Agenda item

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN6).

 

This application is for a new soft sand quarry at Pinewoods Road Longworth. It is proposed to dig and process on site 880,000 tonnes of soft sand in five phases over an 11 year period. The site would be progressively restored mostly to agriculture at low land level. Access is proposed from Pinewoods Road and then to the A420 Oxford/Swindon road. The application has been the subject of notable local interest and generated objections both from individuals and local representatives.  The report sets out the proposal, response from objectors and the views of formal consultees.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that Application No. MW.0080/11 be refused for the following reason:

           

The development proposed is contrary to policy PE2 of the Oxfordshire Minerals & Waste Local Plan.   The site is not within an area identified for mineral working as referred to in policy PE2 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan and there is no urgent need for additional soft sand reserves.  The proposed development is inconsistent with Policy M3 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy approved for submission to the Secretary of State. The development would have an unnecessary adverse impact on the environment which the Council’s extensions policy M3 seeks to avoid.  For the period of extraction the detriment to the environment and landscape of the area including the loss of oak trees on the site protected by a tree preservation order, is unjustified and not consistent with the aims of Vale of White Horse Local Plan policy NE7.

 

The Committee considered an application (PN6) for a new soft sand quarry at Pinewoods Road, Longworth.

 

Supporting the recommendation to refuse the application Mark Baker (CPRE – Vale District) emphasised the need to protect and preserve the integrity of the Corallian Ridge. Approval of this application would set a dangerous precedent to that aim and the quarry would be very intrusive in a beautiful landscape.  He considered that adequate resources of soft sand already existed and there was no need for this site.

 

Adam Ogilvie-Smith referred to the concern felt by local residents. The application should certainly be refused on the policy grounds as set out in the recommendation but he also suggested that those grounds for refusal could be extended to include noise, restoration, impact on the adjacent market garden and traffic from slow moving HGVs on a fast stretch of the A420 where concerns regarding visibility had been ignored.

 

Peter Evans (Hinton Waldrist Parish Council) referred to concerns expressed by the Parish Council in 2004 when this proposal had first been presented.  Those concerns still existed 8 years later and had strengthened as the true impact of the work became clear.  This was grade 2 arable land not within an area identified for mineral working.  There was no identified need for additional soft sand and over provision could lead to the export of material outside the county with more traffic movements.  There were concerns regarding the impact of deep excavation on boreholes and dust, both of which could affect the adjacent market garden.  Access remained a major concern. The A420/Pinewoods Road junction had a poor accident record including 2 fatalities, no alterations had been proposed to the right turn from the A420 and there would be considerable impact on the A420 itself. 

 

Alan Boyce (Longworth Parish Council) advised that this matter had gone on long enough.  It had been a major issue for 8 years which had been recommended for refusal twice, having been withdrawn at the last minute by the applicants on the last occasion when due for consideration by this Committee. Reasons for refusal remained the same – need for material and loss of trees.  Council policy now favoured extensions to existing sites rather than new sites and there was no justification to approve this application.  There was substantial local concern as evidenced by the number of people in attendance at the meeting.

 

Graham Jenkins (agent for the applicants) addressed a number of concerns which had been raised by the previous speakers.

 

Noise – there was a reliance on conventional limits and the site would adhere to those.

 

Restoration – there had been no objection from Natural England, the County Ecologist or landscape officers.

 

Market garden – the application had been expressly redesigned to avoid affecting crops and there had been no objection from environmental health officers or the Food Standards Agency.

 

Traffic – the highway authority had not objected.  This suggested that the traffic assessment had been detailed and not, as suggested, superficial.

 

Area not identified for working – emerging policy M3 had identified principle locations in 3 areas and this site was one of those.

 

Landbank – figures had been approved but not adopted. Those figures would certainly be challenged and tested independently at an examination in public.

 

He then added that the current application had been redesigned in order to respond to earlier concerns regarding dust on crops at the market garden and traffic. To that extent that work had been successful as no technical objections had been received from consultees, including environmental health officers and the highway authority.  However, Hansons were now faced with different reasons for refusal.  Policy M3 of the Core Strategy stated a preference for extensions to existing sites rather than new greenfield sites.  However, that should not be interpreted as an embargo on new sites per se as the Strategy had been approved for further consultation but had not yet been adopted.  There would certainly be objections to it, which would require examination in public and mean that it might not survive in its current form.  Furthermore some existing workings might not be suitable for extended working and each case needed to be considered on its merits.  With regard to reasons for refusal – the site not being within an area identified for mineral working had no relevance and there had been no objection from the District Council regarding the loss of four oak trees, with proposals in place for further tree planting. County officers had declined requests for a deferral of the application and for a meeting with the applicants in order to discuss current concerns. He did not accept there were any significant or demonstrable reasons to refuse the application and he urged the Committee to approve or at the very least defer the application.

 

He responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Fooks – the NPPF did not stipulate an upper limit for a landbank only a minimum of 7 years.  The report highlighted 2 possible means of measurement one of which set the bank at 7 years whilst the other 12 years. This added 3 years and therefore was inherently acceptable.

 

Councillor Armitage – the applicants were confident that this represented a local source of material for a local market and there was adequate demand for the material within Oxfordshire.

 

Councillor Seale – he accepted that Policy M3 had been approved by the Council and had no difficulty with the wording regarding a preference for extensions as such. However, that wording seemed bland and straightforward and could explain the lack of objections which had been received to it.  His concern was that it was now being interpreted as an embargo on greenfield sites

 

He confirmed he was a regular user of the A420.

 

Councillor Tilley referred to the length of time this application had been affecting local residents.  There were two other local quarries at Shellingford and Hatford which had applied for extensions.  Both enjoyed good relations with residents and no objections had been received to either.  This application however was in the wrong place.  The Food Standards Agency had expressed some concern over the effect of the development on the market garden because of the cultivation of brassicas.  There were concerns regarding noise and wind pollution, the effects on hydrology and local aquifers had not been properly addressed and there were properties in close proximity to the quarry.  However, her main concern remained the A420 and the junction with Pinewoods Road. There was a huge difference of opinion between highway officers and other surveys which had been carried out but the fact remained that fully laden lorries trying to join a fast road, with only a short slip road, presented a massive danger to road users and there had been fatalities recently at this junction.  To allow the countryside to be dug up when there were doubts over the need for the material was wrong and this development should be resisted.

 

Mr Dance set out the application in a policy context within the terms of the NPPF.  He confirmed the minimum figure for soft sand was being exceeded and if this application were approved that would increase by 3 years to 2028. Council policy preferred extensions to existing sites and further made clear that new quarries would only be permitted if sufficient provision could not be found through such extensions.  He accepted that the applicants had worked with local people to overcome concerns. He made clear that officers had met with a Hanson representative some 3 weeks previously in order to make them aware that their proposal was likely to be recommended for refusal.  It was inevitable that mineral working needed to take place in the countryside and that mineral working caused a degree of harm but in this case it was felt that that harm was unwarranted and should be avoided. 

 

Councillor Hudspeth accepted the concerns expressed regarding traffic but that it was not possible to include a traffic objection as that would be contrary to officer advice. 

 

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Hudspeth, seconded by Councillor Stratford and carried by 13 votes to 0) that Application No. MW.0080/11 be refused for the following reason:

           

The development proposed was contrary to policy PE2 of the Oxfordshire Minerals & Waste Local Plan.   The site was not within an area identified for mineral working as referred to in policy PE2 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan and there was no urgent need for additional soft sand reserves.  The proposed development was inconsistent with Policy M3 of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy approved for submission to the Secretary of State. The development would have an unnecessary adverse impact on the environment which the Council’s extensions policy M3 sought to avoid.  For the period of extraction the detriment to the environment and landscape of the area including the loss of oak trees on the site protected by a tree preservation order, was unjustified and not consistent with the aims of Vale of White Horse Local Plan policy NE7.