Agenda item

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN7)

 

This application is for the importation of inert construction waste to restore the disused quarry at Woodeaton. A minor recycling operation is also proposed to produce topsoil for the restoration. The development would take ten years.   The application is being reported to this Committee as objections have been received to the proposal.

 

The report sets out the proposals and outlines objections and other responses to the application.  Relevant planning policies are included along with the comments and recommendation of the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth and Infrastructure) on the proposal.

 

The proposed development would be beneficial in terms of providing an appropriate restoration scheme for an unrestored quarry, in accordance with planning policy. The site has an extant permission for mineral extraction. The traffic and noise impacts associated with the proposed infilling with inert waste would be no greater than that currently allowed under the mineral permission and could be adequately controlled by condition.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to:

 

(a)                    a Section 106 agreement to cover:

 

-  non implementation of existing minerals consent (M162/49);

- 15 year long term management of restored site;

   -  Appropriate access to the restored site;

 

(b)                    a routeing agreement to ensure that vehicles access the network of A-roads via the northern quarry access, left onto the B4027, Bayswater Road to the A40 roundabout and to ensure that lorries are sheeted;

 

that Application No. MW.0015/12  be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) to include the following matters:

 

1.                  Complete accordance with plans

2.                  Commencement within 2 years

3.                  Wheel cleaning to prevent mud on highway

4.                  Deposit of waste shall cease within 10 years of the date of the permission

5.                  Operating hours (0730-1800 Mondays to Fridays, 0830-1300 Saturdays)

6.                  No use of southern access

7.                  Dust monitoring as proposed

8.                  Dust suppression measures implemented should dust monitoring show it is necessary

9.                  Noise monitoring and submission of records

10.              Maximum noise levels at noise sensitive properties

11.              White noise on reversing vehicles

12.              Mobile plant fitted with silencers

13.              No fixed plant or machinery

14.              No external lighting

15.              Oil storage on impervious bases

16.              Development to be subject to Environment Agency Permitting Process

17.              Trees planted in accordance with restoration scheme to be maintained and replaced if necessary

18.              Submission and implementation of a detailed restoration scheme  with completion within 1 year of the cessation of waste deposit

19.              No material stockpiled higher than 3 metres above the nearest rim of the quarry

20.              Topsoil, subsoil and overburden to be stored  and respread separately and not removed from the site

21.              Scheme for the protection of geology

22.              Submission of full details and erection of noise barrier as proposed

23.              Drainage – submission of a surface water drainage scheme

24.              Soils should only be handled when dry and friable

25.              Submission and implementation of fencing details, maintenance of fence

26.              Visibility splays – as per submitted plan and kept clear from obstruction

27.              Records should be kept of waste import and export and made available on request. Waste brought into and leaving the site shall not exceed 100,000 tonnes per annum Submission of a detailed restoration, aftercare and ecological management plan

28.              Implementation of restoration proposals and mitigation as set out in submission

 

Informatives – waste brought onto the site should only be clean, inert materials.

Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 requirements for oil storage tanks.

Developers have a duty of care to deal with waste responsibly; records should be kept to demonstrate that this has been adhered to.

No sewage or trade effluent to be disposed of into surface water system.

If protected species are found work should cease immediately and not recommence until a fully survey has been undertaken and licence obtained.

Participation in liaison committee.

Loads brought onto the site are suitable for landfilling or for topsoil manufacture and therefore the recycling operations are kept minimal.

 

 

 

The Committee considered (PN7) an application for the importation of inert construction waste to restore the disused quarry at Woodeaton.

 

Councillor Hallchurch withdrew from the Committee table.

 

City Councillor Van Coulter referred to the impact of this proposal on residents of Bayswater Road who did not want an intensification of traffic.  Many properties along this road were prefabricated structures dating from the 1940s and were less resilient to vibration.  There were also a number of residential homes for the elderly and vulnerable people.  There were a number of speed bumps along this road which were needed but would amplify noise from HGVs.  This road also accessed the crematorium.  He urged the Committee to take into account the needs of local residents and refuse the application.

 

John Walsh questioned the need for this operation, which had increased from the existing extraction permission of 150,000 tonnes to infilling with 520,000 tonnes of waste.  Sufficient capacity at Tubney Wood and 2 other sites nearby meant there was no justification for this site.  Local roads were not suitable for this type of traffic and the B4027 was a narrow country road used by walkers, cyclists and horseriders.

 

Phil Garrett advised that Woodeaton Parish Council did not oppose restoration of the site but considered this proposal unacceptable.  He focused on 2 issues – noise and access (after completion).  With regard to noise the analysis had seemed okay but the data did not reflect how the site would operate. Machinery had not been working for the whole day and had not been sited in the correct place.  Noise levels would be higher when machinery was operating and there was no noise reduction fencing proposed.   Access to the SSSI had not been considered in a practical way and the narrow access drive to the site was in constant use by other properties.

 

Responding to Councillor Owen he advised that the Parish Council had not specifically employed a noise consultant but had sought a second opinion on the data provided and had been advised that it did not appear to be representative.

 

Suzi Coyne for the applicant advised that this was an application to restore an unsafe quarry. It would benefit the SSSI and the applicants had been working closely with Natural England to secure access.  Restoration would be completed within 10 years, which gave an end date to working, whereas if the current mineral permission was invoked that would not be the case.  With regard to noise it was not normal practice to have machinery running when carrying out a noise test. The assessment had been thorough and the applicants were confident that noise would not be as bad as objectors feared. There was a need for the facility as there was a shortfall of 100,000 tonnes.  With regard to traffic the applicants were considerate operators and vehicle movements would be 10 per day averaging one every 30 minutes, each with a maximum 20 tonne load.  Acoustic fencing would be provided around the southern perimeter.  With regard to access there would be ample parking bearing in mind that it was expected that a limited number of people would require access to the SSSI site.

 

She responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Sanders – there would be a routeing agreement specifying acceptable routes. That would prevent use of inappropriate roads and the applicant would be using his own vehicles so the agreement would be easier to enforce.

 

Councillor Reynolds – it would be rare for a vehicle to arrive before 8.00 am but there would be occasions when the applicant would want to start machinery.  They did not want to be in breach of condition and felt it only fair to be given the same operating hours as other operators.  Access would be required for after care and long term management of the SSSI.

 

Councillor Hudspeth – the applicants’ vehicles did have GPS tracking.

 

Councillor Fooks – she would pass on concerns regarding adequacy of fencing, which had been vandalised. 

 

Councillor Mathew – she did not think the applicants had been aware of the parlous state of the quarry, which was continuing to disintegrate.

 

Councillor Purse advised that the headteacher of Woodeaton school was at the meeting and available to answer questions if required.  There were 52 pupils at the school, which could shortly rise to 58, with emotional problems but who were bright and inquisitive and likely to react to noise. Everything at the school was about reducing these sorts of effects.  Each pupil had a place of tranquillity within the school and its grounds which would inevitably be affected by this operation.  Currently they were, by and large, unaware that there was a quarry there but that could change once permission had been granted and there were grave fears that noise from the quarry could  provide an irresistible attraction to pupils and draw them to the quarry to investigate.  Fencing around the quarry was inadequate. The Committee needed to consider carefully whether this development should go ahead and she did not consider the Committee had enough information before it to make a decision and should at the very least defer the application.  The school had a high national reputation for excellence and represented a last stop placement before out of county placement.  Anything which might jeopardise the role of the should be resisted.

 

Responding to Councillor Seale she did not consider that invoking the current permission for continuation of quarrying would be viable.

 

The Committee noted that the word “left” in line 2 of paragraph 58(b) should have read “right”.

 

Councillor Fooks welcomed proposals to infill and the establishment of an SSSI but felt greater reassurances were required regarding the potential effects of noise on children at Woodeaton Manor school.  Better fencing was required and possibly establishment of a Liaison Committee.  She also asked  if badgers were present on the site.

 

Councillor Armitage agreed that the quarry needed filling and proposals to do that should not be delayed.  With regard to noise the Committee needed to accept officer advice.  The school was a long way from the quarry and there was no evidence to suggest that this development would affect them directly. With regard to traffic 20 vehicles a day would result in a 4% increase  which was negligible. He moved the officer recommendations as amended in the addenda sheet.  Councillor Stratford seconding.

 

Councillor Sanders had a number of reservations.  He was not satisfied with the noise investigation and had concerns regarding inadequate fencing, traffic on Bayswater Road and the need for more liaison with Woodeaton Manor school.  He moved an amendment that Application MW.0015/12 be deferred.  There was no seconder and the amendment fell.

 

Councillor Owen supported the proposal but also had concerns regarding impact on the school and felt everything should be done to lessen the perceived impact of noise.

 

Councillor Mathew felt it important to rationalise the lives of children at the school and not make it more difficult for the school to operate.  He was sceptical regarding the effectiveness of the routeing agreements and felt the applicants should be asked to fund biennial enforcement tests without prior notice.

 

Councillor Hudspeth felt that the school could be offered protection under Conditions 22 and 25 and suggested that as the applicant had GPS tracking in its vehicles that information could be submitted on a regular basis thereby obviating the need for enforcement tests.

 

Councillor Nimmo-Smith considered the quarry needed to be filled in as quickly as possible and as much acoustic fencing as possible provided.

 

Mr Dance confirmed that proposals for a noise barrier could be pursued and supported suggestions to monitor company records with regard to vehicle movement.  Badgers were the concern of Natural England but he understood from the agent for the applicant that there were badgers outside the site, although they were known to forage within the quarry.

 

Mr Groves confirmed that over the past 5 years there had been 8 serious and 24 slight injury accidents reported on the B4027 to Headington roundabout.  There had been no fatalities.

 

The motion by Councillor Armitage, amended with his and his seconder’s agreement to include an amendment from Councillor Mrs Fulljames for an additional condition to provided “concealed entrance” signing at the entrance to the site was put to the Committee and carried by 10 votes to 1.

 

RESOLVED:  that subject to:

 

(a)       a Section 106 agreement to cover:

 

                             (i)            non implementation of existing minerals consent (M162/49);

                           (ii)            15 year long term management of restored site;

                         (iii)            appropriate access to the restored site;

 

(b)       a routeing agreement to ensure that vehicles accessed the network of A-roads via the northern quarry access, turned right out of the site onto the B4027, Bayswater Road to the A40 roundabout and that lorries were sheeted;

 

that Application No. MW.0015/12 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) to include the following matters:

 

1.             Complete accordance with plans

2.             Commencement within 3 years

3.             Wheel cleaning to prevent mud on highway

4.             Deposit of waste should cease within 10 years of the date of the permission

5.             Operating hours (0700-1700 Mondays to Fridays, 0800-1300 Saturdays)

6.              No use of southern access

7.             Dust monitoring as proposed

8.             Dust suppression measures implemented should dust monitoring show it is necessary

9.             Noise monitoring and submission of records

10.        Maximum noise levels at noise sensitive properties

11.        White noise on reversing vehicles

12.        Mobile plant fitted with silencers

13.        No fixed plant or machinery

14.        No external lighting

15.        Oil storage on impervious bases

16.        Trees planted in accordance with restoration scheme to be maintained and replaced if necessary

17.        Submission and implementation of a detailed restoration scheme with completion within 1 year of the cessation of waste deposit

18.        No material stockpiled higher than 3 metres above the nearest rim of the quarry

19.        Topsoil, subsoil and overburden to be stored and respread separately and not removed from the site

20.        Scheme for the protection of geology

21.        Submission of full details and erection of noise barrier as proposed

22.        Drainage – submission of a surface water drainage scheme

23.        Soils should only be handled when dry and friable

24.        Submission and implementation of fencing details, maintenance of fence

25.        Visibility splays – as per submitted plan and kept clear from obstruction

26.        Waste imported to the site should not exceed 92,500 tonnes (61,670 cubic metres) per annum

27.        Waste exported from the site should not exceed 7,500 tonnes (5,000 cubic metres) per annum

28.        Records should be kept of waste import and export and made available on request.

29.        Submission of a detailed restoration, aftercare and ecological management plan.

30.        Implementation of restoration proposals and mitigation as set out in submission.

31.        Additional “concealed entrance” signing to be provided at the northern access to the quarry.

 

Informatives:

 

·        Development to be subject to Environment Agency Permitting Process

·        Waste brought onto the site should only be clean, inert materials

·        Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 requirements for oil storage tanks

·        Developers had a duty of care to deal with waste responsibly; records should be kept to demonstrate that this has been adhered to.

·        No sewage or trade effluent to be disposed of into surface water system.

·        If protected species were found work should cease immediately and not recommence until a fully survey had been undertaken and licence obtained.

·        Participation in liaison committee

·        Loads brought onto the site were suitable for landfilling or for topsoil manufacture and therefore the recycling operations are kept minimal.