness of 1.26 mtpa apportionment figure has been criticized for being too low by the producers and too high by those seeking to protect the environment. She had begun calling for a locally derived extraction figure for the county in 2009 so that we could prove to central government that the 2.1 mtpa annual figure passed down to us by SEERA was far too high. The figure of 1.26 already agreed by Cabinet was arrived at on the basis of an average between two figures, one derived from the past 10 year’s production and the other from planned population growth.  Our officers have re-examined their methodology and are confident that this approach is robust. Indeed there has been no alternative put forward or any challenge made to the 1.26 from central government. I trust this indicates that they too recognize it as being robust.

In the current uncertain economic climate this figure may look high, but we must hope and indeed plan for an upturn in demand, and provide a landbank of potential reserves over the period of the plan.

Secondly she commented on the inclusion of Cholsey as the preferred option for a site in the south of the county to replace Sutton Courtenay when it runs out in about 8 years time. She stated that the residents had campaigned strongly and Cabinet had listened to their concerns today. However after careful re-examination of their case our officers were confident that Cholsey was the best option in terms of location, lack of constraints, closeness to market and access to good transport links.

In additional to the two issues she refuted the argument that all the proposed development was in the south, and all of the extraction is in the west referring to current growth figures. The strategy provided a positive overall direction of travel. The proposals provided a cap to current levels of production in the west. 

With regard to mineral miles Councillor Lindsay-Gale asked for patience – as the County Council were addressing the issue but had to work through existing permissions which meant progress would inevitably be slow. The inclusion of Cholsey demonstrated the ambition to minimize mineral miles as much as we can going forward.

Councillor Lindsay-Gale also referred to the waste proposals that made provision for facilities that would be required for the management of all wastes in Oxfordshire up to 2030. This included not only municipal waste, but also waste that is produced by the private sector, including commercial, industrial, construction, demolition and excavation waste. She outlined the key challenge for this council to provide and enable facilities that will increase recycling and the recovery of materials as an alternative to sending them to landfill. She referred to the successful growth in recycling so far and referred to the aim to build on this success by raising our target to 70% by 2025 which will in turn result in our investment requirements becoming less. We will also work to ensure that our facilities meet Oxfordshire’s needs, not others. The Ardley EfW facility was now under construction and would treat at least 95 per cent of Oxfordshire's non-recyclable household waste, diverting it away from landfill, at the same time generating electricity. She commented on work with the National Decommissioning Agency and the local members in the Harwell and Culham areas to ensure that the Council’s policies on dealing with legacy radioactive waste reflect requirements at a national level. The waste proposals had been out to consultation and she referred to some changes being proposed in reaction to the responses received as set out in Annexes 1 and 2.

RESOLVED:  to: (by 8 votes to 1)

(a)              agree the amended minerals, waste and core policies in Annex 1 and the amended minerals and waste vision and objectives in Annex 2 as the basis of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document for approval by the full County Council.

(b)              delegate authority to finalise the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document, including amendments to the supporting text, to the Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure.