Agenda item

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN8)

 

This application is for the use of a sand and gravel processing plant site to wash and grade material extracted from a nearby area which has planning consent for mineral extraction.  The application is being reported to Committee as objections have been received to the proposal. The report sets out why 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 which conclude that the proposed development could be beneficial in providing a locally situated processing facility for a mineral reserve, which already has permission to be worked. It provides a way for the ongoing processing activities to be brought under planning control through the use of conditions and removal of the existing plant. Replacement with new temporary plant will result in less visual impact. There would be no increase to HGV traffic on Thrupp Lane and there would be the potential for a reduction in lorry movements.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to:

 

(a)                    prior completion of an agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in terms to be agreed by the County Solicitor to secure removal of the existing processing plant by 30 September 2012;

 

(b)                    the Applicant withdrawing his CLEUD application for existing processing plant before this planning permission is issued;

 

   that Application No. MW.0001/12 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director (Growth & Infrastructure) to include the following matters:

 

1.            Development carried out in complete accordance with approved plans.

2.            Commencement within 5 years.

3.            No new fixed plant, machinery or structures to be erected on the land.

4.            Stockpiles within the flood plain shall be sited so as not to impede flow of flood water.

5.            Sheeting of any lorries leaving the site except those carrying stone in excess of 500mm.

6.            Reversing bleepers shall use white noise.

7.            Control of external lighting.

8.            Standard operating hours (0700-1800 Mondays to Fridays, 0700-1300 Saturdays and additionally 1300-1800 Saturdays for plant maintenance only).

9.            Retention and maintenance of trees.

10.          Dust control measures.

11.          Submission of a detailed restoration plan, supported by a full ecological and photographic survey.

12.          Removal of material, buildings and plant when no longer required, or before the completion of restoration.

13.          Implementation of restoration including permissive right of way.

14.          Timescales for restoration – within 5 years from the date of consent or within 1 year of the completion of gravel extraction on the ROMP site.

15.          5 year aftercare of restored site in accordance with a detailed management plan to be submitted and approved.

16.          Submission of details of the conveyor across the site and receiving hopper.

17.          No material to be imported by road to processing plant for processing, only material from the ROMP site to be processed, to be brought by conveyor.

18.          Submission of details and implementation of landscape planting, there should be no impact on visibility splays.

19.          Submission of details of the new processing plant and implementation in accordance with approved details.

 

               Informatives

 

1.            Participation in liaison committee.

2.            Clarification of development not covered by the consent (workshop, lorry yard, stone sales).

3.            Oil storage tanks should be located on an impervious base.

4.            Silt ponds require a permit issued by the Environment Agency.

5.            Discharge of water into a watercourse requires a discharge licence issued by the Environment  Agency.

 

 

The Committee considered an application (PN8)  for the use of a sand and gravel processing plant to wash and grade material extracted from a nearby area which had planning consent for mineral extraction.

 

Mark Baker advised that the CPRE did not object to the recommendation to approve but did feel that an opportunity was being missed to rationalise access. Thrupp Lane was a country lane and wholly unsuited to this sort of traffic with a more appropriate access available via Barton Lane.  Expected revenue from the operation justified development of that route and any approval should recognise that.

 

Responding to Councillor Hudspeth it was not for him to speculate on whether provision of an alternative route via Barton Lane might encourage further development as that would ultimately be within the control of the local authority.

 

Mike Wilson advised that the Thrupp Lane Residents Association objected to the number and size of HGVs on Thrupp Lane and urged the County Council to regularise activity.  Estimates of current levels were low.  However, the retail and haulage activities on the site, which had no planning permission, added to increased movements on Thupp Lane and these should be brought to an end. There was a need for an accurate assessment of traffic movements and a reduction in traffic levels sought. 

 

Dr Basil Crowley for Radley Parish Council expressed support for the application, which, with conditions, offered significant benefits.  However, the Parish Council had significant concerns regarding uncertainty over the future use of Thrupp Lane and felt that in reality, and in the absence of reliable data, the view that traffic levels would not increase was both unsupported and unverifiable.  The Parish Council had asked for a condition effectively limiting lorry traffic resulting from the ROMP to at least current levels attributed to the existing business but that had been declined. The ROMP determination could restrict extraction rates but it would not necessarily control traffic, although an option could be for the ROMP to proceed as quickly as possible with material stockpiled and exported at a slower rate by condition under this permission.  The County Council needed to consider traffic impacts carefully to prevent the situation becoming worse than it already was.

 

Responding to Councillor Mathew he confirmed that Thrupp Lane was part of a national cycle route.

 

Councillor Fatemian endorsed earlier comments and supported the principles of the application.  The site was a mess in planning terms and this presented an opportunity to move things forward. However, he felt that information in the report regarding vehicle movements and Section 106 finance was a little misleading and 38,000 to 75,000 represented a considerable increase. Thrupp Lane was in a desperate state of repair and an independent assessment of traffic numbers was needed in order to get a clear view of the current situation.  Implementation should be suspended pending determination of the ROMP.

 

Responding to Councillor Mathew he confirmed that the Liaison Committee had discussed the option of Barton Lane as an alternative access but discussions were at a very early stage.  There was a further meeting next week.  With regard to whether the application was premature or not there was an opportunity here to move things forward and rationalise the situation at this site.

 

Mr Dance advised that the Company had chosen not to rationalise some activities on the site and those would therefore remain to be resolved.  The impact of lorries on Thrupp Lane was, however, the bigger issue and vehicle levels from a range of different avtivities using Thrupp Lane were currently not controlled by planning condition. This meant that lorry traffic levels along the lane were liable to fluctuate.  If this permission was granted there would be a number of benefits namely the dismantling of the large processing plant and the concrete plant being supplied by processed rather than unprocessed materials which would reduce lorry levels marginally per tonne of concrete produced.  There was likely to be a modest reduction in lorry movements but no control could be exercised over the concrete batching plant.  If the ROMP was agreed and processed through the Tuckwells site there would be notable reductions in lorry movements per tonne but it needed to be remembered that there was around a million tonnes of material permitted to be removed from the ROMP site.  If a contract could not be secured with Curtis then the situation would be less favourable but there were clear benefits to be gained if this permission could be secured correctly with the processing plant under planning control and agreed restoration. He was sympathetic to local concerns to see a reduction as soon as possible and the new condition proposed (Condition 21) sought to go some way to doing that.

 

Councillor Hudspeth agreed that Thrupp lane was in a disgraceful state and supported calls for access to be taken via Barton Lane and for an independent audit of actual traffic movements.

 

Mr Dance confirmed that an audit could be carried out but stressed that Tuckwells formed only a small component on the site and any independent audit at this time would not reflect permitted traffic levels because of the present economic climate.  When the review of the ROMP commenced work could then begin on agreeing acceptable levels of lorry traffic for that development. 

 

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Hudspeth, seconded by Councillor Nimmo-Smith and carried by 11 votes to 0, Councillor Mathew recorded as an abstention) that Application MW.0001/2 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth and Infrastructure) to include the matters set out below; but before any consent was issued there should first be:

 

1.         The written withdrawal of the CLEUD application by not later than 23 April 2012

 

2.         The completion of the dismantling of the existing processing plant structure and the storage of any resulting materials which were to be retained for subsequent sale by not later than 16 July 2012

 

3.         The precise location of storage of materials to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority by the 1 July 2012

 

4.         The commencement of the dismantling of the existing processing plant by not later than 16 June 2012.

 

In the event that any of the matters listed in 1-4 above were not complied with by the dates specified then delegated authority be granted to officers to refuse the application (No MW.0001/2) for the following reason:

 

Without removal of the existing processing plant the development proposed would conflict with Green Belt policy.

 

Conditions:

 

1.                  Development carried out in complete accordance with approved plans

 

2.                  Commencement within 5 years

 

3.                  No new fixed plant, machinery or structures to be erected on the land and no re-erection of the plant required to be dismantled as part of this consent

 

4.                  Stockpiles within the flood plain should be sited so as not to impede flow of flood water

 

5.                  Sheeting of any lorries leaving the site except those carrying stone in excess of 500mm

 

6.        Reversing bleepers should use white noise

 

7.        Control of external lighting

 

8.        Standard operating hours (0700-1800 Mondays to Fridays, 0700-1300 Saturdays and additionally 1300-1800 Saturdays for plant maintenance only)

 

9.        Retention and maintenance of trees

 

10.    Dust control measures

 

11.    Submission of a detailed restoration plan, supported by a full ecological and photographic survey

 

12.    Removal of material, buildings and plant when no longer required, or before the completion of restoration

 

13.    Implementation of restoration including permissive right of way

 

14.    Timescales for restoration – within 5 years from the date of consent or within 1 year of the completion of gravel extraction on the ROMP site

 

15.    5 year aftercare of restored site in accordance with a detailed management plan to be submitted and approved

 

16.    Submission of details of the conveyor across the site and receiving hopper

 

17.    No material to be imported by road to processing plant for processing, only material from the ROMP site to be processed, to be brought by conveyor

 

18.    Submission of details and implementation of landscape planting, there should be no impact on visibility splays

19.    Submission of details of the proposed new mobile processing plant and implementation in accordance with approved details

20.    All plant and machinery including the conveyor to be maintained in good order and in a manner that would keep noise and dust to acceptable levels.

21. Installation of the new processing plant should not commence unless and until an annual production limit for the plant had first been agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

 

Reason

 

To enable a limit that (a) would be compatible with the agreed extraction rate of the ROMP mineral that the plant was intended to serve, and (b) would limit so far as is reasonable the number of HGV’s accessing via Thrupp Lane in the interests of the amenity and environment of users and residents of Thrupp Lane.

 

 

Informatives

 

1.                  Participation in liaison committee

2.         Clarification of development not covered by the consent (workshop, lorry yard, stone sales)

 

3.         Oil storage tanks should be located on an impervious base

 

4.         Silt ponds require a permit issued by the Environment Agency

 

5.         Discharge of water into a watercourse required a discharge

licence issued by the Environment Agency.