Johnston Quarry Group Oathill Quarry Temple

JOHNSTON QUARRY GROUP

OATHILL QUARRY TEMPLE GUITING GLOUCESTERSHIRE

SECTION 73 PLANNING APPLICATION TO VARY CONDITION 7 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 14/0101/CWMAJM TO INCREASE ANNUAL EXPORT LIMITS

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

December 2019

David Jarvis Associates Limited 1 Tennyson Street Swindon Wiltshire SN1 5DT Email: [email protected] Tel: 01793 612173 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

CLIENT Johnston Quarry Group

PROJECT Section 73 to vary condition 7 of planning permission 14/0101/CWMAJM

REPORT TITLE Supporting Statement

DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 Report Number: T2 Revision: P2 Issue Date: 16.12.2019

REPORT REVISIONS

Revision Date Description Prepared Approved P1 09.12.2019 DRAFT AC DP P2 16.12.2019 FINAL AC DP

This report has been prepared by David Jarvis Associates Ltd (DJA) on the instructions of our client. It is solely for the use of our Client for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Furthermore, the report is issued on the understanding that DJA’s standard terms and conditions and/or terms of engagement are accepted, copies of which are available on request.

December 2019 Page 2 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

CONTENTS:

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 4

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY ...... 6 Planning History ...... 6 National and Local Designations ...... 7

3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 8

4. PLANNING POLICY ...... 10 National Planning Policy Framework ...... 10 National Planning Practice Guidance ...... 11 Development Plan ...... 12 Other Material Considerations ...... 13

5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT ...... 15 Principle of Development ...... 15 Policy ...... 15 Highways and Traffic ...... 19 Air Quality ...... 22 Visual Impact ...... 23 Tranquillity ...... 24

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...... 28

APPENDICES:

1. Pre-Application Advice - Gloucestershire County Council 2. Letter of Support - R&T Liming 3. Appeal Decision APP/T1600/W/18/3207814 - Cotswold Hill Quarry

December 2019 Page 3 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The following Statement has been prepared on behalf of the Johnston Quarry Group (‘the applicant’) in respect of a planning application, submitted under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to vary condition 7 of planning permission 14/0101/CWMAJM. The application seeks planning permission to vary the tonnage limit on the export of mineral at Oathill Quarry, Temple Guiting, Gloucestershire.

1.2 Condition 7 limits the annual output of material from Oathill Quarry. The condition states:

“The total quantity of blockstone (building stone), walling stone, agricultural lime and crushed aggregates exported from the Oathill Quarry site shall not exceed 50,000 tonnes in any calendar year, this being between the 1st of January and the 31st of December. The quantity of any single mineral product exported from the quarry in a calendar year shall not exceed 30,000 tonnes. All records of exportation shall be retained for a period of 3 years and made available to the Mineral Planning Authority within 7 days of a written request.”

1.3 The purpose of varying condition 7 is to allow up to 100,000 tonnes of material to be exported from Oathill Quarry per calendar year. The increase of exports would provide the applicant with flexibility to maintain existing levels of mineral export, comprising blockstone (building stone), walling stone and crushed aggregate, whilst meeting growing demand for the supply of agricultural lime, a mineral by-product produced from site derived waste material. The applicant would apportion the increased mineral export total to allow for the export of up to 50,000 tonnes of mineral and 50,000 tonnes of agricultural lime.

1.4 The Mineral Planning Authority (MPA) will be aware that mineral exports have exceeded the 50,000 tonne annual limit over recent years. However, since early 2018 the applicant has made clear attempts to regularise this position. In February 2018, application reference 18/0010/CWMAJM sought to increase export limits to 150,000 tonnes per annum. Despite a demonstrable lack of substantiated objection, the MPA advised that such an uplift of mineral export would not be supported.

1.5 In order to arrive at an acceptable compromise and work with the MPA to address concerns, the applicant submitted a request for pre-application advice in January 2019. The pre-application exercise sought to establish positive early engagement with the MPA and scope the requirements of a planning application to increase export limits to 100,000 tonnes per annum. The MPA’s pre- application advice is provided at Appendix 1. Application 19/0032/CWMAJM, which sought to vary condition 7 to increase export limits to 100,000 tonnes was submitted in May 2019. Application 18/0010/CWMAJM was subsequently withdrawn.

1.6 Following submission, the MPA issued a positive screening opinion of application 19/0032/CWMAJM, requiring submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment. In July 2019, the opinion was confirmed by screening direction issued by the Planning Casework Unit on behalf of the Secretary of State. Since issue of the screening direction, the applicant has instructed preparation of a number of technical assessments, submitted as the accompanying Environmental Statement.

1.7 Application 19/0032/CWMAJM is withdrawn to allow for submission of this application under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017.

1.8 This Supporting Statement accompanies the Environmental Statement and provides background information, including a description of the site and review of Oathill Quarry’s planning history; a

December 2019 Page 4 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

description of the proposed development; an overview and assessment of key national and local planning policy; and a review of planning, environmental and material considerations.

1.9 Combined with accompanying documents, it is demonstrated that the proposed development would not result in any significant adverse impacts upon the surrounding highway, environment or residential amenity and is consistent with planning policy.

1.10 Critically, it is demonstrated that there is a proven local need for agricultural lime within the Cotswold and Gloucestershire region. This application is considered to present the most sustainable and regulated means of fulfilling the proven local demand for agricultural lime, avoiding the need for material to be hauled long distances into the County.

December 2019 Page 5 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

2.1 Oathill Quarry is located between the settlements of Ford and Upper Swell, near Temple Guiting in the administrative area of Gloucestershire County Council. The overall site area is 11.1ha; the proposed extension site is approximately 3.7ha. A site location plan is included as part of this application.

2.2 The quarry is accessed via the B4077. The B4077 links the quarry to the A44 and A429 to the east, at Stow-on-the-Wold (some 9.5km to the east) and the A46 (15km) and M5 Motorway network (20km) to the west. The Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan (2015-2031) defines the B4077 as a ‘District Link’, which is characterised as a ‘distributor link’ which is expected to carry ‘some freight traffic’.

2.3 The surrounding land uses comprise largely of arable farming, grazing land, woodland, disused quarries and a racehorse training centre.

2.4 The nearest settlements are Temple Guiting (c.1.1km to the south-west), Ford (c.1.4km to the east), Condicote (c. 4.5km to the west) and Kineton (c.2.1km to the south). The site is surrounded by agricultural land and woodland and there are few dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the quarry. The nearest residential properties include:

• Hill Barn, which is located approximately 300m to the north west • The Cottage, which is approximately 800m to the north east • Jackdaws Castle, which is (complex) approximately 800m to the north west • Trafalgar Farm, which is approximately 1.1km to the north east • Two unnamed properties, which are located to the south of the B4007 at approximate distances of 150m and 600m.

2.5 The extant quarry incorporates the extraction areas, a weighbridge and office, a cutting area, a crushing plant, a site access and areas of woodland.

Planning History

2.6 Mineral extraction at Oathill Quarry has on-going for in excess of 140 years. The site has been subject to a range of planning permissions to extend mineral working and output type and quantity over the past several decades.

2.7 Of particular note, in February 2013 planning permission was granted1 for the variation of conditions 8 and 9 of planning permission 08/0068/CWMAJM to revise the quantity and ratio of mineral products permitted to be exported from the quarry. The application enabled an increase of output from 32,000 tonnes to 50,000 tonnes per annum.

2.8 The increase of annual output was considered against impacts upon highways, Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and restoration of the quarry. The Officer determined that the increase in output would not result in any adverse impact to the surrounding environment and that sufficient controls were in place to enable the aims and objectives for the benefit of biodiversity and the Cotswold AONB to be delivered in the long-term.

2.9 In May 2015, planning permission was granted2 for a 3.7ha extension to Oathill Quarry. Condition 2 of the permission requires that the site is restored by 25 November 2051.

1 Planning permission 12/0058/CWMAJM. Approved 21 February 2013. 2 Planning permission 14/0101/CWMAJM. Approved 21 May 2015.

December 2019 Page 6 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

2.10 In February 2018, planning permission3 was sought to increase the limit of exported material to 150,000 tonnes per annum. The application was withdrawn in May 2019 following submission of a reduced scheme for the export of 100,000 tonnes per annum4. This latter application mirrors the scheme proposed by this submission and has been withdrawn only to allow a ‘clean slate’ following the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment.

National and Local Designations

2.11 This information was obtained from the DEFRA Magic website, the Natural England website, the Heritage Gateway website5 and English Heritage website6.

2.12 Oathill quarry is located in an Environmentally Sensitive Area and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2.13 There are no listed buildings or Scheduled Ancient Monuments on or adjoining the quarry or the proposed extension site. There are several listed buildings located in Ford, Temple Guiting and on the track to Trafalgar Farm. The nearest Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) is located approximately 1.2km to the south-east of the quarry. There is limited information available regarding this SAM7.

2.14 The Heritage Gateway notes only one record relating to the quarry. The record8 notes the existence of a moderate sized quarry which was the source of Guiting Stone that was used in local architecture in the post Medieval period. A limekiln is noted on a 3rd edition OS map, which indicates that the site was quarried for local lime burning. Other records in the vicinity are not in, adjoining or in close proximity to the quarry or the extension site and relate to:

• An Iron Age or Roman settlement9 • A post Medieval dewpond10; • A post Medieval sheep fold11; • A bell barrow12.

2.15 The quarry and the extension site are not the subject of any environmental designations. The nearest designated sites are Jackdaw Quarry Site of Special Scientific Interest (c3.1km), Hornsleasow Roughs SSSI (c.3.46km), Burton Down (c.4.6km), Barton Bushes (c.2.9km) and Hornsleasow Quarry SSSI (c.4.3km).

2.16 There is an area of deciduous woodland within the existing quarry boundary, which is noted as being a Biodiversity Action Plan habitat.

2.17 There are no public rights of way in or adjoining the quarry. The nearest public rights of way are HTG/27/1 and HTG/26/1 to the east and HTG/17/1 to the west.

3 Planning application 18/0010/CWMAJM 4 Planning application 19/0032/CWMAJM 5 http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results.aspx 6 http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/mapsearch.aspx 7 http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1003439&searchtype=mapsearch 8 http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?resourceID=2&uid=1466739 9 http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?resourceID=2&uid=1408627 10 http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?resourceID=2&uid=1408432 11 http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?resourceID=2&uid=1408631 12 http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?resourceID=5&uid=1011983

December 2019 Page 7 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.1 The Johnston Quarry Group seek planning permission under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to vary condition 7 of planning permission 14/0101/CWMAJM. Condition 7 places a limit on the maximum tonnage of material to be exported from the quarry in a calendar year. The condition states:

3.2 The applicant seeks planning permission to introduce new controls to allow export of up to 100,000 tonnes of material in a calendar year. The submitted scheme seeks planning permission to allow for the revised tonnage to be apportioned as follows:

• Blockstone, walling stone and crushed aggregate: 50,000 tonnes; and • Agricultural Lime: 50,000 tonnes.

3.3 The application is, to all intents and purposes, a proposal seeking planning permission to allow for the export of 50,000 tonnes of agricultural lime per annum, combined with retention of 50,000 tonnes for mineral products. Agricultural lime is a mineral by-product sourced from waste materials which are encountered through consented operations at Oathill Quarry. Agricultural lime is a material with a chemical compound which is capable of neutralising soil acidity. As noted by the Agricultural Lime Association13:

“Very few agricultural operations have such a marked influence on soil husbandry, profitability and the environment as the application of naturally quarried agricultural lime to the land.”

3.4 The process of turning mineral waste into a material which is highly valuable to the agricultural industry represents a best use of the consented mineral reserve and derives benefits ranging from increased productivity, profitability and sustained employment across varied industries.

3.5 The applicant estimates that up to 50% of all material extracted at Oathill Quarry comprise waste mineral unsuitable for processing as blockstone or walling stone. Under the confines of extant planning conditions, waste material can be crushed and screened to form aggregate or processed into agricultural lime. As demonstrated by the supporting information submitted with the pre- application request in January 2019, the applicant has secured a legally binding contract to supply 35,000 tonnes of agricultural lime (70% of the proposed annual export total) which is distributed within Gloucestershire and neighbouring counties.

3.6 The demand for agricultural lime is highly seasonal, with the significant majority of supply required during the August and September harvest period.

3.7 The proposed development does not affect the flexibility currently afforded to the mineral operator in exporting blockstone (building stone), walling stone and crushed aggregate. In this regard, the development would not affect HGV movements associated with the export of these mineral products.

13 https://www.aglime.org.uk/

December 2019 Page 8 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

3.8 Due to limitations on current export arrangements and without appropriate management, the application will be left with a significant volume of waste material at the cessation of mineral working. The permitted restoration scheme requires a total of 136,750m3 of site derived material (including 13,650m3 of soils) to achieve the consented landform. The applicant will maintain availability of waste material to ensure the consented restoration scheme is delivered within the permitted timescales. However, due to current limitations on exports, there would not be provision to crush or process all remaining waste materials not required for restoration purposes. This material will need to be stored and managed on-site.

3.9 The proposed development would not affect any other permitted conditions or controls associated with the working at Oathill Quarry.

3.10 Subject to the grant of planning permission, the applicant suggests a revision to the wording of condition 7 as follows. This replicates the proposed wording, agreed with the MPA in respect of (now withdrawn) application 19/0032/CWMAJM.

Proposed Condition 7:

“The total quantity of blockstone (building stone), walling stone, crushed aggregates and agricultural lime exported from the Oathill Quarry site shall not exceed 100,000 tonnes in any calendar year, this being between the 1st of January and the 31st of December. The quantity of any single mineral product exported from the quarry in a calendar year shall not exceed 50,000 tonnes. All records of exportation shall be retained for a period of 3 years and made available to the Mineral Planning Authority within 7 days of a written request.”

December 2019 Page 9 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

4. PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The following section outlines national and local planning policy with varying degrees of relevance to the proposed development. Relevance of these policies are assessed within Section 7.

4.2 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

National Planning Policy Framework

4.3 The first National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into force in March 2012 and largely replaced the planning policy statements and minerals policy statements, excluding those relating to waste. An updated version of the NPPF was published in July 2018 and subsequently amended in February 2019. It is the February 2019 version which is considered here.

4.4 The new version of the NPPF is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Its broad objective remains one of achieving sustainable development and it includes a presumption in favour of such development.

4.5 This presumption in favour of development means that, for decision-taking, as per paragraph 11(c), development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan should be approved without delay. Where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific policies within the Framework provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed.

4.6 Paragraph 80 provides that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. Paragraph 83 expands on this by recognising the need for planning decisions to enable the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas as well as the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses.

4.7 Paragraph 108 provides that in assessing specific applications for development, it should be ensured that:

a. “appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location;

b. safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and

c. any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree”.

4.8 Paragraph 109 provides that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

December 2019 Page 10 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

4.9 Paragraph 172 states:

“Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in … Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues… The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:

a. the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; b. the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and c. any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.”

4.10 Paragraph 203 provides that:

“It is essential that there is a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. Since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, best use needs to be made of them to secure their long-term conservation.”

4.11 Paragraph 205 provides that when determining planning applications, great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy.

4.12 The NPPF notes that decisions should “play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions” and “Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way”.

National Planning Practice Guidance

4.13 The National Planning Practice Guidance was launched in March 2014 and replaced an array of guidance documents, including the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.14 The Practice Guidance notes that planning for the supply of minerals has a number of special characteristics that are not present in other development, including that:

• minerals can only be worked (i.e. extracted) where they naturally occur, so location options for the economically viable and environmentally acceptable extraction of minerals may be limited; • working is a temporary use of land, although it often takes place over a long period of time; • working may have adverse and positive environmental effects, but some adverse effects can be effectively mitigated.

4.15 The guidance states that the suitability of each proposed site, whether an extension to an existing site or a new site, must be considered on its individual merits, taking into account issues such as:

• Need for the specific mineral; • Economic considerations (such as being able to continue to extract the resource, retaining jobs, being able to utilise existing plant and other infrastructure); • Positive and negative environmental impacts; and • The cumulative impact of proposals in an area.

December 2019 Page 11 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

Development Plan

4.16 In the case of the proposal, the relevant documents which make up the development plan are as follows:

• The Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan; and • The Cotswold District Local Plan (2011-2031).

4.17 Other material considerations which should be taken into account besides the Development Plan are considered later in this document.

Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan

4.18 The Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan was adopted in 2003. Following a direction from the Secretary of State in September 2007, most of the policies within it were saved pending the adoption of the emerging Minerals Local Plan.

4.19 Policy E2 states that mineral development within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty will be permitted where the following criteria can be met:

1. There is an overriding national need for the mineral; 2. It is in the public interest; 3. It does not adversely affect the local economy; 4. There are no less environmentally constrained alternative sources of supply which could be developed at reasonable cost; 5. It can be shown that any adverse visual and landscape impacts of the development can be mitigated by the imposition of conditions and / or through planning obligations; and 6. That landscapes can be restored and, where possible, enhanced in the longer term.

4.20 Policy E16 provides that the contribution or impact that proposals for mineral development are likely to make to the social and economic well-being or otherwise of local communities will be a material consideration in assessing their suitability.

4.21 Policy E19 states that proposed mineral development will not be permitted where the method of transporting minerals will give rise to an unacceptable impact on the local environment.

4.22 Policy E20 indicates that mineral development will be permitted where it does not result in unacceptable impact on highway safety, the effective operation of the road network, residential amenity or the local environment.

4.23 Policy DC1 states that mineral development will only be permitted where the applicant has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority in consultation with other relevant pollution control agencies, that any potentially adverse environmental and/or pollution effects are capable of satisfactory control and/or mitigation, or elimination.

Cotswold District Local Plan (2011-2031)

4.24 The Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 was adopted in August 2018. Policy EN4 supports development that does not have a significant detrimental impact on the natural and historic landscape, including the tranquillity of the countryside.

December 2019 Page 12 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

4.25 Policy EN5 relates to the Cotswolds AONB and provides that in determining development proposals within the AONB or its setting, the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape, its character and special qualities will be given great weight. Major development will not be permitted within the AONB unless it satisfies the exceptions set out in national policy and guidance.

4.26 Policy EN15 seeks to control risks to public health or safety, the natural environment and amenity from pollution and emissions relating to air quality, noise, vibration and dust.

Other Material Considerations

Minerals Local Plan 2018 – 2032: Publication (Pre-submission) Plan (including July Modifications)

4.27 Gloucestershire County Council is preparing a Minerals Local Plan to replace and update policies within the adopted Minerals Local Plan. The emerging plan underwent Examination in Public in June 2019 following which a period of consultation on Main Modifications was carried out. The Plan is expected to be adopted early 2020.

4.28 Policy MW06 relates to ancillary minerals development and provides that within mineral sites this will be permitted where it can be demonstrated: -

• the best use of minerals worked from within the boundary of the site in which they are located will be facilitated; and / or • any importation of minerals from elsewhere will represent an environmentally acceptable and sustainable option; and • all operations will be for a temporary period of time restricted to the life of the mineral site in which they are located and the removal of all built structures will occur at the earliest opportunity once mineral working has ceased; and • the requirements of policy MR01 (Restoration, aftercare and facilitating beneficial after-uses) can be satisfactorily met; and • a positive contribution will be made to sustaining or growing the local economy and upholding cultural heritage throughout Gloucestershire.

4.29 Policy DM02 relates to cumulative impacts. The emerging policy states that mineral development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that there are no unacceptable cumulative adverse impacts resulting from mineral and non-mineral development in a locality. Where impacts are apparent, planning permission can still be granted through demonstration that the proposed benefits outweigh cumulative harm.

4.30 Policy DM09 relates to landscape impacts. In particular, Part B of the plan concerns mineral development proposals within the Cotswold AONB. This seeks to preserve the character and scenic beauty of the AONB; avoid adverse impact upon its special qualities and seek opportunities to enhance the designated area.

The Cotswolds AONB Management Plan (2018-2023)

4.31 The Cotswolds AONB Management Plan is a statutory plan which sets out the vision, outcomes and policies for the management of the Cotswolds AONB for the period 2018-2023. However the document does not form part of the Gloucestershire Development Plan and cannot be afforded the same weight as the Minerals Local Plan. The Management Plan has two primary purposes:

1. To conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Cotswolds AONB; and,

December 2019 Page 13 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

2. To increase the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Cotswolds AONB.

4.32 The Plan recognises that the principle of conserving natural resources within the Cotswolds AONB, using them in the most sustainable way, and enhancing their contribution to the needs of society is fundamental to the future management of the area.

4.33 Policy CE4 relates to tranquillity. The policy states:

3. Proposals that are likely to impact on the tranquillity of the Cotswolds AONB should have regard to this tranquillity, by seeking to (i) avoid and (ii) minimise noise pollution and other aural and visual disturbance. 4. Measures should be taken to enhance the tranquillity of the Cotswold AONB by (i) removing and (ii) reducing existing sources of noise pollution and other aural and visual disturbance.

4.34 Policy CE10 relates to development and transport principles. Amongst other matters, the policy states that development and transport in the Cotswolds AONB should contribute to the economic and social well-being of the AONB communities.

Cotswold Conservation Board Position Statement: Tranquillity

4.35 The CCB’s Position Statement on tranquillity links to Policy CE4 and outlines a number of over- arching recommendations that aim to minimise the effect of development upon the tranquillity of the Cotswold AONB.

4.36 The statement addresses relevant legislation, policy and guidance and outlines means to measure and assess tranquillity, with particular reference to noise, visual impact and traffic and vehicle movements.

4.37 The Position Statement does not form part of the Gloucestershire Development Plan but is referred as a useful informative to considering tranquillity impacts.

December 2019 Page 14 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

5.1 The following section assesses the development characteristics against relevant planning policy.

Principle of Development

5.2 Mineral extraction at Oathill Quarry has been in operation for in excess of 140 years. Historically a building and walling stone quarry, the site has been subject to a range of planning permissions over the last decade to extend working limits and provide flexibility on mineral output and quantity. The latter has been particularly pertinent in ‘future-proofing’ the quarry against fluctuating market demands and economic uncertainty.

5.3 The scope for the applicant to produce and export agricultural lime from site derived waste mineral was first granted in February 2013 under planning permission 12/0058/CWMAJM. There is scope within the confines of existing planning consent for the mineral operator to export 30,000 tonnes of agricultural lime per calendar year.

5.4 Agricultural lime is a mineral by-product which is produced from the waste mineral encountered when extracting the consented limestone reserve. It is estimated that approximately 50% of the material extracted at Oathill Quarry comprises waste or unusable limestone for block or walling stone purposes. The waste material would inevitably be encountered through the working of Oathill Quarry in accordance with permitted controls and needs to be managed. Such management methods can include use of waste material in restoration of exhausted areas of the quarry void or in processing to create aggregate or agricultural lime.

5.5 Paragraph 203 of the NPPF acknowledges that as minerals are a finite resource and can only be worked where they are found, “… best use needs to be made of them to secure their long-term conservation” (our emphasis). While the intention of this statement is not directly attributable to a mineral by-product such as agricultural lime, it would not be sustainable practice to restrict the potential for an operator to make ‘best use’ of extracted mineral where local need can be demonstrated.

5.6 The principle of processing and exporting up to 30,000 tonnes of agricultural lime at Oathill Quarry (and within the Cotswold AONB) has long been established. The proposed development would not provide access to any unconsented mineral reserve nor introduce any new mineral processing facilities or produce within the consented quarry. The application seeks only to make best use of a waste material.

5.7 Paragraph 83 of the NPPF requires that planning authorities support the development and diversification of land-based rural businesses through positive decision making. The baseline position for the Mineral Planning Authority must therefore be to support this development proposal. The principle of development is therefore clearly established and accepted.

Policy

Need and the AONB

5.8 The overriding policy consideration is in providing demonstration that the proposed development does not result in any significant adverse impact to the special qualities of the Cotswold AONB. Paragraph 172 of the NPPF allows for ‘great weight’ to be given to conserving and enhancing landscape beauty of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Similarly, Paragraph 205 requires that ‘great weight’ be given to the benefits of mineral extraction. To this end, an appropriate balance must be met.

December 2019 Page 15 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

5.9 In establishing that balance it is important to consider that the application does not seek to alter the extent of mineral extraction at Oathill Quarry beyond approved and established levels. To expand on this, it is confirmed that:

• The quarry boundary would not increase beyond approved limits; • The volume of material extracted at the quarry would not increase beyond approved levels; • The range of mineral products exported from the quarry would not increase; and, • The apportionment of blockstone, walling stone and crushed aggregate would remain within consented levels.

5.10 The only discernible change to increasing export of agricultural lime at Oathill Quarry would be a potential increase of HGV movement. This matter is considered further in this section and in detail within the accompanying Environmental Statement.

5.11 Policy E2 of the Gloucestershire Mineral Local Plan (MLP) relates to mineral development in the Cotswold AONB. The policy outlines six tests to be applied to mineral development within the AONB. While in the opinion of the applicant the policy is orientated more towards the development of new or extended quarries as opposed to operational alterations to consented sites, precedent for the application of Policy E2 is shown through determination of planning permission 16/0012/CWMAJM.

5.12 Planning permission 16/0012/CWMAJM relates to Tinkers Barn Quarry, located within the AONB and approximately 3km south-east of Oathill Quarry. The MPA granted approval via a Section 73 planning application to allow a variation of condition to (in part) introduce the screening and crushing of waste material to form an aggregate for export. To this end, planning permission 16/0012/CWMAJM shares a range of characteristics with the development sought by this planning application.

5.13 Planning permission 16/0012/CWMAJM was approved in May 2016 under delegated powers. In assessing the proposed development against Policy E2 within the Officer’s Delegated Report, Para. 7.29 states:

“Policy E2 of the MLP considers mineral development within the AONB, and states that it should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. The proposal to produce aggregate at the existing building stone quarry arises from the need to remove surplus unusable building stone. The amount of surplus stone currently exceeds that required for restoration purposes. The crushing and use of surplus stone for aggregate will facilitate the restoration of the site to original contours and bring the land back into agricultural use. Any adverse visual and landscape impacts of the development can be mitigated through the imposition of conditions. The proposal is in general accordance with policy E2.”

5.14 The use of waste material to create a viable mineral product to ensure that the consented restoration scheme remained achievable was considered sufficient to satisfy Policy E2 under planning permission 16/0012/CWMAJM. The processing of a waste material at Oathill Quarry, the volumes of which significantly exceed that required for restoration purposes, to form a viable mineral by-product, must therefore be in general accordance with Policy E2, as the precedent above sets out.

5.15 As agricultural lime is derived from waste material, the proposed development does not affect the mineral operator’s ability to fulfil the demand identified in previous planning permissions. The process simply makes ‘best use’ of a material that is encountered through approved extraction operations. Indeed, the applicant has previously provided the MPA with evidence demonstrating a proven need for 70% of the proposed annual export of agricultural lime over the next four years.

December 2019 Page 16 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

Additional evidence of need is provided at Appendix 2, comprising a letter of support from R&T Liming (a subsidiary of Agrii, the trading name of Masstock Arable (UK) Ltd). This is discussed further below.

5.16 In summary, the MPA has set clear precedent for the application of Policy E2 in the determination of planning permission 16/0012/CWMAJM. The proposed development largely replicates that approved by 16/0012/CWMAJM. To ensure consistency, the MPA must similarly agree that the proposed development accords with Policy E2.

5.17 In any event, the issue of development within the AONB is also controlled by the NPPF. Paragraph 172 of the Framework infers that planning permission can be granted for major development in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Three tests are outlined, each of which are considered below:

a. The need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy

5.18 The need for the development has been established. The MPA has previously been provided with a legally binding contract between the Johnston Quarry Group and Masstock Arable (UK) Ltd. This proves a requirement for the Johnston Quarry Group to supply 35,000 tonnes of agricultural lime per annum over a four year period (a contract that is expected to be maintained beyond this period). In addition to this, Appendix 2 comprises a letter of support from R&T Liming.

5.19 The letter from R&T Liming is considered to represent significant material consideration to the determination of this planning application. The letter demonstrates:

• the importance of the supply of agricultural lime from Oathill Quarry to the Cotswold and Gloucestershire area and the lack of alternative options; • the importance of delivering lime in a timely manner; • the requirement to transport agricultural lime into Gloucestershire from Derbyshire and/or South Wales should planning permission be refused to increase supply at Oathill Quarry; • the environmental impact of hauling agricultural lime from such regions and need for double- handling of the material between artic lorries and HGVs; • the resultant economic impact on the local farming community to off-set additional haulage costs; and, critically, • that the transport of agricultural lime into Gloucestershire/Cotswolds AONB would take place irrespective of the outcome of this planning application, albeit unregulated and with negative economic outcomes for rural and farming businesses combined with significantly greater emissions and road miles resulting from long-distance haulage.

5.20 It is therefore demonstrated that should the MPA refuse planning permission, there would be wide-ranging negative effects upon the local environment and economy.

5.21 The need for the development is therefore proven. Should the MPA determine to refuse planning permission to make best use of a material sourced from within the Cotswold AONB, there would be inevitable resultant adverse impacts to the local economy and wider environment. The proposed development represents the most sustainable option to fulfilling proven local demand for agricultural lime.

December 2019 Page 17 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

b. The cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way

5.22 As described within the R&T Liming letter at Appendix 2, there is scope to fulfil the demand for agricultural lime from outside of the AONB, albeit only from areas prominent in workable limestone resources. However the overriding effect of the proposed development, that being the increased movement from HGVs, would be encountered within the AONB in any event. Indeed, this would be outside of the control of the MPA.

5.23 While there is scope to develop outside of the designated area, this approach would represent a far less sustainable outcome for the reasons discussed previously.

c. Any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated

5.24 As is demonstrated by the accompanying Environmental Statement and detailed later in this section, the proposed development would not result in any adverse impact upon the environment, landscape or recreational opportunities. As has been described previously, the only discernible impact resulting from the proposed development would be a potential increase of HGV movement within a small catchment of the quarry. However it is considered that the proposed development would only result in a perceptible change to HGV movement during the August and September peak agricultural lime season. For the remaining ten months of the year, HGV increases would be imperceptible based on existing levels of vehicle movements. Proven by the accompanying Environmental Statement, there is no evidence that the proposed development would result in any detrimental effect to the environment, landscape or recreational opportunities within the AONB.

5.25 It is also demonstrable that the development would not result in any effects upon the AONB that would not otherwise be encountered should the MPA determine to refuse planning permission. Refusal of planning permission would adversely affect rural and farming businesses within the AONB and displace economic benefits to other areas of the UK.

5.26 There is a proven and demonstrable need for agricultural lime to be sourced and supplied within the Cotswold AONB. It is therefore in the public interest that this supply chain is maintained in order to retain the resulting economic benefit and ability to control development from within the AONB. For the reasons set out above combined with the negative consequences should planning permission be refused, the proposed development is considered to satisfy the three tests set out by the NPPF as well as demonstrating general accordance with Policy E16 of the Minerals Plan.

Environmental Impacts

5.27 Policy DC1 of the MLP is referenced as pertinent to the existence of condition 7, as evidenced by planning permission 14/0101/CWMAJM and is relevant to the proposed development. The policy states:

“Mineral development will only be permitted where the applicant has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the MPA in consultation with other relevant pollution control agencies, that any potentially adverse environmental and/or pollution effects are capable of satisfactory control and/or mitigation, or elimination.”

5.28 As previously stated, the proposed development would not result in the introduction of any new or unconsented processes or alter the manner in which Oathill Quarry is worked. Mineral working would continue in accordance with extant and permitted operations. There are no proposals to increase the rate of working, the footprint of the quarry or the scope for exporting blockstone, walling stone and crushed aggregate.

December 2019 Page 18 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

5.29 It is clear that the only potential for environmental impacts are those associated with the potential increase of HGV movement across the August and September peak period.

5.30 In consultation on application 18/0010/CWMAJM, which sought planning permission for export of 150,000 tonnes of material, no objection was received from Environmental Health to the resultant increase in HGV movement. Nonetheless, a Noise Impact Assessment and Air Quality Assessment have been prepared by the applicant and are submitted with the accompanying Environmental Statement. The assessments, which are summarised in this section, demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in any adverse effects upon the surrounding environment in noise or air quality terms.

5.31 In responding to application 18/0010/CWMAJM, the Cotswold Conservation Board raised objection principally on the grounds of tranquillity impacts upon the AONB. This was centred around Cotswolds AONB Management Plan (2018-2023) Policy CE4 which relates directly to tranquillity impacts.

5.32 As has been detailed previously, demand for agricultural lime reaches its peak between the months of August and September. The potential impact of increased HGV movements associated with the proposed export levels has been forensically examined within the Transport Assessment, part of the accompanying Environmental Statement. As summarised in more detail later in this section, the Transport Assessment demonstrates that peak (‘worst case’) periods of export (those during September) will contribute an additional 36 daily HGV movements. This is shown to be an increase of 5.9% in total HGV terms and 0.7% in all vehicle terms. In summary, the proposed increase in HGV numbers will result in a negligible and highly temporary impact during the peak export period.

5.33 For the remainder of the year, HGV movements associated with the increased exportation of agricultural lime would not be perceptible above established levels.

5.34 As is evidenced by the letter of support provided at Appendix 2, were planning permission refused for increased export of agricultural lime from Oathill Quarry, the applicant’s main supplier would source the product from outside the region, resulting in unsustainable haulage of material into the AONB from distant counties and regions. A moderate and temporary increase of HGV movement, perceptible only during August and September, would therefore be inevitable and outside the control of the MPA.

5.35 Overall, the accompanying Environmental Statement demonstrates that the proposed development would not result in any adverse environmental impacts. The application provides the MPA with an opportunity to manage HGV movement through the Cotswold AONB and allow for sustainable distribution to the wider region. The proposed development is therefore considered to accord with Policy DC1 of the Mineral Local Plan and Policy CE4 of the Cotswold AONB Management Plan.

Highways and Traffic

5.36 As discussed previously, the application is accompanied by a Transport Statement, prepared by Mode Transport Planning and forming part of the Environmental Statement. The Statement provides an assessment of existing baseline conditions. Informed by data obtained from a traffic survey and accident records, the Statement considers the potential impacts of increased highway movements upon the surrounding highway network.

5.37 Automated Traffic Count (ATC) surveys were undertaken across eight locations during August and September 2019. This period represents the peak (‘worst case’) export period for operations at Oathill Quarry. As the quarry has been exporting above consented limits, albeit for year 2019 in

December 2019 Page 19 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

line with the level of export sought by this planning application, the surveys are considered to provide a robust baseline on which to formulate an assessment of potential impacts.

5.38 The assessment outlines the predicted effects of the proposed development. Potential effects of the proposed development are considered to be short to medium term, owing to the required cessation of mineral working in 2051.

5.39 Based on the ATC survey data, proposed additional HGV movements and use of ‘worst case’ August and September period, the Transport Assessment presents a forensic examination of the potential impacts. It is shown that all development related increased within the August assessment are below 0.5% in vehicle flow terms and below a maximum of 4.3% in HGV flows. Within the September assessment, all increases are below 0.7% in vehicle flow terms, with a maximum increase of HGV flows of just 5.9%.

5.40 The assessment demonstrates that the impacts associated with the proposed additional export would be below the 10% threshold (referred by Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment ‘the IEMA’ as having potential to represent significant changes in sensitive area) during the peak August and September periods of quarry export.

5.41 In annual terms, the impact of the quarry is shown to result in a percentage increase in HGV movements of 3.0% (maximum), translated as just 0.3% in all vehicle terms.

5.42 The percentage change as a result of the development trips on the highway network are considered ‘negligible’ in terms of impacts on the network as they fall below the 10% change in traffic flow or HGV flow threshold for a minor adverse impact.

5.43 For this reason, the proposed development is not considered to present any adverse effects to the tranquillity of the AONB.

5.44 No cumulative impacts are anticipated nor any requirement for mitigation or monitoring beyond those already established by the extant planning permission.

5.45 The development will not result in any significant adverse impact upon the surrounding highway network, as demonstrated by the accompanying Transport Statement. As such, the development is considered to accord with Policies E19 and E20 of the Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan and CE10 of the Cotswold AONB Management Plan.

Noise

5.46 A Noise Impact Assessment has been prepared by Air and Acoustic Consultants and is provided at Appendix 2 of this Environmental Statement. The purpose of the assessment is to consider the potential impacts of the proposed variation of condition and determine whether the development has the potential to cause any significant adverse effects upon noise sensitive receptors. The potential impact upon tranquillity of the AONB is also assessed.

5.47 In establishing baseline conditions, the Noise Impact Assessment defines the dominant existing noise source as traffic using the B4077. A baseline noise survey has therefore been undertaken at three separate positions and on two occasions during August and September 2019.

5.48 The survey positions are shown as:

1. Oathill Quarry site access; 2. Ford, the nearest settlement to the west of the quarry; and 3. Trafalgar Estate, off Buckle Street to the east of the quarry.

December 2019 Page 20 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

Assessment

5.49 In assessing the results of the two survey periods, 18-hour Annual Average Weekday Traffic (AAWT) flows have been obtained from the Transport Assessment. Using the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) formula to calculate the Basic Noise Level (BNL), the predicted change in noise levels due to the proposed variation of condition can be calculated.

5.50 The assessment demonstrates that the proposed increase of export levels across the August and September period would only generate a 0.1dB increase in noise levels for September and no increase in August. This is shown to represent a ‘negligible’ effect, described as:

“… very minor loss or detrimental alteration to one or more characteristics, features or elements.”

5.51 The assessment notes that it is generally accepted that the smallest perceptible increase in noise levels that a typical human can distinguish is 3dB. Therefore, an increase in noise levels of 0.1dB is not going to be perceptible within the context of the existing aural environment.

Tranquillity

5.52 The assessment recognises the ‘special qualities’ of tranquillity within the Cotswold AONB. For this reason, the assessment provides a focus on whether the potential increase in the amount of HGVs resulting from the proposed development would disturb the relative tranquillity that the Cotswold AONB currently enjoys.

5.53 The Transport Statement shows the net percentage increase in total traffic movements (including cars) resulting from the anticipated increase in HGV movement. In September, the number of HGV movements per day on the B4077 at the quarry entrance is likely to increase by up to 36. The ATC data indicates a weekday ‘baseline’ of 397 HGV movements per day east of the existing quarry access, and 425 HGV movements per day west of the quarry access, during the worst-case month of a typical year.

5.54 Based upon the figures associated with the proposed development scenario the percentage increase of approximately 0.7% overall is a statistically insignificant increase. The DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 paragraph 3.37 states: “… a change in road traffic noise of 1dB… in the short term i.e. when a project is opened, is the smallest that is considered perceptible”.

5.55 Annex 1, paragraph A1.8ii of the DMRB states “… a 1dB change in noise level represents a 25% increase OR 20% decrease in traffic flow. A 3dB change in noise level represents a 100% increase OR 50% decrease in traffic flow”.

5.56 Therefore, according to the figures shown above, the proposed development would represent an increase of significantly less than 1dB in the measured noise levels. Indeed, it represents an increase of approximately 0.1dB, over the baseline.

5.57 As stated above, the smallest perceptible increase in noise levels that a typical human can distinguish is generally considered to be 3dB. Bearing this in mind, the predicted 0.1dB increase in noise levels (based upon the traffic flows given) can be said to have a statistically insignificant effect upon the existing tranquillity of the AONB.

5.58 The proposed development is therefore considered to accord with Policy DC1 of the Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan and Policy CE4 of the Cotswold AONB Management Plan.

December 2019 Page 21 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

Air Quality

5.59 An Air Quality Assessment has been undertaken by Air and Acoustics Consultants and is provided at Appendix 3 of this Environmental Statement. The assessment has been undertaken to assess whether the variation to condition 7 will cause any adverse impact upon sensitive receptors as a result of increases in HGV movements on the local highway network.

5.60 The Air Quality Assessment has been undertaken by means of:

• A review of the existing air quality information; • A review of the development proposals; • A qualitative assessment of the operational dust impacts; • Provision of recommendations of mitigation measures, where appropriate, designed to minimise any adverse effects on air quality; and, • The identification of any residual impacts resulting from the proposed development.

5.61 The Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) and Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance, dated 2017, provides indicative criteria for the requirements of an Air Quality Impact Assessment. Two-step criteria are set out by the guidance to assess potential impacts on air quality. The proposed development does not conform to any threshold set out in ‘Step 1’. Step 2 relates to HGV movements:

• A change of LGV (light goods vehicle) flow of: • More than 100 AADT within or adjacent to an AQMA; or • More than 500 AADT elsewhere. • A change of HGV (heavy goods vehicle) flow of • More than 25 AADT within or adjacent to an AQMA; or • More than 10 AADT elsewhere.

5.62 A review of traffic data as documented by the Transport Assessment indicates that the proposed development would result in up to 36 additional daily movements during peak periods (Aug - Sept) and would not exceed the EPUK & IAQM (2017) thresholds. The impacts would therefore be negligible.

5.63 The assessment sets out the baseline conditions. It is confirmed that the application site is not located close to either of the two Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) within the administrative control of Cotswold District Council. In respect of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and Particulate Matter (PM10) annual mean concentrations are within the relevant objective limits. There are no ambient air quality limits for PM2.5.

5.64 In assessing the operation impacts, it is reiterated that the traffic data determined by the Transport Assessment demonstrates that the proposed HGV traffic increase would not exceed the EPUK and IAQM (2017) requirements for an impact assessment. Furthermore, a review of the background concentration shows that the current levels are all well below their respective annual mean objectives / targets. Accordingly, it is not anticipated any existing residential receptor would be adversely impacted in air quality terms as a result of the proposed increase in export levels sought by this planning application. No mitigation measures are therefore proposed to attenuate the proposed development.

5.65 The proposed development is therefore considered to accord with Policy DC1 of the Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan.

December 2019 Page 22 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

Visual Impact

5.66 A Visual Impact Statement has been prepared by David Jarvis Associates Ltd and is provided with the accompanying Environmental Statement. The purpose of the statement is to assess the potential aural and visual effects arising from potential additional HGV movements on the local highway network.

5.67 To inform the statement, the site and its surrounds were visited in December 2019. This sought to establish receptors with the potential to experience visual and aural disturbance as a result of the increase in HGV movements to and from the site.

5.68 It is considered that principal potential receptors which may experience increases in HGV movements are the B4077 (south, east and west) and the promoted Gloucestershire Way which passes Jackdaws Castle (north) and returns to the south through the small settlement of Ford. A number of PRoW are also located to the north of the B4077 and to the east of Buckle Street.

5.69 The B4077 is noted as an intermittently busy road carrying a combination of light traffic, agricultural vehicles and HGVs. Extensive areas of woodland cover in the vicinity of the quarry provide both visual and aural containment of the B4077 from areas within the immediate surroundings of the quarry and to the east and west. Consequently, any visual and aural disturbance as a result of the peak increase of HGV movements to and from the quarry would be highly localised and barely perceptible when compared to its baseline condition.

5.70 Visibility of the B4077 from The Gloucestershire Way as it passes Jackdaws Castle to the north of the quarry is contained by intervening belts of woodland. Consequently, the additional movements of HGV traffic to and from the quarry would have no effect visually and would present a negligible effect aurally as any changes in baseline tranquillity would be perceived within the context of existing traffic levels and at some distance from the B4077.

Cumulative effects

5.71 The increase in HGV movements and other quarry traffic as a result of the additional export of mineral products presents the potential for cumulative visual and aural effects in conjunction with permitted and projected mineral extraction activities in the locality. Mineral development with potential pertinence to the increase in HGV from Oathill Quarry are:

• Naunton Quarry - proposed extension (18/0065/CWMAJM); • Scoping opinion submitted for a site opposite Oathill (17/0087/SCOPE); and • Cotswold Hill Quarry - Planning Appeal (17/0099/CWMAJW), appeal reference APP/T1600/W/18/3207814

5.72 Development at Naunton Quarry would not increase the annual export of material. Therefore it is considered that HGV movements as a result of the grant of this permission would falls within the baseline conditions which have been assessed as “not significant”. Accordingly, any aural and visual intrusion would therefore be negligible.

5.73 As the site opposite Oathill is only a scoping opinion with no quantifiable analysis available this is cannot be included in the cumulative assessment.

5.74 Traffic flows associated with the existing permission for Cotswold Hill Quarry have been considered in the Transport Assessment. Any changes in HGV movements as a result of a successful appeal are unknown and unquantifiable.

December 2019 Page 23 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

Conclusion

5.75 The extraction and removal of an additional 50,000 tonnes of mineral from Oathill Quarry would represent a temporary increase in HGV on the local road network. The increase has been assessed as not significant in the Transport Assessment carried out to accompany the application using published guidance. A field survey has established that the local road network exhibits relatively high traffic levels, including movements for HGVs and agricultural traffic. These movements are intermittently visually and aurally perceptible in the surrounding landscape due to the high enclosure levels provided by woodland cover. It is demonstrated that the baseline landscape is able to visually and aurally accommodate the increase in HGV movements which would be barely perceptible, overall negligible and not significant.

5.76 On this basis, the proposed development is shown to accord with Policy E2 of the Minerals Local Plan.

Tranquillity

5.77 As a ‘special quality’ of the Cotswold AONB designation, it is important to consider the potential effects of the development on the tranquillity of the surrounding area. The proposed development has the potential to result in adverse effects on tranquillity owing to a potential increase in HGV movements.

5.78 The potential effects of the development have been considered in detail by the accompanying Environmental Statement. This serves to demonstrate that:

• The resultant increase of HGV movements is negligible when assessed against existing vehicle and HGV movements on the surrounding highway network.

• There are no perceptible noise impacts resulting from peak increases of HGV movements.

• There would be no adverse visual impact given the highly localised and temporary effects of HGVs moving through the landscape.

5.79 Taking into account the above conclusions, it follows that the proposed development cannot result in any adverse effect upon the tranquillity of the Cotswold AONB.

5.80 Appendix 3 of the Cotswold Conservation Board Position Statement on Tranquillity contains the Campaign to Protect Rural England’s (CPRE) Tranquillity Map, produced in 2006. As noted at Section 4.2 of the Position Statement:

“The 2006 maps currently remain (as of May 2019) the most up-to-date tranquillity maps using the CPRE methodology.”

5.81 Though produced at a vast scale, it is assumed that the general location of Oathill Quarry is positioned amongst the upper-tier levels tranquillity, as per conditions in 2006. At the time of issue of the Tranquillity Map, there were eight operational quarries within a 6km radius (including Oathill Quarry). Two of these quarries, neither of which were restricted on export levels or HGV movements during their operation, have subsequently closed14.

5.82 Including Oathill Quarry, there now remain six operational quarries within a 6km radius of the application site. These are:

• Guiting Quarry - 2.75km to the north-west

14 Swell Wold Quarry and Brockhill Quarry

December 2019 Page 24 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

• Naunton Quarry - 3.9km to the south-east • Cotswold Hill Quarry - 2.25km to the north-west • Tinkers Barn Quarry - 3.25km to the south-east • Grange Hill Quarry - 4.5km to the south

5.83 In assessing potential changes to the baselines conditions, measured at the time of the 2006 Tranquillity Map, a review of significant planning applications for the above quarries has been undertaken. There have inevitably been extensions to sites or operations at the six remaining quarries as summarised:

5.84 Oathill Quarry: since 2006, planning permission has been granted to allow an additional 30,000 tonnes of material to be exported from Oathill Quarry per year (from 20,000 tonnes per annum to 50,000 tonnes per annum). This equated to an increase of approximately 10 - 11 additional HGV movements (c. 5 additional HGVs) per day above that experienced at the time of the creation of the Tranquillity Map. This development would therefore have had a negligible impact upon the 2006 baseline.

5.85 Guiting Quarry: mineral extraction at Guiting Quarry had been inactive for roughly a decade until operations recommenced in summer 2019. Under the extant permission, there are no restrictions on the levels of exports or HGV movements. This was also true of operations at the time of the CPRE Tranquillity Map. Movements associated with the recommencement of operations at Guiting Quarry have been included in the traffic and noise surveys, as detailed by the Environmental Statement.

5.86 Naunton Quarry: Naunton Quarry has benefitted from planning permission to export up to 500,000 tonnes per annum since 2006. It is understood that movements from the site were unrestricted before this time. As well as exporting mineral, the site imports inert material for deposit within a previously worked mineral site within the quarry complex. The landfill operation was first permitted in 2003 and extended in area in 2013. No increase to HGV movements or import/export limits has been permitted since issue of the CPRE Tranquillity Map.

5.87 Cotswold Hill Quarry: At the time of issue of the Tranquillity Map, Cotswold Hill Quarry benefitted from unlimited HGV movements associated with both the permitted mineral and waste operations. Since 2006, conditions have been imposed that limit HGV movements in respect of the waste operation. In December 2019 (and as discussed further below) planning permission was granted on appeal to remove restrictions on HGV movements associated with the importation of waste material. The quarry is now permitted to operate as per the conditions at the time of the 2006 tranquillity mapping.

5.88 Tinkers Barn: Planning permission was granted in 2016 for a temporary crushing operation. This permitted operation was demonstrated to add an additional 8 daily HGV movements (up to 4 additional HGVs) to the 3 - 5 movements resulting from typical day to day operations. This temporary operation has therefore had a negligible impact upon the 2006 baseline.

5.89 Grange Hill Quarry: Exports from Grange Hill Quarry are limited to no more than 12,000 tonnes over a two year period. Conditions require that export is only carried out using max. 10 tonne HGVs. It is our understanding that no more than 8 HGV movements are encountered in any one day, albeit this volume is infrequent. This position has not altered since 2006 and therefore has no impact on the baseline.

5.90 In summary, any extension to or increase of mineral export at the six remaining active quarries since the issue of the Tranquillity Map are considered minor. Off-set against the closure of two quarries, each of which carried no restrictive conditions limiting HGV movements or export levels,

December 2019 Page 25 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

there can be no reasonable suggestion that mineral planning permissions issued since 2006 threaten the level of tranquillity shown by the 2006 CPRE Tranquillity Map.

5.91 Combined with the negligible effects demonstrated by the accompanying Environmental Statement resulting from the proposed increase of HGV movement, it is shown that an increase of export levels from Oathill Quarry would not result in any significant adverse effect on the tranquillity of the Cotswold AONB. The proposed development is therefore shown to accord with Policy CE4 of the Cotswold AONB Management Plan.

Appeal Decision APP/T1600/W/18/3207814 - Cotswold Hill Quarry

5.92 In December 2019, planning permission was allowed on appeal to remove a restriction on the number of HGV movements associated with the importation of inert material at Cotswold Hill Quarry, some 2.25km to the north-west of Oathill Quarry. The appeal decision, which is considered to represent material consideration to the determination of this planning application, is provided at Appendix 3.

5.93 The appeal outcome is particularly pertinent to the consideration of this planning application given the mutual characteristics of the two schemes. Planning permission to remove conditions restricting HGV movements and import rates had been refused by the Gloucestershire County Council (as Waste Planning Authority) in February 2018 on the following grounds:

1. The Waste Planning Authority is not satisfied that sufficient evidence has been supplied to demonstrate that the unrestricted heavy goods vehicle movements associated with the importation of waste material in order to restore the application site following mineral extraction would not have a detrimental impact on the environment, visual amenity of the AONB or residential amenity and therefore would conflict with saved Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan and Policy WCS14 of the Waste Core Strategy.

2. The Waste Planning Authority would not have sufficient control over the scale and quantity of inert waste material which would be imported to the site in order to ensure that only the agreed quantity of infill material were used to achieve the objective of stabilisation of the quarry faces and therefore would conflict with Policy WCS8 of the Waste Core Strategy.

5.94 Owing to the first reason for refusal outlined above, the potential impact of the unrestricted HGV movements on the surrounding environment, visual amenity of the AONB and residential amenity was prevalent in the Planning Inspector’s judgement.

5.95 In deliberation of these main issues, the Inspector finds that:

• There was no evidence presented to demonstrate that an increase of HGV movements would result in harm to the AONB;

• The Waste Planning Authority and Cotswold Conservation Board’s suggestion that there is ‘now more traffic in the area’ was ‘unsubstantiated’; and,

• Whilst the development would increase potential for HGVs to be seen ‘from time to time’, given the ‘character of the B4077 and its existing usage’ there was ‘no basis to consider this impact would be sufficient to harm the AONB’s landscape and scenic beauty’.

5.96 In concluding, the Inspector found that there had been no demonstration that the impact of the proposed development would affect the tranquillity of the area in a manner that failed to conserve the landscape

December 2019 Page 26 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

5.97 amenity, and in particular potential increase in noise, the Inspector states:

‘…on the evidence before me I conclude that the proposed would not adversely affect the living conditions of residents along the B4077…’

5.98 The appeal was allowed without the benefit of a Transport Assessment, Noise Impact Assessment, Air Quality Assessment or Visual Impact Statement, all of which have been prepared and submitted as part of the accompanying Environmental Statement.

5.99 As detailed previously, these aforementioned assessments raise no significant adverse environmental, tranquillity, amenity or highway impacts, either in isolation or in cumulation as a result of this proposed increase of export limits from Oathill Quarry. Based on the precedent set by the appeal decision at Appendix 3 and the lack of substantiated evidence to the contrary, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in environmental terms and should be supported.

December 2019 Page 27 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2 14/0101/CWMAJM - Variation of Condition 7 Section 73 Application Supporting Statement Oathill Quarry

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

6.1 This Statement has been prepared on behalf of the Johnston Quarry Group and in respect of a section 73 planning application to vary condition 7 of planning permission 14/0101/CWMAJM. The application seeks to introduce new controls to allow export of up to 100,000 tonnes of material in a calendar year from the established Oathill Quarry, Temple Guiting, Gloucestershire.

6.2 The proposed uplift of exported material would enable the applicant to meet demand for supply of agricultural lime. This Statement, combined with accompanying Environmental Statement, has demonstrated that the proposed development would not result in any adverse environmental, landscape, amenity, highway or tranquillity impacts. This is corroborated by the recent appeal decision issued in respect of HGV movements at the nearby Cotswold Hill Quarry, which is a material consideration to the determination of this application.

6.3 It is therefore suggested that condition 7 be varied and a new condition imposed as per the following:

Proposed Condition 7:

6.4 The development has been shown to accord with policy at the national and local level. There is a clear and demonstrable need for the material produced at Oathill Quarry. In fulfilling this need, the application has demonstrated that there would be no resultant significant adverse effects. On this basis, the development should be supported and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority.

December 2019 Page 28 of 28 David Jarvis Associates Limited DJA Reference: 2180-4-4-1-SS-T2-S5-P2

APPENDIX 1

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE

GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Strategic Infrastructure

Shire Hall Gloucester GL1 2TH David Jarvis Associates Ltd 1 Tennyson Street email: [email protected] Swindon www.gloucestershire.gov.uk Wiltshire SN1 5DT

Please ask Linda Townsend Phone: (01452) 426896 for:

Our 19/0008/PAPP2 28th February 2019 Ref:

Dear Mr Cook

Pre-application Advice Request

Applicant: Johnston Quarry Group Ltd Agent: David Jarvis Associates Ltd.,1 Tennyson Street, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN1 5DT Application 19/0008/PAPP2 No: Proposal: Pre-application advice to revise the annual mineral export limit approved under planning reference 14/0101/CWMAJM from 50,000 to 100,000tpa including a maximum 50,000tpa of agricultural lime

Location: Oathill Quarry, Fiddlers Green, Temple Guiting, Gloucestershire, GL54 5SG

Thank you for your pre-application enquiry received on the 21st January 2019 and receipt of the enquiry processing fee on the 28th January 2019. The enquiry was accompanied by a Briefing Note prepared by Anthony Cook of David Jarvis Associates Ltd., dated January 2019 and Site Location Plan Reference 2180/QD/1, dated July 2014. The Briefing Note included a copy of a contract agreement dated 16th May 2018 to supply up to 35,000 tonnes of agricultural lime a year until 2022 and a forecast of vehicle movements associated with this increased export level by month for each type of mineral product.

Applicants Proposal as Submitted Johnston Quarry Group seeks advice on a proposal to increase the annual export tonnage of minerals extracted at the Oathill Quarry site from the permitted 50,000 tonnes to 100,000 tonnes. This figure would include a change to the export limits from any single mineral product of 30,000 tonnes per annum to the following variable use limits: - 50,000 tonnes for agricultural lime; 30,000 tonnes per annum for aggregate; and 12,500 tonnes for blockstone and 7,500 tonnes for walling stone.

Site Location Oathill Quarry is located approximately 1 kilometre to the north-east of the residential settlement of Temple Guiting, north of the B4007-Tewkesbury to Stow road. The 14 ha application site is generally well screened; however it can be viewed from Buckle Street, which runs along the ridgeline looking down into the quarry from the northeast. The Quarry has been extended to include an agricultural field to the west. A new vehicular access to the quarry from the B4077 has been created to the west of the original quarry entrance, which has been closed off and landscaped. The site office, welfare facilities and weighbridge were improved following planning permission 08/0068/CWMAJM. However the stone cutting shed which was also permitted as part of this planning permission has not yet been erected.

The site is quarried for limestone for the production of building and walling stone, blockstone, limestone aggregate and agricultural lime. The limestone belonging to the Oolitic Group and the sequence lies within the Birdlip Formation. Three types of stone are extracted from the application site. These are white, yellow and orange Guiting. White and yellow Guiting are from the upper layers and are used for walling stone and tiling. The orange Guiting is the lowest layer of stone and is used for blockstone.

Surrounding Environment The nearest residential property, lies approximately 160 metres to the southwest of Oathill Quarry, to the south of the B4007. There are no public rights of way crossing the site, although, public right of way (HTG/26/2) enters onto Buckle Street and traverses approximately 362 metres to the west of the application site in a north south direction.

The site is located upon an area classified as a major aquifer and situated within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The scheduled monument of Bell Barrow is located approximately 750 metres to the south east of the application site.

Planning History

18/0010/CWMAJM Retrospective variation of condition 2 (revision to the restoration end date from 25 November Undetermined with 2051 to 31 December 2035) & condition 7 time extension until (increase of annual output from 50,000 tonnes 29.3.2019 to 150,000 tonnes and increase any single mineral exportation limit from a 30,000 tpa to 90,000 tpa maxima) relating to planning consent 14/0101/CWMAJM [Extension to the Existing Quarry] dated 21/05/2015 14/0101/CWMAJM Extension to the existing quarry Consent

12.05.2015 12/0058/CWMAJM Variation of conditions 8 and 9 attached to Consent planning permission 08/0068/CWMAJM dated 20.02.2013 27/11/2009 to revise the quantity and ratio of mineral products permitted to be exported from the site. 08/0068/CWMAJM The rationalisation, continuation and small scale Consent extension of extraction operations with ancillary development 27.11.2009

98/5003/CWROMP Review of Mineral Planning Permissions Consent CD/2258/C 26.04.2000

CD/2037/B Extraction Of Limestone Consent 10.12.1981

(N.B: The above planning history has been obtained from information on the County website and is not considered to be definitive).

Consultation Responses The following pre-application representations have been provided by internal statutory consultees:

Ecology Biodiversity is a material matter to be covered in the prospective planning application. This is because the new extraction rates of varied materials set out will affect restoration and landscaping timescales and the Planning Authority needs to be sure that all operations will be practical in terms of materials being available at the right time for use in restoration and landscaping as already approved under 14/0101/CWMAJM. Agreed landscaping requires sufficient time to mature appropriately to continue to produce the intended outcomes of 14/0101/CWMAJM.

The applicant needs to fully review all approved ecological mitigation and enhancement measures as well as the restoration plan plus the landscaping and aftercare scheme. The conclusion might be that only minor, amendments are required to match the new scenario but still provide the same environmental outcomes in the short, medium and long-term. The key documents to review are as follows:  Ecological Appraisal, Final report dated 22nd December 2014 - particularly section 5 (approved under Condition 3 of 14/0101/CWMAJM)  2180/C27/1 dated Nov 2015 is a Final Restoration Plan for the whole quarry site (submitted and approved for Condition 27 of 14/0101/CWMAJM)  Landscape Management and Aftercare scheme dated 22nd February 2016 (submitted and approved for Condition 28 of 14/0101/CWMAJM)  2180/C28/1 dated Feb 2016 showing where various management/aftercare measures will occur (approved and included within the above document)  Soil Handling Manual dated July 2015 and plan drawings 2180/CS/S/1, 2180/CS/S/2 and 2180/CS/S/3 all dated July 2015 (submitted and approved for Conditions 32, 34 & 35 of 14/0101/CWMAJM)

The review document(s) should be set out in additional documents in the form of both an ecological review statement and a landscape review statement (or one combined statement). This must be drawn up by a suitably qualified professional and set out what can remain unaltered and what needs amending to fit in with the altered materials export and timescales. The Planning Authority must receive a reasoned case that demonstrates that the originally intended mitigation, restoration, enhancement and aftercare management can be achieved for the site.

Archaeology This proposal raises no archaeological implications and therefore no archaeological investigation or recording need be undertaken in connection with this scheme.

Highways It is noted that routing via some surrounding minor roads would be unsuitable and therefore the application would be required to have an agreed routing strategy and routing management plan. It is considered any new application would require the submission of trip information and distribution details as per the current pending application, which should be updated if circumstances have changed.

Planning Enforcement Officer There is a current unresolved enforcement case set up: ref 18/0032/COND - "Breach of condition 7 relating to maximum quantities of various aggregates/minerals/materials to be exported within a calendar year"

Until such time that permission is granted resulting in a change to the extant condition, the operator should keep export figures as required and seek to regularise their operations. The operator has been asked to submit export tonnage figures from the site on a monthly basis in order that the Mineral Planning Authority may monitor compliance with the existing planning conditions.

Monitoring Officer The progressive restoration as shown on currently approved plans 2180/QD/3 and 2180/QD/4, both dated June 2014 are considered crucial, as the phasing allows screen planting to develop and mature sufficiently to screen future phased extraction. It is considered imperative that the phased restoration is undertaken in conjunction with the extraction, as required by the phasing plans in order to allow the planting in the restored areas to become sufficiently mature and robust to perform the function of screening operations. Any delay in the commencement or variation of that restoration and planting is likely to have a significant negative effect on its ability to be an effective screen and mitigation measure as intended.

Policy Consideration In preparing a proposal of this nature, the applicant should be focused on attempting to meet the requirements of the policies contained within the local development plan – namely the Adopted Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan (1997 - 2006). Policies that are likely to be highly significant include: -

Policy DC1 – which is concerned with ensuring there will be sufficient controls in place and / or appropriate mitigation to satisfactorily overcome potential adverse environmental impacts and / or pollution effects resulting from the proposed changes to the previously permitted operation. It is anticipated that the various impacts resulting from increased vehicular movements will be prominent and will therefore need to be scrutinised;

Policy E16 – which requires some analysis / discussion about what sort of positive contribution will arise from the proposal in respect of the social and economic well-being of local communities. The applicant will specifically need to provide a robust and detailed explanation supported by irrefutable evidence, as to what the local benefit will be from allowing the proposed changes. Attention should be paid to key aspects of the proposal – the notable uplift in the supply of agricultural lime and increased flexibility to allow a larger tonnage of aggregate, balanced against the introduction of a new ‘ceiling’ on the supply of blockstone and walling stone;

Policy E2 – which is focused on the acceptability of minerals development within the Cotswold AONB designation. This policy will very much be interpreted as allowing for minerals development as a justified exception and not 'the rule'. As a consequence applicants must logically work through the six policy tests. ‘Overriding national need’ must be demonstrated. For the proposal, this would mean robust evidence as to why a notable uplift in the supply of agricultural lime and increased flexibility to potentially allow a larger tonnage of aggregate and under certain circumstances, more building stone is required. Likely to be coupled with ‘need’ is a demonstration of public interest. Linked to the requirements of Policy E16, the impact on the local economy must also be considered. Another key element is comparable environmental acceptability. The applicant in this instance will need to be able to show why there are no less environmentally constrained alternative sources available, which could be developed at reasonable cost. Finally, landscape and visual impact matters will need to be looked at. This is likely to relate to the ecology matters discussed earlier in this correspondence. It is probable that the potential impact upon the ability to deliver on the previously approved restoration and landscape mitigation will require careful consideration.

Policy A4 – which considers aggregate working outside of Preferred Areas defined in the Adopted Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan (1997 - 2006). In particular, the applicant will need to work through the relevant clauses for Part B of the policy (in relation to existing development). Evidence must be provided to show how facilitating an increase in the potential to produce more aggregates would result in enhancement to the surrounding environment or local amenity and / or reclamation would be improved or enhanced;

Policy NE1 – is concerned with proposals to work (sandstone and) limestone for natural building stone. It is acknowledged that this element is not a major part of the proposed operations. However, whilst a theoretical maximum output would introduce a theoretical new lower ‘ceiling’ that would be exclusive to the production of building stone, the overall planned increase in the quarry site’s capacity does mean it would also be potentially possible for future building stone working to operate at an increased rate than anticipated under the extant permission. In any event, the applicant is still strongly encouraged to review the policy clauses. Unless evidence explaining otherwise is presented, it is anticipated that clauses 1 and 2 will be relevant and be taken into account. Therefore, a ‘local’ need assessment should be carried out. This must look at supply from all permitted reserves of the stone types being worked under the existing permission, from across the Cotswold AONB. A key question that will need answering is: - What will be the negative impacts, and how significant are they likely to be, on the local supply of building stone, as a consequence of not being able to operate the site under the proposed new output arrangements? Clause 3 of Policy NE1 will also require careful consideration. This allows for some removal of crushed and screened overburden only under specific circumstances, namely to facilitate access to work building stone and where such material cannot be used in landscaping and reclamation.

In December 2018 the County Council submitted the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire (2018 -2032) to the Secretary of State. The purpose of this new plan is to replace the Adopted Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan (1997 - 2006). In the event that the proposal is brought forward as a formal planning application before such time that the new plan has successfully been examined and adopted by the Council, the emerging plan will be a material consideration. As a consequence the applicant is encouraged to familiarise themselves with the plan’s content. Of likely relevance to the proposal are following policies: -

Policy DM02 (Cumulative Impact) – attention should be paid to the risk of possible unacceptable cumulative adverse impacts. The applicant will need to show how they have investigated and assessed the extent to which it may or may not be an issue. A clear understanding of existing development in the locality will be critical;

Policy DM09 (Landscape) – particular attention should be given to Part B, clause ii which makes reference to the special qualities of AONB designations as defined by the respective AONB Mgmt. Plan;

The National Planning Policy Framework NPPF (July 2018) is another important material consideration that the proposal will need to be assessed against. A number of policy themes that expand upon / or are not covered within the local policy framework could prove to be significant. They include: -

Paragraph 172 – Great weight is afforded to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The scale and extent of development in this (and other) designated areas should be limited.

Paragraph 182 – Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions place on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. The risk of this occurring with the proposed changes will need to be considered.

Paragraph 203 – Since minerals are a finite resource, and can only be worked where they are found, best use needs to be made of them to secure their long-term conservation. This is a core national policy statement and could prove to be very significant with a proposal that seeks to facilitate an intensification of mineral working to serve a different purpose to that which has been permitted. Consequently, the applicant will need to present a clear and strong justification for what they propose. This justification is likely to link with other policy requirements such as the ‘demonstration of need’ and ‘public interest’, which have already been discussed earlier in this correspondence;

Paragraph 205 – Great weight should be given to the benefit of mineral extraction, including to the economy. In order for this statement to be attributable to the proposal, the applicant will need to provide robust and credible evidence to show how the change in operation will be economically beneficial and how significant any benefits will be. It is important for this evidence to be focused on the difference between what is currently permitted and what is being proposed. Any reference to losses or negative impacts that could occur linked to unauthorised activities that may have taken place, since the last permission was granted, would be inadmissible.

Paragraph 205(b) – in support of the emerging policy position set out in DM02 the applicant will need to consider the risk of, and possible mitigation to, adverse cumulative impacts. Specific reference is given to this matter being attributed to ‘a locality’. The County Council consider the entirety of the Cotswold AONB to be a valid definition of ‘a locality’ in this circumstance. However, evidence to the contrary would be considered.

Albeit that the Adopted Cotswold District Local Plan (2011 – 2031) forms part of the statutory development plan for Gloucestershire, the policies contained within it have not been prepared for the purposes of assessing minerals (or waste) development proposals. As a consequence, the County Council is likely to consider them as a material consideration. The applicant should scrutinise and take into account the plan as part of any future planning application. Policies likely to be relevant include: -

Policy EN4 – The Wider Natural and Historic Landscape; Policy EN5 – Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; Policy EN15 – Pollution and Contaminated Land.

While not part of the Development Plan for Gloucestershire, the objectives of the Cotswold AONB Management Plan 2018-2023 will be a material consideration. The Cotswold Conservation Board is likely to rigorously apply the policies of the NPPF with particular reference to paragraph 172 whereby the applicant would need to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances apply and that the development would be in the public interest. Limestone and other minerals that are extracted in the AONB should primarily be used for purposes that conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the AONB. The amount (or proportion) of the limestone that would be used for these purposes within the AONB should be evidenced. The applicant should demonstrate that the proposed development is the only option (or the most suitable option) for meeting any shortfall in supply.

Other key issues are to ensure that:

Development does not adversely affect the purposes of: o conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Cotswolds AONB; and o increasing the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the AONB.

If development is permitted, it makes a positive contribution to these purposes.

Environmental Impact Assessment

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 the development falls under Schedule 2 Extractive Industry’ (a) Quarries, open-cast mining and peat extraction (unless included in Schedule 1). Planning Practice Guidance advises indicative threshold criteria of sites covering more than 15 ha or extracting more than 30,000 tonnes of mineral per year would normally apply, however as this development is within a sensitive area being the Cotswold AONB, the thresholds do not apply and the likelihood of significance would be dependent on the scale and duration of impacts on the AONB.

Any application for the proposed development will therefore need to be formally screened in accordance with either Regulation 6 or 8 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 to ascertain the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Officer Conclusion

The current planning application under reference 18/0010/CWMAJM to amend the conditions relating to the amount of mineral which can be exported from the site by type on planning permission reference 14/0101/CWMAJM has been held in abeyance pending the consideration of amended proposals which were to be the subject of a pre-application enquiry.

Planning permission reference 14/0101/CWMAJM was granted permission in the AONB on the basis that this was primarily a small scale blockstone quarry with some production of aggregate and agricultural lime from waste as a by-product. The Mineral Planning Authority is being asked to consider permitting the annual site export tonnage in the production of agricultural lime and doubling the overall mineral production from the site. The justification for the change appears to be that the operator has entered into a contract to supply 35,000 tpa of agricultural lime.

It is disappointing that the Briefing Note supplied does not provide the detailed explanation supported by evidence as to what the local benefit will be of expanding the supply of agricultural lime from Oathill Quarry. A key part of the discussion must be focused on the scale and extent of the proposed change linked to the 'need' argument, local economic analysis and comparative analysis of why agricultural lime sourced from elsewhere wouldn't be appropriate.

A cursory examination of the Mineral Products Association and Agricultural Lime Association websites (https://aglime.org.uk ) do not indicate that there are particular supply shortage issues and there appears to be a larger number of suppliers of agricultural lime which are members in this part of the country than elsewhere. As I note that the Johnston Stone Group is not a member of these trade associations, there may also be other suppliers of agricultural lime in neighbouring counties of which we are unaware that could also supply areas of this county close to their borders.

In order to build a compelling case for making changes to the current planning permission, the applicant will be expected to logically work through the policy tests as mentioned above and provide evidence of the following:

1) The 'need' for change in operations - this should be linked to the evidence for E16; E2 and NPPF policies; 2) the public interest; 3) local economic impact - evidence that proposal won't affect existing businesses; 4) comparative assessment of alternative sources of supply - this will need to explain why agricultural lime cannot be sourced from outside of the AONB or why non-AONB agricultural lime would be less environmentally acceptable or economically viable; 5) visual and landscape impact mitigation; 6) impact on the amenity and tranquillity of the increase in output and how this can be acceptably mitigated; and 6) landscape restoration capability.

The Mineral Planning Authority is aware that the applicant is keen to meet to discuss amended proposals with officers. Once you have addressed the matters set out in this pre-application advice letter, the MPA would then be at a stage to hold a meeting to discuss any forthcoming planning application.

Yours sincerely,

Ms Linda Townsend Senior Planning Officer

APPENDIX 2

LETTER OF SUPPORT

R & T LIMING

APPENDIX 3

APPEAL DECISION REF: APP/T1600/W/18/3207814

COTSWOLD HILL QUARRY

Appeal Decision Hearing held on 10 September 2019 Site visit made on 10 September 2019 by Mr JP Sargent BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 December 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/T1600/W/18/3207814 Cotswold Hill Quarry, B4077 Ford Manor to Charnel Plantation, Ford, Temple Guiting GL54 5RU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Act for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mr Alan Smith of Smiths (Quarry Products) Limited against the decision of Gloucestershire County Council. • The application Ref 17/0099/CWMAJW, dated 11 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 February 2018. • The application sought planning permission for revised restoration proposals without complying with conditions attached to planning permission Ref 14/0104/CWMAJW, dated 13 August 2015. • The conditions in dispute (the disputed Conditions) are Conditions 3 & 4 which state: 3. Movements of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) to and from the site in connection with this development are to average no more than 48 per week and a maximum of 160 in any 4 week period 4. No more than 1,500 tonnes per calendar month of inert fill material not exceeding 15,000 tonnes in any 12 month period shall be imported into the site. The total permitted quantity of inert soils, clays and inert construction waste including that previously deposited on the site shall not exceed 300,000 tonnes (200,000 cubic metres). • The reasons given for the disputed conditions are: 3. To protect the occupants and users’ amenity of the local countryside and traditional landscape character in accordance with saved Policy 37 of the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan 2002-2012 and Policy WCS14 of the Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy. 4. To allow material sufficient for safety/slope stability of the quarry faces in accordance with saved Policy DC3 of the Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan, NPPF paragraph 120 and Policy WSC8 of the Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for revised restoration proposals at Cotswold Hill Quarry, B4077 Ford Manor to Charnel Plantation, Ford, Temple Guiting GL54 5RU in accordance with the application Ref 17/0099/CWMAJW, dated 11 October 2017 without compliance with Conditions 3 & 4 previously imposed on planning permission

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/T1600/W/18/3207814

14/0104/CWMAJW, dated 13 August 2015, but subject to the conditions listed in the Conditions Schedule below.

Application for costs

2. At the Hearing applications for costs were made by Gloucestershire County Council against Mr Alan Smith of Smiths (Quarry Products) Limited, and by Mr Alan Smith of Smiths (Quarry Products) Limited against Gloucestershire County Council. These applications are the subject of separate decisions.

Main Issues

3. The main issues in this case are whether lifting controls on permitted movements of HGVs to and from the site (disputed Condition 3) and the amounts of material imported to the site in connection with the waste operation (disputed Condition 4) would

a) fail to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and,

b) through unacceptable noise, unreasonably harm the living conditions of residents.

A further issue is whether the control on the total amount of imported material, subject of disputed Condition 4, is necessary to provide adequate control.

Reasons

Background

4. Cotswold Hill Quarry has a long-standing permission for quarrying and can currently continue until 2042. For many years the quarrying permission also included requirements for restoration, and it seems it was always accepted that in order to achieve the restoration the importation of some amount of waste was required to supplement any debris left on site after the quarrying. Until 2008 the site was subject to no restrictions on lorry movements.

5. In 2008 planning permission was granted for new working and restoration schemes and, for the first time, a condition was imposed restricting lorry movements to and from the site. However, an appeal was lodged under section 79 of the Act to vary that permission by deleting that condition and in 2010 the appeal was allowed (the previous appeal).

6. Subsequently revised contours for the site restoration were proposed that, although broadly similar to what had been intended before, were deemed by the Council to be sufficiently different to merit a fresh permission in their own right. As a result, 2 new permissions were granted in 2014. One concerned the variation of conditions of the scheme subject to the previous appeal and was ostensibly focussed on the quarrying side of the operations. The other (permission 14/0104/CWMAJW) concerned just the importation of waste to achieve the revised contours. This second permission, which is the subject of this appeal, is the only decision relating to the site that currently has conditions imposed restricting lorry movements.

7. The appellant has confirmed that, since the grant of permission 14/0104/CWMAJW, there probably have been times when the disputed conditions have been breached.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/T1600/W/18/3207814

The AONB

8. Access to the quarry is along a lane (the lane). Whilst the lane continues to the south, its long, narrow, winding nature coupled with the sharp turn at the site entrance mean it is most unlikely a significant number of lorries would approach from or leave in that direction. Indeed, a condition requires a sign to be present to reinforce this. However, to the north after a short distance the lane meets the B4077. This runs east/west and although only a ‘B’ road it is identified as a District Link in Gloucestershire’s Local Transport Plan 2015- 2031. It is therefore the main road to serve this area of the County and provide ready access to the wider road network. Cotswold Hill Quarry is not the only quarry whose lorries use this stretch of the B4077, as there are a number of others nearby. Much of the traffic to and from those will also pass along this section of road as it links to the motorway and some of the nearest large urban areas. No doubt partly with this in mind, the Local Transport Plan accepts that the B4077 will carry some freight traffic.

9. The appeal site, this length of the B4077 and the other quarries nearby all lie within the AONB. In this area great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing its landscape and scenic beauty, which is enjoyed alike by local residents, visitors, those who work there and those passing through. In this regard the main area of concern was about the effect of the proposal on tranquillity, arising partly from any increase in heavy traffic in the area, and partly from the noise of individual lorries as, for example, they labour up hills. I consider that the tranquillity of this quiet, rural area is an important dimension of conserving and enhancing its landscape and scenic beauty, and this was not refuted by the appellant.

10. Policy 37 in the Gloucestershire Waste Local Plan says waste proposals should be determined taking into account the environment and the countryside, while Policy WCS14 in the Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy accepts waste development in the AONB only if its impact can be satisfactorily mitigated. Policy CE4 in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2018-2023 by the Cotswolds Conservation Board (CCB) also aims to avoid and reduce noise pollution in the AONB. This document does not form part of the development plan, and so in that regard I cannot afford it the same weight as the Core Strategy or Local Plan. However, insofar as it gives clear guidance from the CCB concerning development in the AONB it is informative in reaching my decision.

11. The appellant is seeking to operate in non-compliance with the disputed conditions. The application proposed no alternative thresholds concerning lorry movements. At the Hearing though the appellant expressed a willingness for a condition similar to disputed Condition 3 to be imposed to allow up to 150 movements a week, as that would be expected to be its upper limit. However, the Council, the CCB and local residents contended that by lifting the restrictions totally or imposing the revised movements suggested by the appellant, the lorry traffic that could travel to and from the site over certain shorter periods could cause unacceptable noise, for those short periods only, that would undermine this sense of tranquillity.

12. I understand that the CCB has expressed concern over the years about harm to tranquillity in the AONB, and to this end it has recently introduced an

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/T1600/W/18/3207814

assessment methodology for the impact of lorry traffic in its position statement entitled Tranquillity (dated June 2019). In this it says

‘it can be argued that an increase traffic flows – or HGV numbers – of more than 10% is likely to be significant and have an adverse impact on the tranquillity of the Cotswolds AONB’.

Like the Management Plan this position statement does not form part of the development plan and has not been subject to extensive consultation. Consequently, in that regard I cannot afford it the weight I would attach to a development plan document, but again I acknowledge it is informative.

13. As a starting point, the amount of material, and hence the number of lorry movements, that can come to the quarry is limited as the quarry size is finite and only so much waste can be accommodated within the approved restoration scheme. Furthermore, the appellant made clear that it was addressing restoration in a sequential, phased manner, by restoring areas of the quarry that had become exhausted while other parts of the quarry were still being worked. As a result, even if development was allowed in non-compliance with both disputed conditions, the amount of waste that can be brought into the site is limited by the need to maintain a workable quarrying operation.

14. In terms of the specific impact of the additional traffic, I was told by the CCB representative that the increase in 10% referred to its position statement concerns an increase in flows on adjacent roads rather than the increase from a particular site. However, this figure is based on a ‘rule of thumb’ provided in the Institute of Environmental Assessment’s Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (the IEA Guidelines). Moreover, even in the position statement it is a qualified figure, as it states ‘it can be argued…[the effect] is likely to be significant’. I am also unaware of the geographical boundaries on which I should rely to assess this impact, which the IEA Guidelines says are an ‘important prerequisite’ of such an assessment. Finally, I have no specific details as to whether the proposal would result in increases of this magnitude over the timeframe that such traffic flows should be measured.

15. Putting these areas of uncertainty over the CCB’s figure to one side, by deleting the disputed Condition 3 there is the potential for an increase in lorry movements. This would cause some additional noise as there would be more lorries travelling in the vicinity. However, this increase would not be constant but would be periodic to cope with specific contracts and available capacity. Furthermore, I was given no specific evidence from either side in relation to noise levels or the amount of lorry and road traffic in the vicinity against which to benchmark any change. Indeed, I am also aware that other quarries nearby have either more permissive conditions or indeed no controls at all, and so could increase lorry movements along this road without any breach of planning control. Therefore, noting the status of the B4077 in the road hierarchy, I cannot be confident that the additional traffic that would result from the proposal would cause an unacceptable harm to tranquillity over and above what is now experienced, or would exceed the CCB’s 10% threshold.

16. In allowing the previous appeal the Inspector said that the noise and disturbance of the traffic connected with the normal operation of the appeal site would be indistinguishable from that generated by the normal flow of traffic on the B4077. Whilst the Council contended that there is now more traffic in the area, that statement was unsubstantiated and does not necessarily lead me

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/T1600/W/18/3207814

to find the proposal before me would cause harm. In any event, if there has been an increase in traffic it would mean there is less chance the proposal would exceed the CCB’s 10% figure.

17. I am aware that some 12 years ago there had been issues arising from the traffic associated with the importation of 70,000 tonnes or so of waste over a relatively short period. However, if only 300,0000 tonnes of waste can be imported (some of which is already on site) and if the ability to continue quarrying is to remain, I consider there is little likelihood of such a scale of waste being imported in the future.

18. A specific concern was raised about noise caused by lorries queuing on the B4077 as they waited to turn down the narrow lane to the quarry. However, given the size of the quarry I anticipate that even if such a situation occurred it would happen only rarely and it would be for a short time. Consequently, it would not have a material effect on the AONB.

19. A further concern in the Reasons for Refusal that was raised by the CCB related to the adverse visual effect that the increased traffic would have on the AONB. Again, whilst undoubtedly there would be the potential for more lorries to be seen from time to time, given the character of the B4077 and its existing usage I have no basis to consider this impact would be sufficient to harm the AONB’s landscape and scenic beauty.

20. I have had regard to the emerging Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032 and the stage this has reached, with the publication of the Main Modifications, means it should now be afforded significant weight. However, whilst I have noted the proposed wording of various policies, these do not lead me to different findings when compared to the policies in the adopted development plan.

21. As such, I conclude it has not been demonstrated that the impact of development in non-compliance with the disputed conditions would affect the tranquillity of the area in a manner that failed to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB. As such, in this regard the proposal would not conflict with Policy 37 in the Local Plan, Core Strategy Policy WCS14, or, insofar as it is a material consideration, Policy CE4 in the Management Plan.

Living conditions

22. No residents live immediately next to the site or along the lane as it runs up to the B4077. However, there are houses along the B4077, about 1-1.25km to the west at the top of Stanway Hill and at Upper Coscombe, and to the east where the road passes through Ford village.

23. The effect of lorry movements on noise experienced within a dwelling is different to that affecting a landscape, as it is very much a consequence of the characteristics of the road as it passes the property, and the effect of traffic during anti-social hours is more acute. Again though as stated above I have no clear benchmarks of noise or vehicle movements against which to measure the effect of this proposal, especially as I am aware the road is used by lorries connected with other quarries in the locality. It is also fair to assume that, over time, any extra traffic would not all go one way or the other along the B4077, but rather would be split between the 2 directions, thereby reducing any impact. The evidence before me therefore does not demonstrate that the

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/T1600/W/18/3207814

proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of residents along the B4077.

24. A specific concern was with regard to noise from lorries travelling before 0700h each morning. However, as the site is allowed to operate from that time it is not unreasonable that lorries should be using the roads in the area beforehand.

25. I am aware that some of the local residents considered any increase in lorry movements to be unacceptable. However, I do not agree that unacceptable harm would automatically arise from an increase when compared to the existing situation. In any event, as stated above other quarries nearby could increase lorry movements on the B4077 without any breach of planning control. As such, this contention from local residents is not a basis on which I can dismiss the appeal.

26. Concern was also raised too about increased fumes but again I have no specific evidence to show this would be a problem.

27. Accordingly, on the evidence before me I conclude that the proposal would not adversely affect the living conditions of residents along the B4077, and so in this regard would not conflict with Local Plan Policy 37.

The need for the absolute waste limit in disputed Condition 4

28. This condition sets a maximum limit of 300,000 tonnes of waste that can be imported in order to achieve the restoration scheme approved. Although this amount of waste is an informed estimate as to how much is needed for those works, it may not be enough (due to increased extraction), or it may be too much (because more quarry debris than expected was retained). As such, I accept it may not sit comfortably with Condition 2 that requires compliance with the proposed restoration contours. However, Condition 2 does not explicitly cap the amount of waste that could be imported, and to this end I consider a condition imposing a limit, even if it has to be varied in the future, is reasonable.

29. I therefore conclude that the reference to 300,000 tonnes in disputed Condition 4 is necessary.

Other matters

30. Concern was raised about lorries passing along narrow roads, thereby compromising the safety of pedestrians, horse riders and on-coming traffic. However, once on the B4077 I have no reason to consider the lorries would deviate onto more minor roads unless they provided the final approach to a destination. In the light of this, and mindful of the status of the B4077 in the Local Transport Plan, I consider any effect on highway safety, either from vehicles passing along its length or from use of the junctions on the road, would not be unacceptable.

31. It was also contended that the lorries were driven too fast, too aggressively and in ways that were inappropriate for the road network. These concerns though did not necessarily relate to drivers associated with this site. It was also a matter of driver-management and practice, and so did not affect the planning merits of this case.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/T1600/W/18/3207814

32. A Unilateral Undertaking was imposed on permission 14/0104/CWMAJW. However, no details of that have been presented to me and so its requirements have not been given any weight in my decision. In any event, the parties assured me the Undertaking would still be applicable even if I were to allow this appeal.

33. Some concerns were raised about the operation of the site (such as mud on the road and the use of the wheel wash) that seem to rely more on the enforcement of conditions than affect the planning merits of this case.

34. Finally, I have concerns about how the disputed Condition 3 addresses ‘backloading’, its basis for the maximum figures it contains and how the maximum lorry movements can be accommodated within a rolling 4-week average. Given my findings though these are not matters I need to examine further.

Conditions

35. In the light of the above, I accept that the development can be undertaken in non-compliance with disputed Condition 3. I am not satisfied that limiting movements to 150 a week, as offered by the appellant, is justified as the figure was the maximum, and it has not been shown its imposition satisfies the necessary tests for conditions given in Government guidance. Moreover, given the lifting of stated restrictions on lorry movements there is no basis to limit the monthly importation of waste found in disputed Condition 4. The absolute limit given in that condition though is still justified.

36. Turning to the other conditions on permission 14/0104/CWMAJW, as it has already commenced and as the appellant has already operated in non- compliance with the disputed conditions, there is no need to impose a commencement condition. However, the remaining 17 conditions on that permission should be re-imposed on this decision for the reasons previously stated, subject to various minor changes to account for specific details that have been approved and new legislation or guidance. Condition 8 should also be changed slightly to make clear that no servicing, maintenance and testing of plant shall be carried out at the site between 1800h on one day and 0700h on the following day.

Conclusions

37. For the reasons stated the appeal is allowed. J P Sargent

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/T1600/W/18/3207814

Conditions Schedule

1) Condition deleted

2) Unless varied by another condition of this consent, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted application form, Supporting Statement, Phase 1 Ecological Survey and Habitat Restoration Options Final Report, 12th February 2014, Stability Risk Assessment of the Proposed Landscape Quarry Restoration Concept, dated January 2014, Waste Recovery Plan (LB/2008C Final Feb 2014), Landscape Assessment, dated February 2014 and drawing references: SM/139/04 Rev A – Site Plan, dated 18th November 2014; SM/139/06 Rev A – Elevation of Proposed Retained Rock Face, dated 15th May 2015; 593-01 – Landscape Context Plan, dated 24.6.13; 593-02C – Landscape Visual Appraisal Plan, dated 11.2.14; 593- 03B – Landscape Restoration Proposals, dated 11.2.14; C56/3A – Restoration Surface, dated January 2014; 2008/Loc/01 – Location Plan, dated 19.2.2014; 2008/W1- Working and Restoration Progression Stage 1, (dated April 2014); 2008/W2- Working and Restoration Progression Stage 2, (dated April 2014); 2008/W3 - Working and Restoration Progression Stage 3 (dated April 2014); 2008/W4 - Working and Restoration Progression Stage 4 (dated April 2014).

3) Condition deleted

4) The total permitted quantity of inert soils, clays and inert construction waste including that previously deposited on the site shall not exceed 300,000 tonnes (200,000 cubic metres).

5) From the date of this permission the operator shall maintain records of all HGV movements to and from the site, associated with the conveyance of restoration material and shall make them available to the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority within 7 days of any written request. All records shall be kept for at least 48 months.

6) The Materials Acceptance Protocol dated 19th January 2016, approved on 31st October 2016 for the reception of imported infill shall be implemented as approved for the duration of the development.

7) Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2, class A and B and Part 7, class L of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order amending, replacing or re-enacting that order), no gate, wall or means of enclosure, means of access on any part of the quarry and extension, alteration of a building or installation of replacement plant or machinery without planning approval from the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority.

8) Except in emergencies where operations are required to protect life, limb or property, or unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority, operations (including the manoeuvring, loading or unloading of vehicles) shall only take place between the hours of: 0700h - 1800h Monday to Friday 0700h - 1400h Saturday.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/T1600/W/18/3207814

No servicing, maintenance and testing of plant shall be carried out at the site between 1800h on one day and 0700h on the following day. There shall be no working on Sundays, Local, Bank or National Holidays.

9) The wheel wash approved on 31st October 2016 shall be implemented and maintained for the duration of the development.

10)The access road surfaced in a permanent bound material from the metalled public highway up to the wheel cleaning area and surface water drainage approved on 31st October 2016 shall be maintained for the duration of works on site.

11)A sign shall be maintained at the quarry exit requesting that all quarry traffic turn right onto route C105 and proceed north east to the B4077 for the duration of the development of the site.

12)No commercial vehicles shall enter the public highway unless their wheels and chassis have been cleaned to prevent material being deposited on the highway.

13)No mud or debris from this development shall be deposited on the public highway.

14)The authorised operations shall be so conducted that noise emitted from the site shall not exceed 65dB(A) expressed as 1 hour Leq between the hours of 0700h and 1800h on Monday to Friday and 0700h to 1400h on Saturdays as measured at any boundary of the site with the microphone at a height of 1.2 metres above ground level.

15)No materials shall be burnt at site at any time.

16)The operator shall provide, implement and maintain effective measures to minimise the emission and propagation of dust from the infilling operations beyond the site boundaries.

17)No topsoil or subsoil shall be handled except when the soils and the ground are in a dry and friable condition.

18)A Biodiversity and Geodiversity Mitigation Scheme for the Retained Cliff and Viewing Platform approved on 30th March 2017 which includes details of appropriate measures for mitigation, maintenance, monitoring and contingency for the protection peregrine falcons and maintenance of exposure of important geological strata shall be implemented as approved by the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority. Any modifications to the approved details for example as a result of requirements of a protected species and/or safety shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority.

19)No later than 10 years from the commencement of the development, a detailed Restoration and Aftercare Management Scheme based on the Biodiversity and Geodiversity Mitigation Scheme for the Retained Cliff and Viewing Platform submitted under separate condition, Restoration Drawings C56/3A dated January 2014 and 593-03B dated August 2013, the Ecology

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/T1600/W/18/3207814

Final Report dated February 2014 shall be submitted to and approved by the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall include:

a) A summary of all restoration and aftercare processes in progress or to be completed across the whole quarry site; b) The purpose, aims and objectives for the restoration and aftercare of the quarry site; c) Selection of appropriate measures (including establishment, enhancement, natural regeneration and after-care) for achieving the aims and objectives of restoration and aftercare for maintaining or introducing calcareous grassland, exposed cliff faces, woodland, scrub, hedgerows and patches of bare ground; d) Details for ground forming, soil, substrate, mineral, rock preparation and habitat and species establishment; e) Extent and location of proposed restoration and aftercare works and measures shown on an appropriate scale plan; f) Sources of, if required, soil forming materials and planting stock; g) Continuing provisions for supporting protected nesting birds on the retained cliff face or faces; h) Continuing provisions for access to important geological strata and rocks without disturbing protected wildlife; i) Timing of the restoration operations in relation to the final working out of the quarry site overall; j) Prescriptions and programme for initial aftercare of 5 years and outline of long term management thereafter; k) Proposals for monitoring the success of all restoration works; l) The organisation, body or personnel responsible for the works; The Restoration and Aftercare Management Scheme shall also include details of any ownership, tenancy, legal and funding mechanisms by which the long- term management will be secured. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

20)All plant, machinery and structures associated with this development shall be removed from the site by no later than 22 February 2042 or upon the earlier completion of quarrying and restoration of the site.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/T1600/W/18/3207814

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr T Beeston Cotswold Stone & Masonry Limited Ms L Binnie Agent Ms J Bridge Cotswold Stone & Masonry Limited Mr P Martin Smiths (Gloucester) Limited Mr P Smith Smiths (Gloucester) Limited

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY (GCC):

Mr N Beighton GCC Senior Planner Monitoring & Compliance Mr A Birchley GCC Enforcement Officer Ms S Pearse GCC Principal Planning Officer Ms L Townsend GCC Senior Planner

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Mrs J Ewart-Perks Local resident Cllr S Gower Parish Councillor, Temple Guiting Parish Council Mr J Mills Planning and Landscape Officer with the Cotswolds Conservation Board Cllr N Mour County Councillor, Stow Division Mr D Sandy Local resident Ms R Waller Clerk to Upper Slaughter & Temple Guiting Parish Councils

DOCUMENTS

1 Cotswolds Conservation Board Position Statement Tranquillity and Dark Skies (October 2010) submitted by the appellant 2 Officer Report for application 18/0066/CWMAJM concerning Stanleys Quarry, Greenway Road, Blockley, Gloucestershire submitted by the appellant 3 Relevant Main Modifications from the emerging Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032 submitted by the Council 4 Report addressing quarry development and restoration issues associated with planning permission 08/0061/CWMAJM submitted by the Council 5 Cotswolds Conservation Board Position Statement Tranquillity (June 2019) submitted by the CCB. 6 Institute of Environmental Assessment’s Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic submitted by the CCB 7 Supplementary Statement on behalf of the appellant response to the Cotswold Conservation Board Tranquillity Position Statement submitted by the appellant

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11