On 24 November 2008 the Planning & Regulation
Committee had refused planning permission for mineral extraction and associated
development at Stonehenge Farm on the following grounds:
1. It had not been sufficiently demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the County Planning Authority that the impact of the proposed
development would not increase the risk to people, property and businesses
arising from additional flood risk.
2. That routeing agreements had proved ineffective
in the past and in practice and were therefore considered to be contrary to
Oxfordshire Structure Plan (OSP) policy T8.
3. The development was contrary to MWLP Policy PE7
and WOLP NE8 and NE9.
The applicants had appealed and an Inquiry was due
to start on 17 November 2009.
Government Circular 03/2009 (“Costs Awards in
Appeals and other Planning Proceedings”) provided guidelines so that the
parties to an appeal could minimise the likelihood of costs being awarded
against them. One such guideline required parties to an appeal to actively
review their cases, respond promptly to changing circumstances and provide a
clear explanation of a revised stance or position, with nothing coming as a
complete surprise throughout the process.
The Committee now had before it a report (PN4) which outlined work undertaken
since the Committee made its decision in November 2008 and sought the
Committee’s further instructions as to the stance to be taken at the
forthcoming Inquiry in the light of developments since the refusal of
permission last year.
Julie Hankey addressed
the issues of routeing. She considered
that negotiations undertaken since November 2008 had undermined and prejudiced
the County Council’s case at the appeal.
The evidence underlying this particular reason for refusal had been
based on evidence gathered by County officers in November 2006 which had shown
that a large percentage of lorries travelled to and from this site using the
prohibited route through Sutton. This
had been the case for many years and continued to be so. The Committee were now being told that a more
robust agreement had been negotiated but there was little confidence locally
that this would be observed and with no real sanction for offenders. Furthermore, the number of lorries using the
main complex made it difficult to identify lorries transporting Hanson’s gravel
and easy for Hansons to deny that offending lorries
were using there operation. A routeing
agreement in this case was a weak instrument for controlling HGV traffic and
she asked the Committee to instruct its officers to defend its decision in line
with national guidance set out in MPG2, Annex C paragraph C9.
Responding to a question from Councillor Seale she
considered that signing should make it clear that traffic exiting the site was
required to turn left.
Terry Kirkpatrick addressed the issues of flooding
and referred to his submission in November regarding increased flood risk and
the technical inadequacy of the Flood Risk Assessment and Ground Water
Modelling undertaken work by the applicant.
That work had been called for because of the acknowledged complexities
of the site which lay within a broad flood plain and on the confluence of 4
main rivers. That had formed the basis
of one of the Committee’s reasons for refusal in November 2008. Following the appeal by Hanson the County
Council had engaged an expert consultant who had agreed that the earlier work
by the applicant had been inadequate and they had now started to undertake that
work, although it remained incomplete. It
had also been rushed and based on incorrect data from the 2007 flood and had
included a map produced by Hansons which was flawed. Together with OUTRAGE and local residents the
views of the flood modeller employed by the Environment Agency to create the 1D
model used by Hansons had been obtained and it was
quite clear that the new modelling had not demonstrated that there was no
increased risk to properties in the area. Therefore, the Committee should not
base any decision it takes before the Inquiry on the evidence of current
modelling. Furthermore, Hansons had admitted that the
proposed quarry would casue serious derogation of
local wells and water courses unless active mitigation measures were employed
but it was felt that any mitigation measure could not be effective and in any
event there no funding was in place to pay for such measures in the long term
beyond 25 years. He urged the Committee
to instruct its officers to continue to fight the appeal vigorously on the
grounds agreed in November 2008.
Responding to:
Councillor Seale - he advised it would have been
better to use a normal year to calibrate information rather than 2007. In the normal course of events a hole in a
flood plain could reduce risk but the situation at Stonehenge Farm was exceptional
because of the confluence of 4 main rivers and its situation in a broad flood
plain. The proximity of a flood hole
between the Windrush
and Thames could affect the peaks of
flooding which occurred from those rivers and increase risk.
Councillor Skolar –
theoretically it would be possible for a flood hole to take all excess water
from the Windrush but it would have to be a big hole.
Robert Florey endorsed the comments made by Julie Hankey and Terry Kirkpatrick and referred to the scale of
the 2007 incident and fear experienced by local residents. Experts have said that the frequency and
impact of these incidents could worsen.
He considered the proposed earth bunds would exacerbate the situation in
the event of future flooding and urged the Committee to fight the appeal and
protect local residents from the very real danger and fear of similar events.
Steve Good referred to the unreliability of
forecasting and modelling and to the reality of flooding which had faced
businesses and homes in this area. 2007
had been horrendous with the threat of loss of business, damage to property and
disease. There was no pressing need for
gravel at this current time and he referred to opposition expressed to this
application by local Parish Councils, West Oxfordshire District Council and the
County Council in November 2008. He also
referred to proposals to provide a new river crossing at Newbridge
which, if it went ahead, would involve substantial new works in this area and
this had not been taken into account. He
asked the Committee to endorse its reasons for refusal and continue to fight
the appeal.
Councillor Mathew felt that local residents had
been treated unfairly in this matter and expressed concerns over the legitimacy
of this process. He resisted any moves to undermine the decision reached by the
Planning & Regulation Committee in November 2008, although the perception
was that everything possible had been done to do that. No decision had been reached on the final
allocation of sand and gravel from Oxfordshire and the County Council were
working to Plans agreed in 1996. Accepting that costs against the Council could
be a possibility if the appeal was successful he could not accept that
justified undermining the Council’s case to avoid such a situation. Refusal by
the Committee had encouraged Hansons to undertake the
2D modelling work. Furthermore the
effect on Rack End had not been taken into account and the number of operators
on the Dix Pit site would make any routeing agreements unenforceable. He asked the Committee to defend vigorously
the reasons given for refusal of this application in November 2008.
Mr Dance reminded the Committee that the County
Council had a duty to review its position up to the date of commencement of the
Inquiry and present any new information to the Committee. The Committee had to consider the merits of
this application and potential matters such as the Newbridge
scheme should not be taken into account.
He accepted that routeing agreements were not always easy to manage and enforce
but a great deal of work had gone into making them robust.
Mr Robinson responded to questions from:
Councillor Armitage
·
flood holes could
potentially aggravate flooding by reversing the flooding order of the Thames
and Windrush but it was unlikely. The modelled
scenario had taken the Thames at a constant peak and had allowed for comparison
of the Windrush joining the Thames.
·
Environment
agency records had shown that in 2007 the Thames had peaked before the Windrush.
·
Modelling had
taken account of surface water only and not watertable
levels. Climate change could also lead
to issues of drought.
·
Observed flooding
had not been replicated exactly in the model.
Councillor Hannaby - Bunding was the controversial part of this and he
considered that work by Hanson, although in line with EA requirements, had not
been detailed enough. That had now been
done and the bunds repositioned accordingly.
Councillor Seale
·
Any independent
application for further development would need to proceed on its own merits and
the assumption had to be that any development would have to look after itself.
·
Yes balancing
reservoirs were generally helpful.
The Committee also discussed the merits of seeking
a further deferral of the Inquiry to enable all new information to be
considered.
With regard to Traffic issues it was RESOLVED (on a motion by the Chairman,
seconded by Councillor Jelf, amended with their
consent by Councillor Service and carried by 12 votes to 2, Councillor Reynolds
being recorded as voting against):
(a)
Development traffic to use an approved route (through Dix Pit, west
along the B4449 and north along the A415);
(b)
Appellant to provide £32,000 to enable OCC to carry out 3 (random)
monitoring surveys per year, and 3 additional monitoring surveys per year in
the event of complaints;
(c)
Provision for meetings after routeing surveys to discuss action to be
taken (if required).
(d)
Provision of signing guiding all emerging lorries from the quarry left
onto the B4449 (Witney direction) and not right (Sutton direction).
With
regard to flooding issues it was RESOLVED
(on a motion by the Chairman, seconded by Councillor Jelf,
amended with their consent by Councillor Armitage and
Councillor Hannaby and carried by 14 votes to 0)
that:
(e)
The Committee stress to the Inquiry Inspector its concern that, in view
of the history of substantial flooding in the area, he will need to be fully
satisfied on the evidence that the impact of the proposed development would not
increase the risk to people, property and businesses arising from additional
flood risk; and
(f)
The approach to be taken to the evidence at the Inquiry be delegated to
the Director for Environment & Economy in consultation with the Chairman in
the light of the concern expressed at (d) above.
(g) Officers ask the Inspector to adjourn the Inquiry for a
suitable period to enable parties to have sufficient time to consider the additional flood modelling work recently
carried out by Hanson.