Agenda Item No. the VALE of GLAMORGAN COUNCIL

Agenda Item No.

PLANNING COMMITTEE : 4 FEBRUARY 2008

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC REGENERATION

2003/00633/FUL Received on 9 May 2003

White Young Green, 21, Park Place, Cardiff., CF1 3DQ Cemex Ltd., Wenvoe Quarry, Wenvoe, Cardiff. , CF5 6XE

Land at Wrinstone Farm, south of Wenvoe Quarry

Quarrying of limestone, installation of temporary conveyor link and access road to Wenvoe Quarry. Installation of temporary mobile crusher and plant. Restoration of quarry to nature conservation/landscape amenity use

SITE DESCRIPTION

1. This application relates to an area of some 10.5 hectares, partly in agricultural use and partly woodland, forming the western slope of a rounded hill rising from 90 metres to a maximum altitude of 103 metres above Ordnance Datum and lying generally between Wenvoe and Michaelston le Pit. Four fields on the broad summit and western slope of the hill form the majority of the site and are flanked by areas of woodland, some of which is ancient woodland and some of which was planted as a screening belt by the applicants in the 1990s. The north side of the hill falls to the narrow valley of Cwm Slade, which separates the site from a larger hill to the north that is now largely occupied by Wenvoe Quarry.

2. Wenvoe Quarry is a major regional producer of aggregates, ready-mixed concrete and coated roadstone. The main quarry bowl excavated within the hill described above is connected to the quarry processing plant in the former Alps Quarry to the west by a tunnel through the ridge, with direct access from Alps Quarry to the A4050 and thence to Culverhouse Cross and the wider road network via a purpose-built access road which also serves the Council’s Alps Depot. The quarry is some 6 km to the north of Barry and a similar distance from the centre of Cardiff. The closest settlements to the quarry are Wenvoe, some 1.4 km to the south west, and Michaelston le Pit. 1.6 km to the south east, but numerous individual dwellings are located closer to the existing quarry and/or the application site, notably at Cwrt yr Ala.

3. The existing planning permissions for quarrying at Wenvoe permit the extraction of up to 1 million tonnes of stone per year, although that level of production has not been achieved since 1999. Reserves in the existing site were estimated by the applicants as 4.76 million tonnes at 1 January 2007 (source: Regional Aggregates Working Party annual survey 2006) and are likely to be just over 4 million tonnes at the end of 2007, sufficient for under six years’ production if 2004 to 2006 average output is maintained, or four years at the maximum permitted level.

P.1

4. From 2001 to 2003 between 33% and 40% of total production was used for ‘added-value’ products (coated roadstone and concrete), with the remainder being used primarily for uncoated roadstone, general aggregates and fill, but this proportion fell to 31% in 2006 (surveys for intervening years were incomplete) (source: Regional Aggregates Working Party annual surveys 2001-2006).

5. The part of the site currently in agricultural use is of Grade 4 quality, whilst large parts of the woodland through which a conveyor linking the site to the existing Wenvoe Quarry is proposed to run, and the hedgerows crossing and bounding the extraction area, are potentially suitable habitat for dormice and bats both European Protected Species. Evidence of dormice and bat activity has been observed in Coed y Cymdda and Cwm Slade, which fall within the application site boundary. The applicants conclude (para 2.5.3 of the Environmental Statement) and it is accepted that dormice occur throughout most of the mature woodland surrounding the site.

6. The proposed extraction area (but not the line of the conveyor) forms the majority of an area allocated for mineral extraction under Policy MIN 2 (Release of New Limestone Reserves) of the Vale of Glamorgan Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1996-2011. The line of the conveyor and haul road, indicated as being the means to connect the existing quarry to the proposed extension is not allocated or safeguarded under any of the Policies of the Unitary Development Plan.

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

7. This is a full application for the quarrying of Carboniferous limestone in 8.65 ha. of the application site, with a conveyor and haul road link across Cwm Slade and through Wenvoe Quarry to link with the existing processing plant in Alps Quarry. The application requests a continuation of the current maximum permitted output of 1 million tonnes per year. A full description of the various phases of the development is given in the body of the report.

8. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (4 volumes plus eight supplementary reports), which is retained in the Department for Members’ inspection on request.

PLANNING HISTORY

9. There is no planning application history on the application site, but there is an extensive history on the existing Wenvoe Quarry site. Apart from numerous incidental permissions for items of quarry plant, amendments to conditions etc., the major mineral extraction permissions are:

Cardiff City (Western Area) Planning Scheme - Use of land for the purpose of quarrying. Approved under the Interim Development Order procedure 15 March 1948.

P5/Z/317 - Extension of quarry face. Approved 10 August 1955.

CR. 7573 - Extensions to quarry face. Approved 4 May 1962.

P.2 0475 - Extraction of limestone by extension of existing quarry. Approved 25 May 1979.

1520 - Extraction of limestone to provide a stable quarry face. Approved 19 September 1983.

2684 - Quarrying of Carboniferous limestone. Approved 26 October 1989.

3336 - Registration of Interim Development Order permission as required by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. Registered 14 April 1992.

3571 - Deepening and minor extension of the quarry and an increase of maximum production to 1 million tonnes per annum. Approved 28 March 1996. This permission consolidated the earlier consents and resulted in a net reduction in the area where extraction is permitted.

99/00957/FUL - Two small lateral extensions to quarry. Approved 13 April 2000.

10. Working of the quarry is currently controlled by the terms of a Section 106 Legal Agreement entered into at the same time as the granting of planning permission ref. 3571 in 1996, which redefined the area within which mineral extraction may take place.

CONSULTATIONS

11. Wenvoe Community Council – Support the proposal ‘provided the quarry is infilled with absolute minimum damage to Cwm Slade and full restoration when quarrying is completed. This is to be the limit of expansion’.

12. In two further letters they advise that in the absence of technical expertise the determination of the application should be left to the Vale of Glamorgan Council, and in a fourth letter following re-consultation on the latest additional information submitted in October 2007 they advised that they have resolved to note the application.

13. Their first three letters are attached as Appendices 1-3.

14. Michaelston Community Council – Object in a series of letters on the grounds that:

(a) Inadequate consultation was carried out on the change in designation of the site in the Unitary Development Plan from Policy MIN 3 to MIN 2.

(b) The proposal should be considered as a new quarry and not as an extension.

(d) The proposed cutting and woodland clearance for a conveyor across Cwm Slade would be visually very intrusive and in any case is not shown on the Unitary Development Plan map.

P.3 (e) The proposed cutting and woodland clearance would destroy ancient woodland and the habitat of several species of fauna protected by EU Regulations.

(f) There would be an unacceptable impact on wildlife, particularly through pollution of the Wrinstone Brook.

(g) No alternative quarry sites have been considered.

(h) The proposed restoration strategy is inadequate.

(i) The noise surveys as presented in the EIA are inadequate and noise levels in the Cwrt yr Ala basin would be intrusive and damaging to the quality of life of residents.

(j) Blasting vibration levels would be worse than from the existing quarry.

(k) Dust problems would be exacerbated.

(l) The application fulfils only one of the five key principles set out in Section 6.2 of Mineral Planning Policy Wales.

(m) Methods of monitoring noise, dust and waste water are not stated.

(n) The Vale Council lacks the resources to properly monitor the operation.

(o) There would not be sufficient benefit to the community as a whole to justify the loss of amenity to nearby residents and visitors to the area.

15. Separately, the Community Council have set out in detail their particular concerns regarding the hydrogeological aspects of the proposal. Copies of their ten letters are attached as Appendices 4-13. In addition, a letter from the Community Council to the Countryside Council for Wales, which has been copied to this Council and which raises additional concerns on ecological grounds, is attached as Appendix 14.

16. In a final letter received in November 2007, the Community Council reiterate their concerns and in addition to the comments above consider that the applicants’ Taffs Well Quarry is a suitable alternative to this site in every respect. That letter is attached as Appendix 77.

17. Environment Agency – Have given detailed comments on the hydrogeological and drainage aspects of the proposal, and have had particular regard to two additional documents (‘Water Balance for Wrinstone Farm, near Wenvoe Quarry, Cardiff’ (January 2005) and ‘Supplementary Hydrogeological Information: Wrinstone Farm’ (April 2005)), prepared at their request by the applicants. The Agency conclude that the additional reports confirm the need for the acquisition of additional data in order to refine the understanding of the hydrogeological regime and the potential impact of the extension on controlled waters. They require a long term monitoring strategy to be agreed to include (amongst other things) the following:

P.4 (a) Frequency of monitoring of water levels in existing and proposed boreholes.

(b) Locations and frequency of routine spot gauging on the Wrinstone Brook; and

(c) Provision for maintenance and reinstatement of any boreholes that may be damaged or lost during the lifetime of the proposed workings.

18. Although none have been observed on the current working faces of the quarry, the possibility of karstic (solution cavity) features being encountered during working should also be addressed in the monitoring strategy.

19. The Agency note the applicants’ summary timescale for further action, which includes production of a report on ‘baseline monitoring including revision of previous hydrogeological conclusions’ by December 2006 (not yet submitted), with an updated report on monitoring and hydrogeological assessment with the setting of trigger levels for mitigation of any derogation caused by de-watering to be submitted no later than 12 months before commencement of de-watering. They advise that such trigger levels will need to be agreed by the Mineral Planning Authority in consultation with the Agency prior to any de-watering commencing.

20. The Agency therefore request that a series of conditions be attached to any planning permission that may be issued. In summary, those conditions would require:

(a) No development to commence until a surface water and groundwater monitoring strategy, including the number and location of monitoring points and the frequency of monitoring, has been agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority.

(b) No quarrying to take place below 45 metres above Ordnance datum or any seasonal water table, whichever is the higher, until a detailed hydrogeological report (including a water features survey, bed level survey of the Wrinstone Brook with spot flow gaugings, at least 12 months groundwater monitoring data from boreholes at locations to be agreed and details of relevant mitigation works) has been submitted to and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority.

21. With regard to the proposed conveyor/access road, the Agency note that construction of these works, together with soil stripping and temporary soil storage operations, have the potential to adversely affect controlled waters and request that a condition be attached to any permission requiring the approval of a detailed method statement, including pollution prevention measures to be taken during construction, prior to the commencement of development.

22. The Agency consider the submitted restoration concept scheme to be acceptable, but would prefer shallower (1:10 or 1:15 gradient slopes) on the wetland/pond margins to maximise the creation of marginal habitat, so increasing biodiversity once those habitats are established.

P.5 23. The Environment Agency’s formal comments are attached as Appendix 15 with a previous letter, commenting on the Environmental Statement and noting the need for additional information (since supplied in the Supplementary Reports) being attached as Appendix 16. A further letter confirming that they have no further comment to make on additional information submitted in 2006 is attached as Appendix 17. A final letter following consultation on additional information received in September 2007, and confirming their previous comments, is attached as Appendix 18.

24. The Countryside Council for Wales, having considered all the additional documentation submitted by the applicants, conclude that provided the works are fully implemented in accordance with the proposals as set out in the application and supporting documents, the mitigation offered is adequate to maintain the populations of dormice and bats (both European Protected Species) at a favourable conservation status during and post-development. CCW have no objection to the proposal subject to the issues summarised below being addressed through conditions and/or obligations:

(a) Compliance with all the commitments in the planning application, including amendment to the proposed planting programme to reflect the period that has elapsed since the application was submitted.

(b) Repeat surveys for badgers and bats, including bat activity surveys and tree inspections to be undertaken at the appropriate survey times, immediately prior to commencement of works on site.

(c) Preparation and implementation of a method statement for felling of trees suitable for use by bats, with preparation of a draft licence application that could be submitted rapidly to WAG if bat roosts are present.

(d) Preparation and implementation of, and compliance with, a woodland and hedgerow management plan including short-term dormouse habitat enhancement and long-term management, plus proposals for review and amendments to the management scheme if shown to be necessary. The approved scheme should be implemented for a period of 20 years.

(e) Provision of a minimum of eight links across the conveyor at the time of its construction, including five aerial links to be created immediately after the corridor has been cleared and removed immediately after it has been used to transfer items of plant to the quarry site, and three dead hedges to be installed immediately after construction of the conveyor, plus biannual monitoring of their effectiveness and remedial action as necessary; and

(f) Preparation and implementation of a dormouse monitoring programme, including a pre-construction baseline survey and monitoring of the newly- planted and managed habitats during the life of the quarry and for ten years thereafter. Monitoring results are to be sent to the Local Planning Authority, who will have the power to require changes to the management scheme if considered necessary.

P.6 25. Countryside Council for Wales stress that as European Protected Species are present and will be affected, development may proceed only where a licence has been obtained from the Welsh Assembly Government under Regulation 44 (1) (e) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994. The licence can be issued only for the purpose of:

‘preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature, and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’ and on condition that there is ‘no satisfactory alternative’ and that ‘the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range’.

26. The full text of CCW’s letter is attached as Appendix 19.

27. Countryside Council for Wales have also commented separately on the implications of the proposal for the ancient woodland and hedgerows. They consider that in line with Planning Policy Wales (para 5.2.8) the loss of ancient woodland is to be avoided if at all possible. They conclude that whilst there is scope for the long-term recolonisation and recovery of the line of the conveyor and access road, there will be a permanent loss of 0.1 ha of woodland within the extraction area. Also, despite the mitigation measures proposed by the applicants the loss of hedgerows is of key significance.

28. They do not consider translocation to be an acceptable alternative to in-situ conservation, quoting the JNCC policy on habitat translocation (July 2003) which states that ‘SSSI and other conservation sites should never be translocated (in whole or part) for habitat restoration purposes, whilst areas known to comprise ancient habitats should also not be translocated’, and see the proposed translocation as only partial compensation for the loss of woodland and hedges. CCW have reiterated in a letter of the 17 December that with regard to proposed mitigation planting, the length of time for the establishment of planting before work commences should remain as proposed in the application documents. CCW acknowledge that one planting season has already been lost since the original timescale was set out in a letter, dated 29 March 2006 from the agent, and that it is most unlikely that any planting could take place in the 2007-08 planting season. CCW clarifies that it has not objected as it expects full compliance with the mitigation proposals as set out.

29. CCW’s letters on these and other relevant issues are attached as Appendices 20 to 23. CCW’s most recent letter of the 17 December 2007 is attached as Appendix 23A.

30. Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust – Consider that the conclusion of the Environmental Statement that there will be no impact on the archaeological resource is incorrect. However, they have no objection to the application being approved subject to a further programme of archaeological investigation being carried out prior to the commencement of development. Their letter is attached as Appendix 24.

P.7 31. CADW – Have no objection to the proposal although they note the proximity of the Grade II Listed garden of Cwrt yr Ala House, which is on the Register of Landscaped Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales, and confirm that no Scheduled Ancient Monuments or historic landscapes are affected. Their letter is attached as Appendix 25.

32. The Director of Legal and Regulatory Services (Pollution Control) – Gives detailed comments on the noise impact of the proposals following independent surveys. These were carried out following local criticism of the surveys carried out on behalf of the applicants and included in the Environmental Statement, which omitted some of the closest and potentially most noise-sensitive dwellings. He recommends that noise limits should be imposed on the operation and that working in the extension area should be limited to Mondays to Fridays only. The comments are assessed in the body of the report and his two memos are attached as Appendices 26 and 27. A further memo of January 2007 confirming that those observations remain unchanged following a further review of the information is attached as Appendix 28.

33. Western Power Distribution confirm that they would require a 20 metre standoff from their towers for blasting operations. Their letter is attached as Appendix 29.

34. SWALEC and HM Inspectorate of Mines and Quarries (Health and Safety Executive) – Have been consulted but have made no comment.

REPRESENTATIONS

35. The application was advertised in 2003 by site notices in 11 locations throughout Wenvoe and Michaelston-le-Pit, and occupiers of the closest dwellings were notified directly. An inadvertent omission of two of the closest properties in Michaelston-le-Pit has been addressed and those residents have since made detailed comments on the proposal. Similar publicity was given to the submission of an Addendum to the Environmental Statement in July 2004. The necessary public notices in respect of an application accompanied by an Environmental Statement and affecting a public right of way have been published, originally in 2003 and again in 2004 and 2007 to cover the various amendments and additional submissions.

36. Some 865 letters of objection have been received, mainly from residents of Dinas Powys, Michaelston-le-Pit and Wenvoe but also from as far away as Florida. Many of those letters are signed copies of two standard letters, examples of which are attached as Appendices 30 and 31. The others are individually written and five typical examples are attached as Appendices 32 to 36, with the remainder being retained on file for Members’ inspection on request.

37. The main grounds of objection are in summary:

(a) No new aggregate reserves are required in the Vale of Glamorgan during the period of the Unitary Development Plan.

(b) The site is a candidate SINC and quarrying would be contrary to the Vale of Glamorgan Biodiversity Action Plan.

P.8 (c) The conveyor and haul road route is not designated for development in the Unitary Development Plan.

(d) Loss of habitat for various UK and European protected species.

(e) Approval would set a precedent for further quarrying in the area.

(f) Additional heavy vehicle traffic adding to increasing congestion at Culverhouse Cross.

(g) The proposal should be considered as a new quarry and not as an extension.

(h) The loss of ancient woodland contrary to Planning Policy Wales.

(i) The impact of noise and dust on local amenity, particularly in Cwm George and Case Hill Woods.

(j) Detrimental effect of the removal of ancient hedgerows.

(k) Risk of pollution of the Wrinstone Brook; and

(l) Impact on the local public rights of way network.

In addition, the following individuals and bodies have made representations:

38. Kevin Brennan M.P. – Has forwarded emails from a number of Rhodri Morgan AM’s constituents (included in the summary above), objecting to the proposal. As Mr. Morgan lives in Michaelston-le-Pit he has expressed no opinion as he considers that it may be seen that he has an interest in the application. Mr. Brennan’s letter is attached as Appendix 37.

39. Jane Hutt A.M. – Shares residents’ concern about the decrease in the ‘buffer zone’ between the quarry and houses at Cwrt yr Ala and about noise, vibration, dust and the risk of pollution to the Wrinstone Brook. She is also concerned whether the site could be restored to agriculture after quarrying.

40. In a second letter, she objects on the grounds that the quarry would have a detrimental effect on the tranquil rural environment and that the conveyor system would run through several rights of way. Her letters are attached as Appendices 38 and 39.

41. David Melding A.M. – Objects on the grounds that the proximity of the quarry to Michaelston-le-Pit will disturb the quality of life of residents by virtue of noise and pollution, that local watercourses could become polluted, the conveyor link would be unsightly and intrusive and that the rural character of the area would be further disturbed by the new crusher. His letter is attached as Appendix 40.

42. Jonathan Morgan A.M. – Objects on the grounds of the impact on public rights of way, the adverse effect on wildlife habitats due to the loss of ancient woodland and hedgerows and the detrimental effects of increased traffic and congestion. His letter is attached as Appendix 41.

P.9 43. Mr. Melding and Mr. Morgan – Have also written jointly, making the following points in addition to their individual letters:

(a) The extension is not strictly contiguous and is of a size to match the existing quarry. The term ‘extension’ therefore seems something of a misnomer; and

(b) The proposal may breach national policy guidance as set out in Minerals Technical Advice Note 1: Aggregates in that demonstrable harm will be caused to interests of acknowledged importance.

Their joint letter is attached as Appendix 42.

44. Owen John Thomas A.M. – Objects on the grounds of detrimental effect on the landscape, ancient woodland and wildlife habitat and that the proposal does not comply with several policies of the Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Wales. His letter is attached as Appendix 43.

45. Councillor M. Harvey – Has declared an interest in the application but makes the following comments on behalf of his constituents:

(a) The principle of mineral extraction at this site which is claimed in the application to be conceded in the Unitary Development Plan is challenged on two grounds, firstly that its original conception is flawed by today’s standards and secondly because a consideration of principle cannot change from negative to positive simply because Local Authority boundaries can change.

(b) The demonstrable harm is so substantial as to outweigh any principle in favour of consent and the proposal would cause irreversible ecological trauma. The principle of translocation of ancient habitats does not exist.

(c) The economic case for consent is false and employment levels at this location need hardly be affected if aggregate for value added products only is extracted from the existing Wenvoe Quarry reserves.

(d) The screening plantation for this quarry is so inadequate that should consent be granted public protest will be considerable once work commences on the Wrinstone location. Furthermore should consent be granted a condition should be imposed calling for greatly increased screening by semi-mature evergreens which must be fast-growing fir trees.

His letter is attached as Appendix 44.

46. The Ramblers’ Association – Object on the grounds of visual impact, noise, increased traffic, the intrusion into the Green Belt (sic) and that the proposal is contrary to the ‘Development Draft Plan’ (sic).

47. In a second letter, they add that the proposal would have a detrimental effect on wildlife habitats.

P.10 48. In a third letter, they comment that they believe the extension would cause further serious damage to the environment and could result in the closure of two footpaths. Their letters are attached as Appendices 45 to 47.

49. Dinas Powys and Michaelston-le-Pit Civic Society – Object on the grounds that the proposal is for a new quarry not an extension; noise; dust; vibration; detriment to local flora and fauna, loss of amenity to users of public rights of way and visual impact. Their letter is attached as Appendix 48.

50. Barry/Vale Friends of the Earth – Object on the grounds that this would be a new quarry in the ‘Wenvoe Green Belt’ (sic). They also express concern over the manner in which the site was allocated for quarrying in the Unitary Development Plan.

51. In a further emailed letter, Friends of the Earth object on the grounds that:

(a) The proposal is contrary to advice given in Minerals Planning Policy Wales.

(b) No evidence is provided of the grade of agricultural land affected.

(d) The resulting landbank would exceed Welsh Assembly Government guidance.

(e) Restoration proposals are inadequate; and

(f) The site should not have been allocated under Policy MIN 2 of the Unitary Development Plan without the Council considering its obligations under the Habitats Directive and Regulations.

Their two letters are attached as Appendices 49 and 50.

52. The Woodland Trust – Object on the grounds that:

(a) The proposal would result in the loss of semi natural ancient woodland, contrary to Planning Policy Wales guidance.

(b) There would be major impact on biodiversity; and

53. In a second letter, the Woodland Trust reiterate their concern over the impact on biodiversity both in the immediate woodland and further afield and express concern over the landscape impact of the proposal. They note that the Case Hill – Cwm George woods are estimated to receive 36,000 visits annually, making them the most-visited Woodland Trust woodland in Wales.

Their letters are attached as Appendices 51 and 52.

P.11 54. The International Tree Foundation – Object on the grounds of loss of ancient woodland, an irreplaceable national resource, likely adverse effects on hydrology causing further tree loss, and the value of the woodland to the area for its contribution to local biodiversity and as a landscape and recreational area. Their letter is attached as Appendix 53.

55. Dinas Powys Local History Society – Object on the grounds of:

(a) Destruction of a local area of high amenity value involving loss of woodland and wildlife habitat.

(b) Increase in local traffic and industrial noise; and that

Their letter is attached as Appendix 54.

56. The Dinas Powys Branch of the Pony Club – Object on the grounds that the closure of a bridleway on a daily basis to allow blasting will severely detract from the amenities of the area, and that sufficient stone is available elsewhere. Their letter is attached as Appendix 55.

57. The British Horse Society – Object on the grounds of the detrimental effect on the riding facilities of the area and that the proposal could result in the extinguishment of a bridlepath. Their letter is attached as Appendix 56.

58. Plaid Cymru (Wenvoe Branch) – Object on the grounds that the development:

(a) Will permanently spoil an area of outstanding natural beauty.

(b) Will have a significant visual impact.

(d) That the deforestation, noise and vibration from blasting would be catastrophic for protected species and for Wenvoe inhabitants. Their letter is attached as Appendix 57.

59. Cardiff and the Vale Green Party – Object on the grounds of:

(a) Destruction of wildlife habitat.

(b) Noise and possible dust pollution; and

Their emailed letter is attached as Appendix 58.

60. Wales Green Party – Object on the grounds of:

(a) Loss of public amenity.

P.12 (b) Destruction of ancient woodland and hedgerows.

(d) The effect on the habitat of UK and European protected species; and

(e) That it is contrary to the Vale of Glamorgan Biodiversity Action Plan.

Their letter is attached as Appendix 59.

61. The Glamorgan Bird Club – Object on the grounds that the development would lead to irreparable damage to various ‘Red List Species’ and consider the Environmental Statement to be incomplete as no assessment of this impact was included. They also express concern over the loss of ancient woodland and hedgerows and are concerned that the pumping of water to the Wrinstone Brook could adversely affect the hydrology and wildlife of the brook. The impact on dormice is also noted. Their letter is attached as Appendix 60.

62. The Druid High Priestess of the Avebury Druidic Society – Objects on the grounds of the detrimental effect on the woodland and wildlife habitats. Her letter is attached as Appendix 61.

63. Ebenezer Presbyterian Church of Wales, Dinas Powys – Object on the grounds that the noise of blasting, crushing, transportation and the use of large vehicles etc would form an unpleasant intrusion into services of worship in the church on Sundays and other activities during the week. Their letter is attached at Appendix 62.

64. The Noise Abatement Society – Object on the grounds that ‘the increase in noise pollution would greatly affect this tranquil area’ and are concerned whether the proposed plant would meet proposed European guidelines for noise emissions. Their emailed letter is attached as Appendix 63.

65. The Glamorgan Badger Group consider that the felling of part of the woodland and the loss of an adjoining field that is likely to form part of a badger foraging area would be detrimental to the badger population, and general disturbance from quarrying operations could cause the badgers to abandon their sett, resulting in possible territorial fighting with other groups. Their letter is attached at Appendix 64.

66. Conservation Glamorgan (also known as the Glamorgan Conservation Group), in a 30-page letter received before the adoption of the Vale of Glamorgan Unitary Development Plan in April 2005 – Object on the grounds (in summary) that:

(a) The proposal is contrary to Welsh Assembly Government minerals and environment policies contained in Planning Policy Wales, Minerals Planning Policy Wales, Minerals Technical Advice Note 1: Aggregates and other policy documents.

(b) The proposal is contrary to Policies ENV9, ENV10, ENV14 and ENV15 of the Vale of Glamorgan Unitary Development Plan.

P.13 (c) The quarry would represent an unacceptably damaging incursion into an area of high landscape and conservation value that is designated as a candidate SINC in the Vale of Glamorgan Biodiversity Action Plan.

(d) The application is premature in that the Unitary Development Plan has not yet been adopted and, until it is, the relevant Unitary Development Plan policy for the site is MIN 3, which does not designate the site for extraction.

(e) The conveyor and access route is not designated for development in the Unitary Development Plan.

(f) A substantial area of ancient woodland would be destroyed, contrary to advice in Planning Guidance Wales.

(g) The development would lead to demonstrable harm to the character and tranquillity of an area of acknowledged landscape, conservation and historic value.

(h) There would be detrimental noise impact and unacceptable disturbance to nearby residents.

(i) The noise, dust, blasting and visual harm to the area would make public rights of way unattractive and unsafe for walkers, horse riders and naturalists.

(j) The proposal would conflict with Unitary Development Plan policy on protected species and would lead to demonstrable harm to the habitats of UK and European protected species.

(k) The proposed translocation of hedgerows is not considered an acceptable alternative to in-situ conservation.

(l) The noise survey carried out by the applicants is inadequate. If noise levels do not meet those set out in Minerals Planning Guidance Note 11 (Control of Noise from Surface Mineral Workings) the proposal must be refused.

(m) The development is potentially contrary to Policy MIN 4 of the Unitary Development Plan which seeks to conserve high grade agricultural land.

(n) The landbank of aggregate reserves in the Vale of Glamorgan is in excess of that advised by Minerals Technical Advice Note 1: Aggregates; and

(o) There will be a substantial increase in traffic levels which is not sustainable and will exacerbate the existing congestion at Culverhouse Cross.

Their letter is attached as Appendix 65.

67. Conservation Glamorgan’s views on these topics were reiterated in a second letter, attached as Appendix 66.

P.14 68. In a third letter, Conservation Glamorgan draw attention to apparent shortcomings in the Environmental Assessment, particularly in respect of the area of ancient woodland to be lost, noise issues and ecology, and draw particular attention to the impact on bats, badgers, birds and dormice. This letter was referred to the Countryside Council for Wales to be taken into account in preparing their comments, and is attached as Appendix 67.

69. In a fourth letter, Conservation Glamorgan draw attention to apparent discrepancies between stone reserve figures given at various times by the applicants, and consider the reserve figure quoted in the application to be ‘dubious’. That letter is attached as Appendix 68.

70. In a fifth letter, Conservation Glamorgan reiterate a point made in their first letter that the noise survey carried out by the applicants was not carried out at the closest dwellings. This issue has since been addressed by an independent survey by the Council’s Pollution Control Officers and is referred to in the body of the report. Their letter is attached as Appendix 69.

71. In a sixth letter, Conservation Glamorgan express concern at the amount of loss of ancient woodland, consider that translocation of hedgerows is not a viable alternative to in-situ conservation and give detailed comments on the extent and timescales of proposed compensatory planting. That letter is attached as Appendix 70.

72. In a seventh letter, Conservation Glamorgan again criticise the extent of proposed compensatory planting and consider that translocation of hedgerows is unlikely to be successful. They give detailed comments on the likely effect on dormice, with extensive references to the Dormouse Conservation Handbook (2002), concluding that the favourable conservation status of the dormouse population will not be maintained, contrary to the Habitats Directive. That letter is attached as Appendix 71.

73. In an eighth letter, Conservation Glamorgan query the accuracy of estimates of reserves in previous applications at the quarry and contend that the actual current reserve is sufficient for well beyond the period of the Unitary Development Plan. That letter is attached as Appendix 72.

74. The Conservation Group have also submitted a dossier of additional documents in respect of ecology and the historical significance of the landscape, a statement regarding the potential use of stone at Taffs Well Quarry for coated roadstone and further studies of visibility and noise commissioned on their behalf. The dossier and statement are retained on file for Members’ inspection on request and the consultants’ noise and visibility reports are attached as Appendices 73 and 74.

REPORT

75. This is a complex proposal involving the following discrete steps:

(a) Implementation of a scheme of additional woodland planting in Cwm Slade and of a woodland management scheme, in advance of the proposed quarrying and the works to connect the proposed extension with the existing Wenvoe Quarry.

P.15

(b) The construction of a ‘temporary’ access road, mainly 7 metres wide, from the 85 metre above Ordnance datum (aod) bench in the south-eastern corner of Wenvoe Quarry, across Cwm Slade at a point just to the north- east of its highest point and up the south-eastern valley side to the north- eastern corner of the extraction area. This would be the only road access to the new extraction area, and would be temporary in that it would be removed and its line restored once mineral extraction and restoration in the extension area is completed.

At the Wenvoe Quarry end, due to geological difficulties caused by the steep south-westward dip of the limestone beds leading to potential instability, the road will have to be excavated through a cutting with a maximum width of 30 metres and depth of 13 metres, and the remainder of the road barring some 15 metres across the valley floor of Cwm Slade will be constructed through woodland. The total length of the access road would be approximately 275 metres and it would cross at ground level a public footpath running east-west through Cwm Slade. To construct the haul road, soils would be stripped and used as part of a compensatory planting area to be established at the head of Cwm Slade, with the road itself being surfaced in crushed limestone.

(d) The stripping of soils and overburden from the majority of the two northern fields (‘Phase 1’), with storage mounds being established at the southern extremity of the site. The applicants estimate that 43,800 cubic metres of soils and overburden would be removed from this phase.

(e) Following the excavation of a ramp from the 100 metre aod ground surface at the head of the access track down to 85 metres aod, a mobile primary crusher would be installed via the access road. This would require careful attention to the tree canopy, with temporary works being required to tie back selected branches, and possibly some tree surgery, to allow the crusher to pass.

(f) The installation of a conveyor along the line of the access road from the extension area, across Cwm Slade, along the internal eastern edge of Wenvoe Quarry and continuing via the existing tunnel to the processing plant in the former Alps Quarry. A 5 metre wide gravelled access track alongside the conveyor would remain between the two excavation areas for light vehicle access to the new site.

The conveyor would consist of an enclosed 0.8 metre wide belt on trestles set 1 metre above ground level, and would follow existing ground contours except through the cutting into Wenvoe Quarry on the northern side of Cwm Slade. The conveyor would be fully enclosed from the primary crusher to its point of entry into Wenvoe Quarry.

P.16 Assessments of alternative means of access to the site, either by road or alternative conveyor arrangements, have been undertaken by the applicants and are detailed in the Environmental Statement, but are all concluded by the applicants to have a greater environmental impact than the proposed option. An analysis of the options is given later.

(g) Mineral extraction would then proceed using conventional blasting methods in four phases:

Phase 1 – Would extend the original 85 metre level ramp westwards, releasing approximately 640,000 tonnes of stone. This phase would be worked in conjunction with the extraction of reserves from the existing Wenvoe Quarry.

Phase 2 – Would involve stripping soils and overburden from the remainder of the extraction area, with subsequent stone extraction at the 85 metre and 70 metre levels. 2.34 million tonnes (mt) of stone would be obtained in this phase.

Phase 3 – Would expand the 70 metre level to its full extent, with further deepening to a 55 metre level. This phase would release 1.29 mt of stone.

Phase 4 – Would involve a further deepening, more limited in extent, to a final quarry floor level varying between 45 and 50 metres aod. This phase would release 720,000 tonnes of stone, with workable stone in the whole extension area totalling 5 million tonnes. This would be adequate for only five years’ production at the maximum permitted level or about eight years at the recent average output.

The applicants propose working hours as on the existing site, i.e. 7.30 a.m. to 8.00 p.m., with no drilling or blasting outside 8.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. and no operations except maintenance being carried out on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Production is proposed to be up to the 1 million tonnes per year currently permitted.

(h) Following the completion of extraction, the site would be restored, essentially at quarry floor level. The proposed restoration scheme seeks to allow the quarry faces to regenerate naturally, with the previously-stripped and stored soils being placed on the benches to form a basis for the planting of woodland or scrub. The quarry floor would be developed as grassland, with marshy grassland or wetland on the lowest level as conditions allow, whilst the breached valley side is to be restored and the conveyor route allowed to regenerate naturally. Long-term access to the site would then be via the existing field access at the southern end of the application site.

P.17 76. In supplementary information submitted in March 2006, the applicants envisaged step (a) above being implemented in the 2006/2007 planting season with installation of the conveyor link and commencement of quarrying in 2010. That timetable clearly cannot now be met, and it appears that if permission was granted implementation of all the steps would be delayed by at least two years from that estimate. It is possible that the applicants may wish to accelerate the timetable, bearing in mind the likely exhaustion of reserves in the current site by the end of 2013 at current production rates, and the effect of any acceleration on the protected species mitigation measures proposed would require careful assessment. This matter has been raised with the Countryside Council for Wales who maintain that the time period as originally required for the implementation of mitigation is fundamental to the proposal.

Planning Policies

77. This complex application requires the need for the stone to be weighed carefully against the ecological and other interests in the area. Particular attention must be paid to the advice given in the Welsh Assembly Government’s Minerals Planning Policy Wales (2000) and the subsequent Minerals Technical Advice Note 1: Aggregates (2004). In addition, the requirements of EC Directive 92/43/EEC (the ‘Habitats Directive’) regarding the need for the resource and the effects of the development on European protected species are of particular importance.

78. Locally, the Environment and Minerals Policies of the Vale of Glamorgan adopted Unitary Development Plan 1996-2011 are relevant, particularly Policies:

ENV1 – DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE ENV7 – WATER RESOURCES ENV11 – PROTECTION OF LANDSCAPE FEATURES ENV12 – WOODLAND MANAGEMENT ENV15 – LOCAL SITES OF NATURE CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE ENV16 – PROTECTED SPECIES ENV29 – PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

MIN2 – RELEASE OF LIMESTONE RESERVES MIN5 – PREFERRED ORDER OF RELEASE OF RESERVES MIN6 – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MIN8 – RESTORATION AND AFTERCARE

Particularly relevant is Policy MIN2 of the Vale of Glamorgan adopted Unitary Development Plan 1996-2011, which allocates land for quarrying as an extension to Wenvoe Quarry. The means of connection (the haul road and conveyor) is however not part of that Development Plan allocation.

79. The requirements of the Natural Environments and Rural Communities Act 2006 in respect of the functions of a public authority in conserving biodiversity are also relevant.

P.18

National Policy on Minerals Supply

80. The Unitary Development Plan was prepared, and the application was submitted, prior to the publication in March 2004 of Minerals Technical Advice Note 1: Aggregates (MTAN1) by the Welsh Assembly Government. Amongst other things, that document and the earlier Minerals Planning Policy Wales (MPPW) (December 2000) seek to maintain an adequate supply of aggregates whilst conserving natural resources and maximising the use of waste products in line with sustainable objectives (paras. 67 and 68 of MPPW: paras. 17 to 21 of MTAN1), whilst recognising that the main supply of aggregates will continue to be from crushed rock.

Local Policy

81. The area of the application site within which mineral extraction is proposed forms the majority of an area allocated for mineral extraction under Policy MIN 2 (iii) of the Vale of Glamorgan adopted Unitary Development Plan 1996-2011. However, the means of connection, being the access or haul road and the conveyor between the proposed area of quarrying and the existing Wenvoe Quarry was not allocated in the Unitary Development Plan.

82. Of relevance in the consideration of this application is the policy background relating to the site. The site was first identified and protected from all forms of permanent building development so as to safeguard the minerals for future need in the former County Council’s informal Local Quarry Plan No. 2 (Wenvoe/St. Andrews area) in 1979. That designation was carried forward into Policy 39 of the unadopted South Glamorgan Minerals Local Plan (Deposit Draft 1995).

83. The 1998 Deposit Draft of the Unitary Development Plan again protected this area to the south of Cwm Slade and Wenvoe Quarry, under Policy MIN3, from permanent building development so as to ensure its availability for mineral working if the need arose. Following the receipt of representations by the quarry company of the time, the Council proposed that the allocation should be included within Policy MIN2 and as a consequence promoted this change to the allocation from MIN3 to MIN2 through the publication of a Further Proposed Change (FPCJ 001). The Unitary Development Plan Inspector supported this allocation and he recommended in his report (recommendation 9.7) that the area should be identified as a Policy MIN2 site, allocating the site for winning and working of limestone. That recommendation was carried forward as a Further Proposed Modification and the adopted plan reflects that change. The Policy MIN2 allocation again did not include the line of the conveyor or haul road, and the site was allocated under MIN2 within the Unitary Development Plan without any assessment of means of access into the site. Specific details as to the means of the proposed access have only emerged through this current application.

84. Work has commenced on the Local Development Plan (2011-2026) and this work provides an opportunity to review the needs, resources and impacts particularly having regard to the proposed timescale for implementing this application which I deal with in paragraphs 197 to 199 below.

P.19 Issues

85. The major issues to be considered are the National and Local Policy context with specific reference to MTAN1, Policy MIN2 of the adopted Vale of Glamorgan Unitary Development Plan 1996-2011, which allocates part of the application site as an extension to Wenvoe Quarry, the need for the resource in terms of national and local policy, the impact on ancient woodland and European Protected Species (dormice and bats) with particular reference to the European Habitats Directive, effects on hydrology and hydrogeology, visual impact, residential amenity by virtue of noise, dust, ground vibration, fumes and general disturbance, and traffic issues including the impact on the nearby network of bridleways and footpaths.

Need for the Resource

86. The landbank of permitted reserves (by the mineral operators’ estimates) at the six active aggregate-producing sites in the Vale at January 2007, calculated in accordance with the advice in MTAN1, totalled 21.24 million tonnes (mt), sufficient for just under 13 years’ production at the average rate of the previous three years (1.66 mt per annum, including non-aggregate production from the same sites) (source: RAWP annual surveys, 2004 – 2006). MTAN1 advises that:

‘where landbanks already provide for more than 20 years of aggregate extraction, new allocations in development plans will not be necessary and Mineral Planning Authorities should consider whether there is justification for further extensions to existing sites or new extraction sites’ (para. 49) ‘in the knowledge that planning permission should normally be refused’ (para 34).

87. Although the Inspector’s recommendation to amend the designation of the application site from UDP Policy MIN 3 (protection) to MIN 2 (allocation) was made some years before the publication of MTAN1, his recommendation does not conflict with that document’s subsequent conclusion on maximum landbanks.

88. The future pattern of aggregates supply and demand in South Wales will ultimately be guided by the Regional Technical Statement (RTS) on that issue, currently being prepared by the South Wales Regional Aggregates Working Party and based on recently-completed research on the ‘environmental capacity’ of the various limestone resource areas in Wales carried out on behalf of the Welsh Assembly Government. However the RTS is currently only at the consultation draft stage and is unlikely to be completed before mid-2008 and in any event it is intended to be used only to inform the preparation of development plans and not in the assessment of individual planning applications.

89. Wenvoe Quarry has for almost 30 years been the largest producer of crushed aggregate, concrete and coated roadstone in the Vale of Glamorgan and is a significant regional producer of these materials as well as being the only current source of coated roadstone in the Vale of Glamorgan. The following table indicates the degree of importance of the site:

P.20

Wenvoe Quarry in the Regional Context:

Wenvoe Quarry output as:

Year % of VoG Crushed Rock % of South Wales Aggregates Crushed Rock Aggregates

1997 63.7 6.0 1998 72.5 5.4 1999 79.2 8.3 2000 62.2 7.1 2001 61.7 7.1 2002 50.0 6.0 2003 48.3 5.7 2004 45.2 5.7 2005 53.3 6.1 2006 46.3 6.1

(Source: South Wales Regional Aggregates Working Party surveys 1997 – 2006)

90. The 1996 planning permission (ref: 3571) and associated legal agreement consolidated the earlier planning permissions for the site and reduced the area where extraction is permitted by rescinding working rights on an area in the north east of the site, closest to the Ely link road, where due to the topography the workable reserves were very limited, whilst permitting a small lateral extension elsewhere together with the deepening of the whole quarry to give an overall reserve (applicants’ estimate) of 12.3 million tonnes from August 1993.

91. The workable reserves within the currently permitted working area are constrained by proven geological difficulties on the eastern side of the quarry, and it appears extremely unlikely that any further vertical or lateral extensions to the existing quarry bowl could be achieved that would release the quantities of stone required for even a short-term continuation to the life of the quarry. The area relinquished in 1996, which in any event contained very limited reserves, is now constrained by recent residential development. It is therefore likely that if the current application were refused and production at Wenvoe continued at the 2004 – 2006 average level, the current 4.76 mt of reserves (January 2007 figure) would be exhausted by 2013. The table above demonstrates that this would result in a significant aggregates shortfall both locally and regionally, which would have to be met from alternative sources. The availability of alternative sources, particularly bearing in mind the requirements of the Habitats Directive referred to later, therefore requires careful analysis.

92. The Environmental Statement as submitted with the application made no assessment of any alternative sources of material that may be available and/or that have been considered by the applicants, although supplementary statements submitted in June 2005 and October 2007 assess the regional picture with particular reference to the applicants’ other quarry at Taffs Well, north of Cardiff. In view of the Habitats Directive requirement to assess alternatives, a brief overview of the current aggregates supply situation is relevant.

P.21 93. The 12 active, inactive and dormant Carboniferous limestone quarries in the Vale of Glamorgan contained a total of 39 million tonnes of stone (Local Planning Authority estimate) with planning permission for extraction at January 2007 (compared to the 21.24 mt at the six currently active sites referred to earlier). Whilst this appears adequate without the release of further reserves for some 23 years at the 2004 – 2006 average production rate (source: RAWP annual survey returns), the individual scenarios require consideration.

94. Argoed Isha, Beaupre, Cnap Twt, Lavernock and St. Andrews quarries (all dormant for between 20 and 50 years) are considered unsuitable for further working by today’s standards and are included in Policy MIN 10 of the Unitary Development Plan, which seeks to prevent further extraction at those sites.

95. Pantyffynnon Quarry is rapidly approaching exhaustion and whilst resources adjoining the site are identified under Policies MIN2 and MIN3 of the UDP the quarry company has been unable to acquire them and closure appears likely in the near future. The allocated and protected resources at this site have not been quantified but if released would allow a long-term extension to the quarry.

96. Ewenny Quarry has substantial reserves but its output is restricted by working conditions due to the proximity of dwellings, and it is unlikely that any significant increase in production to take up a proportion of the Wenvoe output would be acceptable. Longlands Quarry has similarly restrictive conditions and in any event has substantially less reserves.

97. Garwa Farm Quarry has substantial reserves but working is hampered by large thicknesses of overburden. The cost of removing and storing this material is such that regular working was suspended in 2000, although the site is ‘mothballed’ for future use. The high-purity limestone from this site has always been used for cement manufacture and is not included in the aggregates landbank, but whilst use as aggregates would not be an efficient use of this high- quality material there is no planning restriction on its end-use.

98. Pant and Lithalun Quarries have reasonable reserves and/or additional resources protected by Policies MIN 2 and MIN 3 of the UDP. Whilst these sites could possibly increase output in the short term to cater for some of the potential Wenvoe shortfall, as with Ewenny and Longlands Quarries they are located in the far western part of the Vale and transport of material to the Cardiff market area would be expensive and not as sustainable.

99. Ruthin Quarry has not been worked for 20 years but contains considerable reserves with additional protected resources, although its location is remote from the major demand centres.

P.22 100. The reserve situation in the Vale is therefore not as assured as the basic figure suggests and none of the alternative sites are as well located in relation to the major market (Cardiff) as Wenvoe Quarry. It is unlikely that any one of the Vale sites could alone assume the shortfall if Wenvoe Quarry were to close, but it is nevertheless possible that a distribution of the shortfall amongst several sites would be feasible for a limited period and probably at a greater cost until those sites were in turn exhausted. However, in the context of quantity and location of alternative reserves and resources in the Vale it is concluded that the loss of Wenvoe Quarry as an operational site would have implications for hard-rock aggregate supply in the Vale/Cardiff area.

101. In minerals supply terms the Vale of Glamorgan is an artificial entity with little relationship to market areas, and consideration must also be given to the wider regional situation. The major site outside the Vale that appears reasonably placed to take up a shortfall is Taffs Well Quarry in north Cardiff, operated by the current applicants. Cardiff County Council advise that reserves at that site are currently between 20 and 22 million tonnes, with no output restriction and a planning permission valid until 2027. Current output is between 800,000 and 1 million tonnes per year. A new tunnelled access direct from the quarry bowl to a point close to the A470 road is nearing completion. Many objectors to the current proposal have commented that it would seem logical that if quarrying were to cease at Wenvoe the applicants would attempt to maintain their market share by increasing output at Taffs Well.

102. This issue has been raised with the applicants, who have responded in a letter attached as Appendix 75 and a further statement attached as Appendix 76. In summary, they comment that:

(a) The current application is for a maximum output of 1 million tonnes per year, which is requested to allow flexibility to respond to fluctuations in market demand and perceptions of potential increases in demand associated with the level of construction activity in the area.

(b) Whilst Taffs Well Quarry does not have an output limit, it has operated recently at a level very close to the current operational capacity of the quarry plant. It would therefore not be possible to provide for a 2 million tonne per year output from that site. In addition, the likely 800 vehicle movements per day associated with such a level would be difficult to accommodate on the local highway network.

(c) Geological differences mean that the two quarries serve different markets, with the dolomitic limestone at Taffs Well being less suitable for coated roadstone production due to its greater porosity and higher density resulting in more bitumen and a greater tonnage of stone being required for a given surfacing job. Taffs Well produces a higher proportion of stone suitable for lower-quality products than Wenvoe, and quarrying at Taffs Well also produces a larger proportion of waste, which would be further increased if attempts were made to transfer some of the current Wenvoe production;

P.23 (d) Conservation of the current Wenvoe reserve for higher-quality products (concrete aggregate and coated roadstone) would not effectively increase the lifespan of the current site as the majority of the Wenvoe Quarry output is already used for those purposes. In addition, the nature of the quarrying and crushing process results in a range of product types and sizes, and that it is not practical for production to be geared exclusively toward single- sized quality stone products; and

(e) Transportation of stone from Taffs Well to serve the Wenvoe market area would involve substantial increases in lorry mileage and numbers of vehicles required due to the longer haulage distances.

103. In considering these issues, it should be noted that Taffs Well Quarry currently supports a concrete batching plant. Although coated roadstone has never been produced from this site an application for a coating plant was submitted in 1994 but was withdrawn due to substantial local opposition. For information, Carboniferous dolomitic limestone as quarried at Taffs Well contains varying quantities of magnesium carbonate CaMg(CO3)2, whereas the Carboniferous limestone quarried at Wenvoe and throughout the Vale of Glamorgan is the calcium carbonate form CaCO3 which locally can contain very few impurities.

104. The applicants’ comments on these issues have been considered carefully. Despite their statement regarding the use of stone for higher-quality products, (under (d) above, the applicants’ agent states that the majority of the Wenvoe output is already used for higher quality products), production figures for 2001 to 2006 indicate that such uses account for no more than 40% of total output (source: RAWP annual surveys). If production was to be concentrated solely on those end-uses in recognition that the “Wenvoe” material is of a higher quality and could, and indeed should be retained for higher quality products it would appear that existing reserves would be sufficient for up to 17 years. Whilst doubt remains whether all the stone in Wenvoe Quarry is suitable for those purposes, it nevertheless appears to be a feasible scenario.

105. In addition, it appears clear that the Taffs Well dolomitic limestone could also be used for coated stone production, albeit at a greater cost and using more material per job than at Wenvoe. Without a detailed breakdown of destinations of sales from both sites it is difficult to make an accurate assessment about the increased traffic issues, although from a basic calculation it appears that the applicants’ claimed increase in haulage mileage of 2,300,000 km per year if all output was transferred to Taffs Well overestimates the case by 50%. Nevertheless it is apparent that there would be an increase in cost if all the Wenvoe output was transferred to Taffs Well. In addition, the scenario of all output being transferred to Taffs Well is not the only scenario that requires assessment. The restriction in the use of the Wenvoe material to ‘higher quality’ products will not entail the total transfer of all Wenvoe output to Taffs Well. In addition a further scenario is the transfer of a certain amount of Wenvoe output to a range of other sites within the region.

P.24 106. The applicants’ comments therefore relate solely to the implications of the total transfer of operations to Taffs Well, and do not consider the possibly more likely scenario of a range of sites each compensating for a proportion of Wenvoe output. The option of total transfer to Taffs Well must therefore be seen as only one of several possible scenarios if Wenvoe Quarry were to close.

107. It is also notable that Forest Wood Quarry, Llanharry (mainly in Rhondda Cynon Taf but with some unworked reserves in the Vale), whilst not in the current applicants’ control, contains a coated roadstone plant that is operated by them. That quarry contains substantial permitted reserves although geological constraints are likely to restrict the amount that can be worked. An area to the south west of the quarry, entirely in the Vale, is protected from permanent building development under Policy MIN3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

108. Whilst it is unlikely that any single site in the Vale of Glamorgan/Cardiff area could increase production to meet the shortfall if Wenvoe were to close, the availability of a variety of alternative sites which could each contribute, particularly including reserves at another site in the applicants’ ownership, albeit in another Local Authority’s area, must be weighed carefully against both the ecological and environmental impact of quarrying in the application site. Conclusions on this issue are very important in deciding whether the proposal meets the tests of the Habitats Directive, discussed in detail below. It is also important to note that the current proposal does not represent a long-term solution to aggregates provision in the Vale. With this proposal having a lifespan of only six to eight years, even if permission is granted the same issues will arise again in the near future. It is therefore critical that alternative options relating to production at various other sites are considered in detail.

Local Environmental Impact

109. The original protection of the proposed extraction area in the 1979 Local Quarry Plan and the continuation of that protection through the Minerals Local Plan into the Unitary Development Plan was based solely on the three primary criteria that:

(a) The site contains known resources of Carboniferous limestone.

(b) The site does not contain Grades 1, 2 or 3a agricultural land; and

(c) There are no dwellings within a 361 metre radius (based on the minimum 300 metre buffer zone considered reasonable in 1979 and since increased at this site following a detailed assessment of the measured effects of blasting).

110. The proposed conveyor/haul road access route does not form part of the UDP allocated area. No assessment was made of access routes, ecology or local environmental factors in making the allocation, which have to be considered in the context of the current application.

P.25 111. The proposed conveyor and haul road access will be constructed through an area of semi-natural broad-leaved ancient woodland in which evidence has been found of the presence of dormice, a European Protected Species. From evidence in both Coed y Cymdda and Coed Cwm Slade it is accepted by the applicants and the Countryside Council for Wales that dormice occur throughout most of the mature woodland through which the conveyor and haul road would run and may use the hedgerows crossing the proposed extraction area. Bat activity has also been noted in the woodland.

112. Policy ENV11 (Protection of Landscape Features) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan advises that development will be permitted if it does not unacceptably affect features of importance to landscape or nature conservation, including (amongst other things) trees, woodland and hedgerows.

113. Policy ENV12 (Woodland Management) favours the ‘improvement, management and extension of woodland, tree cover and hedgerows, particularly of native broadleaf species’, especially where (amongst other things) it makes a significant improvement to the landscape in the vicinity of quarries or helps to diversify and extend wildlife habitats.

114. Policy ENV15 (Local sites of Nature Conservation Significance) prohibits development likely to have an unacceptable effect on sites shown to be of importance for nature conservation unless the reasons for the proposal clearly outweigh the local importance of the site. If development is permitted, appropriate conditions or agreed planning obligations will be used to ensure the impact on nature conservation is minimised.

115. Policy ENV16 (Protected Species) states that permission will be given for development that would cause harm to or threaten the continued viability of a protected species only if it can be clearly demonstrated that:

(i) There are exceptional circumstances that justify the proposal.

(ii) There is no satisfactory alternative; and

(iii) Effective mitigation measures are proposed by the developer.

Habitats Directive

116. The impact of the development on the European Protected Species has to be assessed in line with the tests set out in the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994, which implement the European Habitats Directive (EC Directive 92/43/EEC). New developments where works would contravene the protection afforded to European protected species require a derogation (in the form of a licence) from the provisions of the Habitats Directive, granted by the Welsh Assembly Government. The following tests, which are central to the consideration of this application, must all be satisfied before a licence can be granted (Article 16 of the Directive and regulation 44 of the 1994 Regulations):

(a) There is ‘no satisfactory alternative’ to the derogation.

P.26 (b) ‘The derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range’; and

(c) The derogation is ‘in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’.

117. With reference to derogation, Planning Policy Wales (2002) advises (paras. 5.5.11 and 5.5.12) that:

“The presence of a species protected under European or U.K. legislation is a material consideration when a local planning authority is considering a development proposal which, if carried out, would be likely to result in disturbance or harm to the species or its habitat. Local planning authorities should advise anyone submitting a planning application that they must conform with any statutory species protection provisions affecting the site concerned, and should consult the CCW before granting permission. An ecological survey to confirm whether a protected species is present and an assessment of the likely impact of the development on a protected species may be required in order to inform the planning decision.

Developments are always subject to the legislation covering European protected species regardless of whether or not they are within a designated site. New developments for which development works would contravene the protection afforded to European protected species require derogations from the provisions of the Habitats Directive. A derogation may only be authorised if there is no satisfactory alternative and if the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in its natural range. The development works to be authorised must be for the purposes of preserving “public health or safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment. Derogations are granted by a licence issued by the Assembly. Local planning authorities are under a duty to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in exercising their functions. To avoid developments with planning permission subsequently not being granted a derogation in relation to European protected species, planning authorities should take the three requirements for a derogation into account when considering development proposals where a European protected species is present.”

P.27

118. In addition, Section 40(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 states that:

‘every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’.

Effect on Woodland

119. The proposed extraction area is bounded to the east by Limekiln Wood (on the western side of the Michaelston – Cwrt yr Ala basin) and to the north by Coed Cwm Slade. These areas of predominantly ancient woodland link across the Cwm Slade valley with Coed y Cymdda, which encircles and screens the existing quarry excavation. These woods form parts of an almost continuous woodland link running north-west from Dinas Powys to Caerau, Cardiff.

120. The impact of the extraction area and the conveyor/access road ‘corridor’ on the woodland on both sides of Cwm Slade has attracted considerable concern from a large number of local objectors, as well as the Countryside Council for Wales, Conservation Glamorgan, the Woodland Trust, and Michaelston Community Council.

121. The total area of woodland affected by the proposal is 0.436 ha (1.08 acres), comprising 0.172 ha inside the existing Wenvoe Quarry fence, being the area required for the cutting through the southern rim of the existing quarry, 0.154 ha on the line of the proposed conveyor and access road (7 metres wide by 220 metres long from the existing Wenvoe Quarry fence to the northern boundary of the extraction area) and 0.110 ha on the western side of the extraction area itself where a ‘nose’ of woodland intrudes into the agricultural land. As larger figures for the loss of woodland have been quoted elsewhere, these figures have been checked carefully and I am confident they represent the true planned extent of the affected woodland.

Alternative Conveyor Routes: Impact on Woodland and Ecology

122. The impact of the conveyor and the access track on the woodland and its ecology has emerged as one of the most important issues in the consideration of the application. It is clear that there is no possibility of access to the extension area via any public highways, which the applicants accept are inadequate for any quarry traffic. The only possible means of access is via a link to the existing quarry.

123. Having discounted the construction of a new haul road along the internal western side of the existing quarry through the Coed y Cymdda woodland, with Cwm Slade being crossed further west than currently proposed, for reasons of significant damage to woodland and visual landscape impact, the applicants have considered four options of crossing Cwm Slade from the south-eastern corner of the existing quarry.

P.28 124. An option involving the crossing of the open pasture land of Cwm Slade at an angle to reach the north western corner of the extension area would have minimal impact on woodland but was discounted because of the severe visual impact and the need for several changes in direction of the conveyor which would involve visually intrusive transfer points. An option taking the most direct straight- line route across Cwm Slade, involving a substantial cutting through the steepest part of the southern valley side, with significant ecological and visual effects, was also discounted. A similar route slightly further east would avoid the natural rock outcrops on the southern side of the valley but would still involve a substantial cutting to access the application site, whereas the chosen option minimises the need for excavation on the southern side of Cwm Slade at the cost of a slightly longer, but narrower, section of woodland being affected.

125. The various options have been inspected on site with representatives of the Countryside Council for Wales. It is agreed that the chosen option would have the least impact in terms of visual intrusion and would minimise the width of the corridor by constructing the conveyor and track at the existing ground level on the southern side of the valley. The very steep gradient of part of the route has been queried with the applicants, who have confirmed that they consider this a practical route for the haul road. The impact of the proposed route on the ancient woodland and its important ecological interest has been considered carefully by CCW, whose conclusions are referred to in more detail below.

Woodlands and Hedgerows

126. The area of woodland that would be directly affected by the proposal (0.436 ha) represents some 2% of the total area (22 ha) of contiguous woodland between the Wrinstone Brook in the south to Alps Quarry in the north. Of the 0.436 ha, over one third, within the existing quarry boundary, has no public access although that area retains its ecological and landscape importance.

127. The applicants consider (Section 5.2.3 of the Environmental Statement) that the loss of woodland would have a ‘slight’ impact which would be ‘not significant’ given the small proportion of the total woodlands that would be affected, although at Section 5.1.4 they state that ‘the conveyor link will result in extensive localised changes to the steep valley sides, level valley floor and vegetation pattern which are important features in the landscape and combine to define the landscape character of Cwm Slade’.

128. The topsoil and subsoil stripped from the line of the access road/conveyor would be used in a new area of woodland planting on the currently open floor of Cwm Slade, to the west of the conveyor crossing and bounded by a translocated length of hedgerow from the extraction area. The precise line of the conveyor would need to be established on site prior to its construction, with the aim of retaining as many mature trees and as much of the most valuable ground flora as possible. The new area of woodland planting is proposed to be species-rich and to have an area greater than that to be lost to the conveyor.

P.29

129. In terms of national policy, Planning Policy Wales (2002) states at para 5.2.8:

‘Trees, woodlands and hedgerows are of great importance, both as wildlife habitats and in terms of their contribution to landscape character and beauty. Local planning authorities should seek to protect trees, groups of trees and areas of woodland where they have natural heritage value or contribute to the character or amenity of a particular locality. Ancient and semi-natural woodlands are irreplaceable habitats of high biodiversity value which should be protected from development that would result in significant damage’.

130. The Countryside Council for Wales express concern at the loss of woodland whilst accepting with some reservations the potential long-term natural regeneration of the conveyor corridor. CCW make particular reference to the advice given in Planning Policy Wales and ‘Woodlands for Wales: the National Assembly for Wales Strategy for Trees and Woodlands’ (2001). This guidance recognises ancient and semi-natural woodlands as irreplaceable habitats of high biodiversity value which should be protected from development that would result in significant damage, and seeks to improve the quality of these woodlands by linking and expanding their habitat networks. The strategy includes commitments to:

‘Increase the quality of native woodlands for wildlife and implement the Biodiversity Action Plan targets for their restoration and extension, creating links between fragmented woodlands’; and

‘Increase the area of native woodlands, targeting extension and connection of existing woods and incorporating the concept of increasing the core area of native woodland habitats’.

131. The Council’s Ecologist advises that even with the proposed mitigation measures, the loss of ancient woodland as proposed would result in an adverse ecological impact, and that whilst this is a material consideration in assessing the application the loss of potential dormouse woodland habitat is of even greater significance.

132. The Woodland Trust object to the loss of ancient woodland that would be caused by the conveyor route, considering that if the conveyor were moved further west 60% of its length would be outside the woodland. They conclude that there is insufficient justification for the proposal to justify approval contrary to the guidance in Planning Policy Wales, which seeks to protect an important and scarce feature of Welsh heritage from unnecessary damage

133. Conservation Glamorgan object to the loss of woodland on broadly similar grounds to the Woodland Trust, adding that ‘the development would lead to demonstrable harm to the character and tranquillity of an area of acknowledged landscape, conservation and historic value’. They are critical of the hedgerow translocation proposals on the grounds that the document ‘A Habitats Translocation Policy for Britain’ (2003) states that:

P.30 ‘The translocation of habitats is considered not to be an acceptable alternative to in-situ conservation. The available evidence indicates that habitats translocations have not been successful in maintaining the characteristic biodiversity of the assemblage that is being moved.’

134. Mineral extraction in the extension area would result in the loss of some 750 metres of hedgerows which currently separate the four fields subject of the application. The applicants accept that these are ‘Important’ under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 and propose mitigation in the form of translocation of selected lengths of hedgerow to form a new structure along the eastern boundary of an area of screen planting carried out in the early 1990s to the west of the extension area, which would conserve the existing hedgerow material and form a link between the woodland to the north and the existing hedgerow network to the south. An additional hedgerow is also proposed to link the additional planting on the southern side of Cwm Slade to Coed y Cymdda.

135. Regarding the loss of hedgerows, the Council’s Ecologist notes that three of these are identified in the Environmental Statement as species-rich and are classed as Important under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, and considers that potentially they may all qualify as Ancient and/or species-rich under UK Habitat Action Plan definitions. Again, despite the proposed mitigation measures, the loss of hedgerows would result in an ecological impact but she concludes that of greater significance would be the loss of these hedgerows as potential dormouse habitat/dispersal migration corridors.

136. The Countryside Council for Wales has no objection to the loss of hedgerows subject to numerous issues, including the implementation of a management plan with proposals for dormouse habitat enhancement and management, being addressed by planning conditions or obligations. The full text of CCW’s comments is at Appendices 18 to 23.

European Protected Species and the Habitats Directive

137. The Countryside Council for Wales stress the need to ensure, as required by the Habitats Directive, that the favourable conservation status of the dormouse will not be compromised by the quarry extension, and that suitable access is provided for dormice to cross from woodland to woodland across the conveyor so as to avoid fragmentation of the dormouse community. CCW’s full comments are set out in their letters at Appendices 18 to 23, but they conclude that ‘provided the works are fully implemented in compliance with the proposals in the [submitted] documents, the mitigation offered is adequate to maintain the population of both dormice and bats at Favourable Conservation Status during and post- development’. Further bat survey work would be required prior to the commencement of development, however.

P.31 138. CCW stress that where European Protected Species are present, development may proceed only where a licence has been issued by the Welsh Assembly Government. The terms under which a licence may be granted are set out earlier in this report, but CCW advise that whilst they are satisfied that the Favourable Conservation Status of the protected species can be maintained subject to all the proposed mitigation works being carried out, they are not in a position to comment on the other two Habitats Directive tests (i.e. that there is no satisfactory alternative and that the development is for the purpose of preserving public health or public safety or for other reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature, and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment), which are matters for the Local Planning Authority to assess. With reference to the proposed mitigation measures, CCW in their letter of the 17 December 2007 (Appendix 23A) clarify that compliance with the commitments relating to the proposed mitigation is fundamental. CCW note that one planting season (2006-07) has already been lost and that a further planting season (2007-08) is also likely to be lost.

139. The Environmental Statement also assesses the impact of the proposal on invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, bats and badgers. It concludes that the effect on invertebrates and their habitat will be slight due to the limited area of woodland affected and that no features of particular interest to amphibians and reptiles are noted in the area. Whilst the woodlands are likely to provide valuable nesting and foraging habitat for birds, again the impact is considered by the applicants as unlikely to be significant due to the limited area involved compared to the whole.

140. Several features of value to bats are noted in the Environmental Assessment, with five species of bats recorded feeding along linear features within the site, particularly hedgerows and woodland boundaries. Conservation Glamorgan’s ‘Just Mammals’ report (retained on file for Members’ inspection) is critical of the bat survey work carried out in the Environmental Assessment, claiming that various potential bat roosts have been overlooked. The Countryside Council for Wales concur with some of Conservation Glamorgan’s conclusions, and recommend that a new bat survey should be carried out prior to development commencing and a new method statement prepared to address the felling of trees suitable for use by bats.

141. The Council’s Ecologist advises that in the light of information which has come to light since the preparation of the Environmental Statement, in particular the discovery of a lesser horseshoe bat roost in a cave approximately 275 metres from the proposed quarry site and the presence of rock fissures within the development area which may offer bat potential, the request for further bat survey work made by CCW is supported. She recommends that the surveys should also include any smaller trees that may have bat potential but were not included in the original survey (which assessed only mature trees) and any existing lime kiln structures. Further work is also recommended at the lesser horseshoe bat cave in both winter and summer to ascertain the size and type of the roost. Due to the potential long lead-in periods associated with mineral extraction, CCW have confirmed that this additional survey work should be carried out immediately prior to the commencement of development. This approach indicates that mitigation is essential in the event of planning permission being granted.

P.32 142. The Environmental Statement records no badger setts within the application site although the loss of the agricultural land would reduce a potentially valuable foraging resource. This is disputed by Conservation Glamorgan, and whilst any disturbance to badgers would require a licence under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, CCW recommend that a further survey for badger activity should be carried out before any works commence. This is supported by the Council’s Ecologist.

Conclusions : Re: Habitats Directive Tests

143. The Countryside Council for Wales are satisfied that, subject to various safeguards and subject to all the proposed mitigation works being carried out, the favourable conservation status of the protected species can be maintained. However, despite the comments by the applicants in their letter and supporting statement about alternatives, traffic and other implications, following an assessment of the alternative sources of material available in the Vale of Glamorgan and nearby I remain unconvinced that there are no alternative sources of material available to cover the likely period of extraction of these resources.

144. Whilst an assessment has been made by the applicants of the site in relation to Taffs Well, it appears that insufficient consideration has been given to the possibility of retaining the Wenvoe reserves for “higher” or “added value” products (such as concrete and coated roadstone), whilst sourcing lower grade material from elsewhere. There are a number of sustainable options that therefore appear to be available to both prolong the life of Wenvoe Quarry, whilst at the same time ensuring that the material at Wenvoe is used in a more sustainable fashion. The applicants have made no mention of any additional potential that their other coated roadstone plant at Forest Wood Quarry may have to contribute to the regional picture.

145. The option of restricting the Wenvoe Quarry output to higher value products appears to be a realistic and sustainable way forward, given that the applicant also controls the nearby site at Taffs Well. Operational and Site Management decisions to allow this shift in emphasis between both sites to ensure the more sustainable use of the quarries appear therefore to be well within the gift of the applicant.

146. In addition, no specific evidence has been submitted about how the development is required for the purposes of preserving ‘public health or safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’ as required by the third test of the Habitats Directive.

P.33 147. Notwithstanding the lead-in time that would be required for site preparation, I am therefore unconvinced of a proven need for this stone during the period of the Unitary Development Plan. In this regard CCW have indicated that the time period to be allowed for mitigation planting is fundamental to their stance on the application and fundamental to the proposal being undertaken. This clearly, in the event of the proposal being allowed, takes the time period for the implementation of quarrying beyond the life of the adopted Vale of Glamorgan Unitary Development Plan (1996-2011) and weakens the weight to be attached to Policy MIN2 of the adopted Plan. In turn this strengthens the case for reviewing the need for the resource and associated impacts as part of the Local Development plan process. I have to conclude that there is no demonstrable or short-term shortage of crushed limestone for aggregate purposes in the Vale or nearby, and that despite the Unitary Development Plan allocation no reasonable justification in terms of overriding public interest has been put forward for the need for this stone at this time, particularly given the other operational options available to the applicant, as explained above. Therefore I am of the view that the need for the stone does not outweigh the potential impact on the European Protected Species on and surrounding the site and that the tests of the Habitats Directive relating to the availability of alternatives and the need for the resource have not been met.

Visual Impact

148. In assessing the visual and landscape impact of the proposal, both the impact of the extraction area and the cutting/access road corridor have to be considered.

149. It is unlikely that the extraction area would be visible from any of the adjoining or nearby bridleways and footpaths due to the land forming a broad dome within which the quarry would be excavated, although parts of the soil storage mounds at the southern extremity of the site would be visible from a short length of the unmade track adjoining the southern boundary of the application site. The woodlands to the north and east form additional visual screens from the Cwm Slade footpath and the unmade road through the Michaelston valley.

150. More distant views would be obtained from the higher parts of Wenvoe, particularly in the Walston Road and Twynyrodyn areas, from where the top 10 metres of the eastern quarry face would be visible due to the gradual westward slope of the application site. These views would be at a distance of over a mile (1.6 km), from where the quarry face would not be dominant but would nevertheless be a noticeable feature in the otherwise predominantly agricultural and wooded landscape.

151. The highest quarry face would also be partially visible from parts of Burdonshill and the A4050 south of the St. Andrew’s Road junction, and from some elevated sections of St. Andrew’s Road toward Dinas Powys, although these views would be at a more oblique angle than those from Wenvoe.

152. It appears unlikely that any part of the extraction site would be visible from Michaelston le Pit or from any of the closest dwellings at Cwrt yr Ala or Wrinstone.

P.34 153. The route of the conveyor and access road, together with the cutting into Wenvoe Quarry on the northern side of Cwm Slade, would be visible from close- range viewpoints on the affected public footpath. The conveyor route lies beyond the crest of the Cwm Slade Valley as viewed from the west, and the majority of its line lies within the woodland. Nevertheless, the character of the valley in the vicinity of the conveyor would undergo a substantial and significant change, particularly with the excavation of the wide cutting on the existing Wenvoe Quarry side and additional woodland planting on the valley floor. This will be unavoidable if the proposal is approved, and although the Environmental Statement concludes that the effect on visual amenity would be ‘slight’, I am of the view that even the compensatory planting proposed by the applicants would no more than marginally mitigate this impact. Although restoration is proposed once quarrying is completed, it has to be concluded that the effects on this area would be apparent for the long term.

154. Close inspection of the site of the proposed conveyor and associated track reveals that Cwm Slade at this point is characterised by heavily wooded steep slopes, across which the proposed conveyor and additional 5 metre wide trackwould cross. Whilst the need to access the quarrying area is accepted, as is the unsuitability of the surrounding highway network, the means of accessing the application site appears very contrived. This contrived nature of the access arrangements adds to concerns expressed earlier in this report surrounding the Habitats Directive. The visual impact of the proposal, if granted and developed would be significant for a proposal which does not in my opinion meet the tests of the Habitats Directive. It is also likely that given the nature of the Cwm Slade Valley at this point, the implementation of the proposal in the precise manner proposed would itself be an extremely difficult proposition, potentially resulting in the need to consider alternatives and further visual and nature conservation impacts in due course.

Hydrogeological and Drainage Issues

155. The proposal would result in the lowest level of the new excavation, at between 45 and 50 metres aod, breaching the permanent water table, with the creation of a permanent shallow pond. Considerable concern has been expressed by Michaelston Community Council and Conservation Glamorgan, amongst others, about the effect of quarry dewatering on local hydrology and particularly on the Wrinstone Brook, in terms of both water quantity and risk of pollution.

156. The Environment Agency (EA) have considered the information in the Environmental Assessment and in two documents (‘Water Balance for Wrinstone Farm, near Wenvoe Quarry, Cardiff’ and ‘Supplementary Hydrogeological Information’) prepared by the applicants at the EA’s request.

P.35 157. The EA conclude (Appendices 15 to 17) that further data is required to refine the understanding of the hydrogeological regime and the potential impact of the proposed extension. Following assessment of the additional data, a long-term monitoring strategy will need to be agreed. The applicants advised that a report on baseline monitoring, including a revision of previous hydrogeological conclusions, would be produced by the end of 2006, with a subsequent assessment and setting of trigger levels for mitigation of any derogation caused by dewatering to be submitted for the approval of the Mineral Planning Authority in consultation with the EA no later than 12 months prior to the commencement of dewatering. The intended baseline monitoring survey has not yet been submitted.

158. On that basis, the EA request the imposition of a series of conditions on any planning permission that may be granted. The proposed conditions are set out in full in the EA’s letters but in summary seek to prevent any quarrying below a level of 45 metres aod or any seasonal water table, whichever is the higher, until the further detailed monitoring and mitigation measures set out above have been carried out and approved, and to prevent contamination of watercourses during the construction of the conveyor/access track.

Public Rights of Way

159. Considerable concern has been expressed by, amongst others, Conservation Glamorgan, the British Horse Society, the Dinas Powys branch of the Pony Club, the Ramblers’ Association and numerous individuals about the effect of quarrying, and blasting in particular, on the public rights of way in the vicinity of the site. A public footpath runs through Cwm Slade, crossing the line of the proposed conveyor. The applicants propose the installation of a footbridge over the conveyor, but are not specific about how the footpath will be treated during the preparatory stages when the haul road is being constructed. During quarrying operations, security gates and fencing (the applicants envisage post and wire fencing rather than any more intrusive form of security fence) would have to be erected on either side of the footpath crossing to deter unauthorised access to the quarry areas, and in view of the very limited vehicle movements anticipated on the haul road this is unlikely to be unmanageable. However, the character of the footpath, which currently runs through areas of agricultural land and woodland remote from motorised traffic, would change in the area of the crossing.

160. The various equestrian interests, as well as local residents, have expressed concern over the need to close bridleways during blasting operations. An unmade road and a public bridleway run east-west close to the southern boundary of the site, passing within 20 metres of the southern extremity of the proposed extraction area. Phase 1 workings are not proposed to be closer than 140 metres from the bridleway, but the later phases would be increasingly closer, and it is likely (subject to the requirements of H.M. Quarries Inspector) that sentries would have to be posted on the bridleway during some of the closer blasting operations to request riders and pedestrians to halt as a safety precaution.

P.36 161. Three active quarries (Pant, Lithalun and Longlands) in the Vale adjoin public rights of way (two bridleways and a Class B road) and use sentries, and I am not aware of any problems in these cases, even on the road used by vehicular traffic. The normal length of time that users of the rights of way are requested to wait at a safe distance is no more than 2 to 3 minutes. It appears from current practice at Wenvoe Quarry that it would be unusual for blasting operations to take place more frequently than twice per week, and I therefore conclude that the minor inconvenience caused by these occasional restrictions is unlikely to be unreasonable.

162. As assessed above, no part of the mineral extraction area would be visible from any of the affected rights of way, although the soil storage area (which when complete would form an additional visual screen) would be located immediately to the north of the bridleway, from where vehicle movements may be visible during soil stripping operations.

Residential Amenity Including Blasting

163. The closest dwelling to the proposed extraction area is Wrinstone House, Michaelston le Pit, at a distance of just over 400 metres from the closest proposed quarry face, with Cwrt yr Ala House, Cwrt yr Ala Cottage, Cwrt yr Ala Bungalow and Coach House all being over 500 metres to the east of the extraction area. The closest property to the south is Wrinstone Farm, at approximately 650 metres. The centre of Michaelston le Pit village is 1.4 km from the site, and the closest dwellings in Wenvoe, at The Old Station, are 900 metres distant.

164. The major issues to be considered in terms of residential amenity are noise and dust from the quarrying operation in general and ground vibration and air overpressure (the ‘sonic boom’ effect that can make loose windows rattle) from blasting.

Noise

165. The applicants carried out noise monitoring of the existing operation on one occasion at each of three locations (Alps Farm, Wrinstone Farm and the entrance to Cwrt yr Ala House) in August and September 2000, on which they have based predictions for the impact of working in the new area and relate them to the limits recommended in Minerals Planning Guidance Note 11 ‘The Control of Noise from Surface Mineral Workings’ (MPG 11). They conclude on the basis of known noise levels for various items of plant that the loudest operation will be soil stripping (which will be of limited duration), which would create a noise level of 49 dB LAeq 1hr at Michaelston le Pit (exact location unspecified), 35 dB at Alps Farm and 41 dB at Wrinstone Farm, with normal quarrying operations at the closest approach giving noise levels of 46, 47 and 42 dB at those locations respectively. They conclude that the noise levels at those properties would be well within the MPG 11 limits of 70 dB for temporary operations such as soil stripping and 55 dB for quarrying operations.

P.37 166. The applicants’ survey points, the duration of the surveys and the conclusions drawn have been heavily criticised by numerous objectors, including Michaelston Community Council, Conservation Glamorgan and several local residents including the occupier of the closest property, whose dwelling was not included in the survey or the predictions. In addition, the guidance regarding noise from aggregates sites in MPG 11 has been cancelled since the submission of the application and has been replaced by paras. 85 to 88 of MTAN1.

167. The current Welsh guidance states that:

‘Noise limits should relate to the background noise levels, subject to a maximum daytime noise limit of 55 dB(A) where background noise levels exceed 45 dB(A). […] Where background noise is less than 45 dB(A), noise limits should be defined as background noise levels plus 10 dB(A). […] During temporary and short-term operations higher levels may be reasonable but should not exceed 67 dB(A) for periods of up to 8 weeks in a year at specified noise sensitive properties’ (para. 88). ‘The effects of noise should be fully considered in formulating future proposals for aggregates extraction and noise emissions should be monitored throughout the permitted mineral activity. Where the effects cannot be adequately controlled or mitigated, planning permission should be refused’ (para. 85).

168. Michaelston le Pit is a particularly quiet rural environment, with (by the applicants’ estimate) background noise levels of 37.6 dB. Noise from the existing quarry can be heard in the centre of Michaelston on occasions, and several complaints have been received during the processing of this application about the noise of quarrying activity before the permitted working hours in the early morning, although this alleged breach of control has not been substantiated. In view of the level of concern over noise and the methodology employed in the applicants’ survey, the Council’s Pollution Control Officers have carried out independent noise surveys at the Wrinstone Lane/Cwrt yr Ala Road junction and at Wrinstone House, Michaelston le Pit.

169. Those surveys indicate that background noise levels at Wrinstone House and on the outskirts of the village can be even lower than those measured by the applicants, at 34.3 and 29.6 dB respectively. They comment that the dominant background noise at Wrinstone House during the monitoring period emanated from the quarry, with falling rocks and lorry movements being heard.

170. The Pollution Control Officers conclude that they would object to the proposal unless the following criteria are met:

“(1) [Noise from] the extension does not exceed a 1-hour Laeq of 44 dB(A) (mineral extraction) at the nearest sensitive receptor (Wrinstone House), and that all reasonable steps should be taken to achieve quieter working while having regard to the principles of Best Available Technique. This department recommends that a new revised prediction method be undertaken by the applicants, detailing all the equipment to be used and to include new methods of working e.g. conveyor belt noise etc.

(2) Noise from the extension should not exceed 10 dB(A) above background noise levels at Alps Court and Wrinstone Farm.

P.38

(3) The applicants shall supply suitable and sufficient information on how noise from falling rocks is to be minimised. These shall include details primarily at controlled sources i.e. loading hoppers etc.

(4) Due to the closeness of the extension to numerous residential premises this department recommends that the working hours for drilling shall be restricted [to] between 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. Monday to Friday [and] that all quarrying operations within the extension quarry be limited [to] between 7 a.m. – 7 p.m. Monday to Friday with no working on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays (except for maintenance).’

171. From experience at other sites, and bearing in mind the distance of the excavation area from dwellings, I am reasonably confident that the recommended noise levels could be achieved, but regular monitoring would be necessary to ensure compliance with the recommended limits.

Dust

172. Dust can arise from various types of quarrying operations, including crushing, haulage, blasting and soil and overburden removal. Where dust can have the potential to affect the use of land it can be a material planning consideration. MTAN 1 states at para. 75:

‘The potential impact on health must always be considered in relation to proposals for aggregates extraction and a health impact assessment should be carried out for any proposal for a new quarry located within 1 kilometre of an existing community’.

173. However, the current application was submitted before the publication of that guidance and no specific health impact assessment has been submitted.

174. Dust emissions from the processing of stone (but not drilling or blasting) at the existing Wenvoe Quarry are controlled by an Authorisation under the Environmental Protection Act issued by the Legal and Regulatory Services Department of the Council, and a similar or extended authorisation would be required for plant in the extension area. Also, dust suppression schemes for the quarry were approved in 1997 and 2001 in discharge of the conditions of the 1996 and 2000 extraction permissions.

175. The applicants state that whilst dump trucks are used in the existing quarry to transport stone for over 500 metres from the working faces to the static primary crusher, extraction in the extension area would use a mobile crusher located close to the working face with transport to the Alps Quarry processing plant being by conveyor. Vehicular traffic in the new quarry bowl would therefore be limited to face shovel movements over the short distance from the face to the crusher.

P.39 176. Whilst no specific dust mitigation measures are put forward by the applicants, this issue could be dealt with by a condition requiring the submission and approval of a dust suppression scheme as was done in the 1996 and 2000 permissions. In any event I am not aware of any specific instances of dust nuisance being caused by the existing operation in recent years, and from experience at this and other similar sites it appears that, subject to proper controls, dust nuisance is very unlikely to arise at the closest dwellings.

Blasting

177. The use of explosives in quarrying, if not carefully planned and controlled, can cause nuisance to local residents by ground vibration and air overpressure or, in extreme circumstances, can cause structural damage to property.

Ground Vibration

178. The latest Welsh Assembly Government advice on blasting, in MTAN1, states that the maximum level of ground vibration at sensitive locations should not exceed a peak particle velocity of 6 millimetres per second (mm/s) in 95% of all blasts over a six-month period, with no individual blast exceeding 10 mm/s. This limit is intended to avoid unreasonable nuisance: damage to property occurs only at much higher levels.

179. The applicants have submitted the results of monitoring of 11 blasts during 2002 and 2003, which indicate that a maximum instantaneous charge (MIC) of explosive of 110 kg could be used at 400 metres from dwellings (the closest approach of the proposed quarry faces to Wrinstone House, Michaelston) without exceeding the MTAN 1 limits. This conclusion is broadly supported by the results of over 40 blasts monitored at this quarry by this Council and the predecessor County Council. The 110 kg charge would, however, be less than that currently permitted in the existing quarry (136 kg), and I note with concern that all 11 of the blasts quoted by the applicants used an MIC in excess of that permitted by the conditions of the relevant planning permission. I intend to follow up this issue separately.

180. I have to comment that, despite the MTAN 1 guidance, many years of experience at other sites has shown that complaints can be expected if vibration levels regularly exceed 4 mm/s. Even this level can be very noticeable inside dwellings and can lead to understandable concern over safety and building integrity. Whilst the imposition of tighter limits than those set out in the up-to-date national guidance would be unusual, I have serious concerns that regular complaints of nuisance may result at the MIC and ground vibration levels proposed by the applicants. The use of MIC limits in planning conditions is not encouraged by the MTAN (although all quarries in the Vale have them and the system appears to work satisfactorily), with performance conditions being preferred (i.e. vibration limits with which the operator must comply) but nevertheless I consider an MIC limit would be justified in this case to give nearby residents a further measure of comfort that permitted vibration levels are unlikely to be exceeded.

P.40 181. In the circumstances of this case I therefore consider that if approval is considered, the maximum permitted ground vibration level at any dwelling should be no higher than 4 mm/s in 95% of all blasts. This would almost inevitably require the use of smaller explosive charges than proposed by the applicants, at least in the southern part of the site, although this would be unlikely to affect the overall working scheme.

182. A gas pipeline runs close to the south eastern boundary of the site, and Transco have advised that vibration at the pipeline should be limited to a maximum of 75 mm/s and that where the level of vibration is predicted to exceed 50 mm/s the ground vibration must be monitored by the quarry operator. This issue could also be dealt with by condition.

Air Overpressure

183. MTAN 1 advises that:

‘As air overpressure is transmitted through the atmosphere, meteorological conditions such as wind speed and direction, cloud cover and humidity will all affect the intensity of the impact. In view of this unpredictability, planning conditions to control air overpressure are unlikely to be enforceable. This is not a reason for doing nothing and careful blast design should be able to resolve excessive levels of air overpressure. Such details are controlled by the Quarries Regulations 1999, which impose requirements relating to health and safety at quarries.’

184. The applicants contend that it is totally impracticable to set a maximum air overpressure limit, with or without an appropriate percentile of exceedances being allowed, simply because of the significant and unpredictable effect of variable weather conditions.

185. Nevertheless, it is clear from experience elsewhere over many years that air overpressure levels in excess of 120 dB(L) can cause loose windows, roof tiles or even items inside buildings to rattle, causing erroneous concern to occupiers that the whole building is shaking. This can be both startling and distressing, and whilst it is unlikely that such levels will be caused by blasting at the proposed minimum distance from dwellings in this case (400 metres), every effort would have to be made to minimise air overpressure impact.

Traffic

186. Although numerous objectors have expressed concern over possible increased traffic from the extension, particularly at Culverhouse Cross, the application makes clear that there is to be no new road access to the quarry complex and that no increase in production is envisaged over that currently permitted. There should therefore be no change to the maximum level of traffic generated by the quarry. The Council’s highway engineers have no objection on the basis that there will be no increase in permitted output.

P.41

Archaeology

187. The archaeological implications of the development have been assessed on behalf of the applicants by both a desk-based evaluation and a detailed field investigation by means of 23 trenches excavated in the proposed extraction area. No archaeological features were discovered and the Environmental Assessment concludes that the development will have no effect on the archaeological or cultural heritage resources of the site.

188. The Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust note that the summary of the findings in the Environmental Statement omits mention of a field walking exercise carried out as part of a Cadw-sponsored research project prior to the applicants’ evaluation work, which found a number of flint artefacts and indicates that although any archaeological features appear to have been destroyed by deep ploughing, associated artefacts remain in the area. Whilst GGAT have no objection to a positive determination of the application, they therefore request that a condition be attached to any permission requiring the implementation of a further programme of archaeological field walking over a number of seasons plus an intensive watching brief during the stripping of topsoil.

Restoration

189. If mineral extraction proceeds as proposed, the resulting excavation would be a maximum of approx 50 metres in depth, with quarry faces at an angle of approx 1:25 on the eastern slopes and vertical faces on the western side due to the dip of the beds of limestone. The very lowest level of the quarry, occupying only a small part of the total surface area, is likely to be excavated below the level of the permanent water table.

190. The applicants propose restoration of the eastern slopes by seeding to increase stability and, once the benches are no longer required for access, spreading them with soil to a depth of 45 – 75 cm and planting with transplants and whips of native broadleaf species to a mix similar to that found in the locality. The quarry floor at the 50 metre aod level would be spread with fine loose material and seeded to create species-rich grassland, with wet grassland and bog and marsh plants being established on the perimeter of the water area. The vertical western faces would be more complex and detailed proposals would have to await an assessment of the physical nature of the faces, benches and slopes when they have become exposed through working. Final treatment may include the retention of rock outcrops as crags and the retention of naturally occurring crevices as pockets for the establishment of vegetation. Infilling of the void is not proposed.

191. This restoration concept is very similar to that approved for the existing quarry, where extensive work has already been carried out in ‘softening’ the appearance of the western faces by selective trimming and planting. Further new tree planting and grassland areas are envisaged, with a water area on the deepest part of the quarry floor. If planning permission is granted the completion of these works, apart from on the line of the conveyor from the current application site to the processing plant in Alps Quarry, would be required once mineral extraction moves to the new area.

P.42 192. As with the majority of deep hard-rock quarries, restoration to agriculture at the original land surface (inevitably involving many years of landfill) is very difficult to achieve, and due to the shadowing effect of quarry faces agricultural restoration at depth is rarely practicable. In rural areas such as this any form of residential, commercial or industrial development is unlikely to be acceptable and a low–key amenity/conservation use such as that proposed here is often the most realistic option. The scheme as submitted takes advantage of the different levels, slopes and faces in the quarry together with the likely ‘water feature’ in the base, and in general terms is acceptable. Whilst the scheme forms a satisfactory basic framework, as is usual with sites where restoration is unlikely to begin for some years a condition would need to be attached to any permission requiring a fully detailed restoration scheme to be submitted, approved and implemented once mineral extraction ceases.

Summary

193. This is a complex application which has generated large numbers of representations on a variety of important and interlinked topics. The main issues to be assessed are the need for the stone in terms of local and national policy and in the context of the presence of European protected species and, if the need is proved, the impact of quarrying in this site on amenity and ecology.

194. Cessation of quarrying at Wenvoe when current reserves are exhausted would result in a regional shortfall of aggregates of up to 1 million tonnes per year which would have to be sourced elsewhere. Policy MIN2 of the Unitary Development Plan, whilst not allocating the means of access to the quarry area, allocates the resources for extraction and in purely local terms at current production levels a case can be made for their release before the end of the Unitary Development Plan period. However, the life of this extension at either maximum permitted or current average levels (5 or 8 years respectively) means that the extension would be only a short term solution to aggregates provision in the Vale and the impact of working on the ecological interest in the site must be considered in that context.

195. In terms of residential and general amenity, following detailed assessments of the various impacts I conclude that subject to conditions being imposed to control working hours, noise, dust, drainage and blasting, quarrying could be carried out here without unreasonable detriment to the amenity of local residents and communities.

196. However, the various ecological issues and the mitigation works proposed are critical to the consideration of the application and have been the subject of careful assessment by the relevant statutory authorities as well as by the Council’s Ecologist and Rights of Way and Pollution Control officers. The comments of the various parties who have commented on these issues have also been taken fully into account.

P.43 197. The critical issue is whether the proposal meets the three tests in the Habitats Directive in view of the presence of European protected species (dormice and bats). CCW conclude that if all the extensive mitigation, additional planting and woodland management proposals are implemented and maintained for the long term, the favourable conservation status of the dormice and (subject to further surveys prior to development) bats will be maintained, and one of the three tests would therefore be satisfied. In this regard, the timing of the proposed mitigation measures is critical, and the recent advice received from CCW confirms that this is indeed the case. No mitigation planting has taken place and there are doubts as to the effectiveness of the mitigation proposed given the time delay in dealing with this application, and the necessity of a lead in period of approaching 4 years following the implementation of the mitigation, prior to the extraction of stone and the likely exhaustion of the reserves if current production levels were to be maintained for that period.

198. Nevertheless, the information submitted by the applicants in support of the proposal against the other tests does not in my opinion demonstrate that there is no alternative, either locally or regionally, to this site and makes no attempt to meet the third test (i.e. that the proposal is in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment). The limestone in this area is typical of the Carboniferous outcrop of the Vale of Glamorgan and it is not used for any special purposes for which no other source exists. The application appears to be driven by the direct commercial need of the company to maintain their business at Wenvoe, but I remain unconvinced that similar resources cannot be obtained elsewhere at reasonable environmental and economic cost.

199. As stated in the body of this report it appears that other more sustainable solutions are available to the applicant, to ensure an adequate supply of suitable aggregate in the short to medium term. In my opinion, the option of retaining Wenvoe Quarry for “higher value” products is realistic and worthy of detailed consideration and implementation prior to the promotion of the scheme subject to this application. Such a move would prolong the life of Wenvoe Quarry, whilst at the same time ensuring that the output from the quarry is used sustainably and appropriately. In the interests of proper planning and sustainable use of raw materials, I am firmly of the view that there are operational decisions which could and should be made in advance of the consideration of the need or otherwise for further quarrying. I therefore have to conclude that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of two of the three Habitats Directive tests and that planning permission should be refused on that basis. Other options or alternatives of meeting the necessary supply for the Vale of Glamorgan have not in my opinion been adequately explored.

200. Given the above, I must also in turn raise concern at the visual and environmental impact of the proposal, with particular regard to the contrived nature of the means of access to the proposed area of quarrying, and the impact of that means of access.

P.44 CONCLUSION

201. The decision to recommend refusal of planning permission has been taken in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, in determining a planning application the determination must be in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises the Vale of Glamorgan Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1996-2011.

202. Regard has been given to Policies ENV1 – Development in the Countryside, ENV7 – Water resources, ENV11 – Protection of landscape features, ENV12 – Woodland Management, ENV15 – Local sites of nature conservation significance, ENV16 – Protected species, ENV29 – Protection of Environmental Quality, MIN2 – Release of Limestone Reserves, MIN5 – Preferred order of release of reserves and MIN6 – Environmental Impact of the Unitary Development Plan as well as to advice in Minerals Planning Policy Wales (2000), Minerals Technical Advice Note 1: Aggregates (2004) and the requirements of EC Directive 92/43/EEC (the ‘Habitats Directive’).

203. It is concluded that despite the site being allocated for mineral extraction in the Unitary Development Plan, the applicants have failed to demonstrate compliance with the Habitats Directive tests in that it has not been shown that no satisfactory alternative exists or that the proposal is in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.

204. The proposal therefore fails to meet the objectives of Policies ENV15 and ENV16 of the Unitary Development Plan in respect of the protection of nature conservation interests.

205. In addition, the visual impact of the proposal on Cwm Slade is a significant concern given the affect of the temporary access road, conveyor, and access track on the immediate and surrounding environment.

RECOMMENDATION (W.R.)

REFUSE

1. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that no satisfactory alternative exists or that the proposal is in the interests of public health and public safety or for other reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, despite the site hosting European protected species. The proposal therefore fails to meet the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 and EC Directive 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive) and is contrary to Planning Policy Wales (2002) and the objectives of Policies ENV15 (Local sites of nature conservation significance) and ENV16 (Protected species) of the Vale of Glamorgan adopted Unitary Development Plan 1996-2011.

P.45 2. Notwithstanding the mitigation measures required the proposal would cause adverse impacts upon material considerations of nature conservation value, European Protected Species, Ancient woodlands and protected hedgerows and would therefore be contrary to Policies ENV11 (Protection of Landscape Features), ENV15 (Local Sites of Nature Conservation Significance); and ENV16 (Protected Species) of the Vale of Glamorgan adopted Unitary Development Plan 1996-2011.

3. The proposal entails significant engineering works to access the proposed area of quarrying to the detriment of the rural character and appearance of the area. Accordingly the proposal would significantly detract from the rural and unspoilt environment of Cwm Slade contrary to Policies ENV11 (Protection of Landscape Features); and ENV15 (Local Sites of Nature Conservation Significance) of the Vale of Glamorgan adopted Unitary Development Plan 1996-2011 and national guidance contained in Planning Policy Wales March 2002.

4. Having regard to: (i) the matters identified in reasons 1-3 above, (ii) the propsed timing of the development, (iii) the expiry date of the Adopted Vale of Glamorgan Unitary Development Plan (1996-2011), (iv) the fact that the proposed conveyor and haul road are not allocated and were not assessed as part of the Unitary Development Plan allocation, and (v) work has commenced on the Local Development Plan (2011-2026), the balance of advantage is against the grant of planning permission.

P.46