PLANNING COMMITTEE 10.00 am
THURSDAY 18 MARCH 2021
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED REMOTELY AND CAN BE VIEWED VIA: WWW.GLOUCESTERSHIRE.GOV.UK
MEETING PAPERS
PLANNING COMMITTEE
TIME: 10.00 am DATE: Thursday 18 March 2021 VENUE: Remote Meeting
A G E N D A
ITEM TOPIC CONTACT
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Andrea Griffiths
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Andrea Griffiths
3. PUBLIC QUESTIONS Andrea Griffiths To answer any written public questions about matters which are within the powers and duties of the Committee.
The closing date/time for the receipt of questions is 10am on Thursday 11th March 2021.
4. MEMBERS' QUESTIONS Andrea Griffiths To answer any written members’ questions about matters which are within the powers and duties of the Committee.
The closing date/time for the receipt of questions is 10.00am on Thursday 11th March 2021.
5. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING (Pages 1 - 44) Andrea Griffiths The Committee is asked to approve the minutes of the previous meeting 10th September 2020.
6. APPLICATION NO: 20/0032/CHR3MJ SITE: LAND BETWEEN Sarah Pearse FARM LANE/KIDNAPPERS LANE, CHELTENHAM, GLOS (Pages 45 - 98) The Committee is asked to consider the variation of condition 2 (Scope of the Development) relating to planning consent 19/0058/CHR3MJ dated 21/07/2020 [for construction of a new 6 forms of entry secondary school building, with a new all-weather pitch, sports playing fields, a multi-use games area, onsite parking and other associated works]. Substitution of revised plans to show increased number of photovoltaic cells and a minor amendment to the proposed external compound within the grounds of the school.
7. APPLICATION NO:18/0065/CWMAJM (NAUNTON QUARRY). Nick Bainton SITE: BREEDON (NAUNTON) QUARRY, BUCKLE STREET, NAUNTON, GLOUCESTERSHIRE. (Pages 99 - 178) The Committee is asked to consider a Southern extension including revision to the consented working arrangements with restoration to a combination of agricultural, nature conservation & geological interest.
NOTES
MEMBERSHIP –Cllr Phil Awford, Cllr Robert Bird, Cllr David Brown, Cllr Dr John Cordwell, Cllr Bernard Fisher, Cllr Terry Hale, Cllr Stephen Hirst, Cllr Graham Morgan, Cllr Shaun Parsons, Cllr Alan Preest, Cllr Steve Robinson, Cllr Pam Tracey MBE, Cllr Robert Vines, Cllr Simon Wheeler and Cllr Will Windsor- Clive (a) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST – Members requiring advice or clarification about whether to make a declaration of interest are invited to contact the Monitoring Officer: Rob Ayliffe e-mail: [email protected] prior to the commencement of the meeting.
(b) INSPECTION OF PAPERS AND GENERAL QUERIES - If you wish to inspect reports relating to any item on this Agenda or have any other general queries about the meeting, please contact AndreaGriffiths, Democratic Services Unit : 01452 324206 / e-mail: [email protected]
(c) TRAINING/SUBSTITUTION – All members must have received training before they can sit on the Committee and take part in discussion and vote. Substitution arrangements are as set out in the Constitution. Agenda Item 5
PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Thursday 10 September 2020 commencing at 10.00 am.
PRESENT MEMBERSHIP: Cllr Phil Awford Cllr Graham Morgan (Chairman) Cllr Shaun Parsons Cllr Robert Bird Cllr Alan Preest Cllr David Brown Cllr Steve Robinson Cllr Dr John Cordwell Cllr Pam Tracey MBE Cllr Bernard Fisher Cllr Robert Vines Cllr Terry Hale Cllr Stephen Hirst
Apologies: Cllr Simon Wheeler and Cllr Will Windsor-Clive
23. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Awford declared he represented GCC on the Wessex & Severn and Wye Regional Flood Coastal Defence Committees.
Councillor Vines declared he had professional dealings with Allstones and would remove himself from the meeting for the Allstones application (20/003/GLMAJW).
Councillor Hirst declared that he had been involved with the Parish Council in relation to the Babdown application (19/0018/CWMAJW) and would therefore remove himself from the meeting for that application.
Councillor Parsons declared in relation to the Loaders Barn application (19/0089/CMAJM), that he was a member of the Cotswold Conservation Board (CCB) and would remove himself from the meeting for that application.
24. PUBLIC QUESTIONS
No public questions were received.
25. MEMBERS' QUESTIONS
No Member’s questions were received.
26. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
- 1 -
Page 1 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Councillor Cordwell had submitted some minor amendments to the Minutes, and subject to those being made it was agreed that the Minutes would be approved.
Resolved
That the Minutes of the meeting held 9th July 2020 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the suggested amendments.
27. APPLICATION NO: 20/0003/GLMAJW SITE: ALLSTONES SAND & GRAVEL CENTRE, LAND OFF MYERS ROAD, GLOUCESTER GL1 3QD
The Head of Democratic Services facilitated the meeting and advised the Committee and registered speakers of the procedure which would be undertaken during the course of the virtual meeting. For the benefit of the public watching via the live YouTube link the following Officers were introduced: Linda Townsend: Senior Planning Officer for the current application, Nick Bainton: Senior Planning Officer, Denis Canney: Senior Planning Officer, Sarah Pearse: Principal Planning Officer, Kevin Phillips: Planning Development Team Manager, Simon Excell: Lead Commissioner, Carrie Denness: Principal Lawyer and Martin Evans: Solicitor.
The facilitator introduced the following Technical Advisors: Nick Rowson: Atkins, Gary Kennison: County Ecologist, Stephen Hawley and Matthew Prince: Highways Development Management, Adam Lawrence, Atkins.
A summary of the application was presented by Linda Townsend, Senior Planning Officer aided by a PowerPoint presentation.
It was explained that a planning application has been made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 seeking to vary 6 planning conditions on the current planning permission 07/0081/GLMAJW which controls how the site should operate as a waste transfer station. The proposal arose out of the changes the applicant had already made to the operational aspects of the business in order to improve efficiency of waste recovery and reduce manual handling.
The application site had approval to accept up to 75,000 tonnes of waste a year of household, commercial and industrial wastes such as soil, wood, plastic, ferrous and non ferrous metal waste which was sorted by type, bulked up on site and then transported for reprocessing elsewhere or landfilling of residual waste. No change was proposed to the amount or to the type of wastes accepted on the site.
The Case Officer reported that following the public consultation on the proposals, six objections had been received from local residents to which the local County Councillor had raised his own concerns. The issues raised in these objections related primarily to the loss of amenity, particularly from noise and dust from waste operations as well as impact on the highway. There were no objections from the statutory consultees. The Case Officer referred to a late representation received from one of the objectors, it was noted that this had been circulated along with the Officers response to Members prior to the Committee meeting. The officer asked if the item could be taken as read, given a mixed response the Chairman decided to
- 2 -
Page 2 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
call for a brief adjournment after the officer presentation had concluded to allow members sufficient time to read them in detail.
Members were advised at slide 2, that the following corrections needed to be made to the report. These were noted as: - Paragraph 1.2: “initially” on 5th line had been misspelt and the words “are directed” had been omitted after “different waste streams” on the 7th line. - Paragraph 1.4: the word “is” should be replaced by “are” after “Materials” on the fourth line. - Paragraph 2.3: in Existing Condition 2 “with” in third line should be “within” and this also applied to Condition 2 of the recommended conditions in Section 8.0. - The reason for condition 17 in Section 8.0 needed to follow the amended condition and not before it.
Slide 3 detailed the application site, it was noted that it was located 1km south-east of Gloucester city centre. This elongated site lay to the north of the Cheltenham to Gloucester railway line and to the northwest of an area of land known as the Railway Triangle. Eastern Avenue was over 500 metres to the east and Metz Way was 75 metres to the south. The application site was accessed from Myers Road via Horton Road which was approximately 180 metres from the western end of the site.
The Case Officer reported that only the 0.8 ha application site had planning permission for a waste transfer operation, it formed part of the applicant’s much larger landholding to the east and west. Members were reminded of the approval of a renewal of a temporary planning consent at the January 2020 meeting for inert waste recycling on the 1.89 ha tear drop shaped site at the western end of the site. Other land in the applicant’s control was used for the storage and sale of sand and aggregates, skip storage and also a concrete batching plant operated by Breedons.
Slide 4 gave an aerial view of the Allstone site entrance onto Myers Road, leading off Horton Road. It was noted that Morrisons Supermarket, was accessed off Metz Way. Gloucester Royal Hospital was located to the west of Horton Road. The residential area known as Swallow Park was located to the north west of the application, while Armscroft Park estate lies to the north east. The area of public open space to the north of the site was also known as Armscroft Park, this was used by the Gloucester Old Boys Rugby Club. The Rugby Clubhouse and its car park were adjacent to the northern boundary of the application site. The Clubhouse and car park were reached by a long access road, from Myers Road. The access road runs along the northern boundary of the adjacent part of Allstones site and separates it from the rear gardens of dwellings on Norman Ball Way on Swallow Park. Wotton Brook runs along the eastern side of Armscroft Park within 34 metres of the eastern end of the application site, but the application site was not in the floodplain. The Brook was culverted under the railway line.
Slide 5 displayed the footprint of the Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) building which took up most of the application site, with the boundary following the northern and eastern walls of the building. The remaining part of the site comprised of the
- 3 -
Page 3 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
yard which wrapped around the south and west sides of the building. The proposal was to include the two areas shown hatched on the southern and western sides of the building for bulking up waste. The existing permission did not permit areas outside the MRF building to be used in connection with the waste transfer operation.
The Committee were asked to note that access to the application site was from its North West corner, leading to Allstones main site gates. A weighbridge was located close to the application site access in the north western corner of the application site. A one way traffic system operated around the northern, eastern then southern walls of the MRF building, allowing vehicles to exit the site by same access route.
The applicant sought to regularise the installation of ancillary structures. They include a modular building used as a canteen, a pedestrian gate to provide access to the Rugby Club car parking area to the north and backup generator which had been located along the northern site boundary of the application site. Two covered sand storage bays known as Zapp shelters had been installed along the southwestern and southern application site boundary.
It was explained that a two storey office building, located adjacent to the northern site boundary and the site access was granted permission on 24.07.20 under planning reference 20/0019/GLMAJW as the structure straddled the application site boundary.
This photograph on slide 6 showed the main site entrance gates from Myers Road. Slide 7 photograph showed the view looking back towards the entrance gates from within the application site. The site office and canteen building could be seen on the right and the edge of a Zapp shelter on the western site boundary could be seen to the left of the entrance to the application site.
Slide 8 through to slide 14 gave varying views of the site, including access points and the site boundaries.
Members were advised at slide 15, that the rugby club car park was accessed by a road which ran between the northern boundary of Allstones site and the rear gardens of properties on the Swallow Park estate. It was highlighted that there was security fencing on the northern boundary of Allstones site but this was not part of the application site. The nearest property to the application site was 14 Norman Ball Way which was 50 m to the NW and 32 Blinkshorn Bridge Lane was 75m to the E of the site.
The proposed amendment to the site layout on slide 16 included the use of an area of the yard outside the western doors of the MRF building for bulking up of waste to be taken off the site. Slide 17 displayed the second area outside of the MRF building proposed to be used for bulking wood waste and located outside of the door on the southern elevation.
The Committee were shown a floor plan with building elevations and advised that the applicant also sought approval for alterations which have been made to the
- 4 -
Page 4 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
MRF building, as detailed in slide 18. Three large electrically operated roller shutter doors have been added to the northern elevation while there are now four doors on the western elevation. These are shown at the top of the drawing.
The floor plan showed the layout inside the MRF building with the waste reception area at the western end and a large mechanised picking line at the centre of the building. Waste wood for shredding was stored in bays along the southern internal wall, by the southern door and plastic waste was stored in the north east corner by the eastern door. The northern doors provided access for vehicles removing soil fines, bagged sand and for overnight parking.
Slides 19 through to slide 23 gave an overview of the internal site operation within the building.
The Committee’s attention was drawn to slide 24 which displayed the centre of the MRF building, it showed the mechanised picking line where the employees worked within a climate controlled area. The employees picked off different materials from the conveyor, as it passed before them which were then dropped into the bays below, segregating and bulking up the different waste streams.
Slide 25 displayed the northern side of the picking plant and the red coloured conveyor system which allowed fine soils and particles to drop from the conveyor into the bays below before entering the enclosed picking station. The hopper shown to the left of the yellow walkway was used to bag sand which was loaded onto pallets and removed via the northern door.
Slide 26 revealed the view of the three new doors on the northern side of the building, looking towards the western end. The hopper/bagging machine could be seen in the foreground of the photograph.
Slide 27 showed where wood waste was shredded inside the building by the machine on the left of the photograph and removed by the southern door which could be seen on the right.
The photograph on slide 28 was taken by the eastern door of the building and showed some UPVC being bulked up in a storage bay and the end of the picking line. Side 29 showed the eastern elevation of the MRF building and was taken from the aggregate storage area which was not within the application site. The application site boundary follows the eastern wall of the MRF building. Measures such as keeping the outside yard clean and dampening down areas in dry weather are an important control measure set out in the dust suppression scheme which has been submitted for approval.
Members were advised on slide 31 that the existing planning permission was subject to a planning condition which limited noise from the application site to 55dB at the application site boundary. The applicant proposed to amend this condition to 55dB at the nearest residential receptor. The applicant recognised that the assessment of the impact of noise on the surrounding area would be an important
- 5 -
Page 5 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
consideration in this proposal. The applicant had commissioned noise consultants to prepare a noise impact assessment of their operations.
It was explained that Slide 31 taken from the appendix of the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) shows the noise contour plan around the MRF building. This shows the 50 – 55db noise contour in brown and that residential properties to the north and east of the site should not be adversely affected by noise. Given the results of the noise survey, a revised noise limit of 47dB had been agreed at the nearest dwellings.
The Case Officer advised Members that in addition to the NIA, the applicant’s noise consultants prepared a Noise Management Plan which sets out a number of noise mitigation measures which would assist in reducing the impact of noise from operations on the site. These included the use of an automatic door opening and closing system particularly for doors along the northern and eastern elevations so they were open for the minimum time necessary to allow a vehicle to pass through. Other mitigation related to good site management, loading and unloading of vehicles and turning off of engines whilst vehicles were waiting.
The committee were advised that an important aspect of the Noise Management Plan (NMP) was the applicant's commitment to undertake an annual noise survey of the site or more frequently in case of noise complaint. The agreed noise monitoring locations were shown on slide 32 and would form part of a planning condition which would allow the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) to monitor compliance.
The Case Officer referred to slide 33, which detailed the main issue raised in the determination of this application related to concerns about noise and dust on the amenity on neighbouring residential properties. The applicant submitted information in the form of a Noise Impact Assessment and Noise Management Plan which had satisfied the Council’s technical advisor and the statutory consultees that the recycling operation could be carried out without adverse impact on residential amenity. Details of a scheme to control air quality had satisfied the City Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO).
The Case Officer reported that to improve clarity and hopefully compliance, all the planning conditions of the previous planning permission had been reviewed and the amendments were shown in Section 8.0 of the report in bold and underlined to show revised wording proposed by the applicant and the WPA. Strikethrough showed the deleted text. An additional planning condition related to the setting up of a site liaison group had been recommended to mirror that imposed on the adjacent inert waste recycling site under temporary permission reference19/0070/GLMAJW.
In addition, the case officer recommended the following small amendments to the planning conditions which appear in the report: these were noted as follows: - Condition 2 : “The development herby permitted shall be carried out within the site edged red with a continuous line on the site location plan.”
- 6 -
Page 6 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- Condition 7: “The doors on the north and east elevations shall not be used for bulking out purposes and shall only be used for the following operational purposes. Those associated with the north door of the MRF building to be: removal of bagged aggregates; removal of fine soils; overnight parking of vehicles.” - Condition 11: “If after any 9 month period it seems that the annual limit may be exceeded, measures to reduce the rate of throughput for the immediately following 12 month period shall be agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.”
The Case Officer concluded that, given the lack of material planning reasons why permission should not be granted; subject to the inclusion of the revisions to the recommended planning conditions in section 8.0, the Case Officer was of the opinion that the operator could address the concerns raised by the public, provided that all the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant were adhered to. The granting of permission to vary planning consent 07/0081 was therefore recommended.
The Chairman reminded Members of the late representation which had been mentioned at the start of the Case Officer’s presentation and which had been circulated the day before to Members of the committee via email. It was noted this representation made a number of detailed comments and posed questions and as not all Members had had the opportunity to read it, the Chairman called for a brief adjournment at 10:45am, to enable members to read the representation and response. The Committee Clerk confirmed that a copy of this email had also been sent to the registered speakers and County Councillor for information.
The Committee reconvened at 10:50am, the Chairman confirmed with members of the Committee that they had read the late representation and officer response.
The Chairman invited the registered speaks to address the Committee. The facilitator recapped the order of speakers for the benefit of the public watching via YouTube.
Mrs Theresa Leather (objecting): “Good Morning Chair and Committee
Firstly let me introduce myself.
My name is Theresa Leather and my family moved onto the Armscroft Estate 60 years ago. I grew up here until I left for University but have spent some years living overseas, returning every summer to visit the family. I have recently returned to live in the family home to renovate it after my parents passed away. Sadly it is a project that I am beginning to regret. A lot of time and money has been spent on refurbishing and I have noticed an increase in the size of the Allstones plant and its impact on the community. The noise, dust and smell that resonate from the facility is absolutely not acceptable.
- 7 -
Page 7 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
As I came back to Gloucester to retire I have since discovered that I can only appreciate my home on a Saturday afternoon and Sunday when the'' banging and clanking'' and dust in the air has stopped. The last August Bank Holiday of two and a half days was so pleasant and peaceful! From my point of view it is all too evident that the plant has become far too big, situated between two residential areas, the doctor's surgery, the hospital and most importantly the school in Horton Road. An accident waiting to happen judging by the way the lorries laden with skips race up and down the road. The traffic was horrendous yesterday.
Furthermore some families have had to make the decision to move away to avoid the disruption and others worry about selling their existing houses. '' Would you want to move into an area that is noisy, dusty and at times very smelly?'' Potential newcomers have been discouraged!!
What's more who knows what the dust is causing to people's health? In my road alone we have cancer recovering patients, throat and asthmatic problems. Residents are constantly cleaning their cars and windows, the list goes on and on.
So my burning questions are; Why are you continually allowing Mr Ford to violate the rules and conditions and make peoples lives a misery, many who have given up complaining and I quote ''What's the point, the council aren't interested and won't do anything'' ?I hasten to add that was not a very reassuring comment for a returning native to hear.
Why does he seek planning permission on his site, after a job has already been completed?
Why does he monopolize the Old Boys car park so that dog walkers have to look elsewhere to park? He clearly has enough room for his employees to park inside! You’ve seen the pictures.
Why do you feel that without informing the residents that he can take it upon himself to work on a Sunday morning 6th September? When approached to ask the question, ''Why are you working on a Sunday morning'', he wouldn't reply and fled in away his Range Rover! As a result of his annoyance of being caught out, he most certainly retaliated over the last few days as the increased noise level had to be reported to the Environmental Agency again and the smell was overpowering. I liken it to a pig farm. Does anyone ever monitor this site?
Why can noise be heard at least if not more than thirty minutes before they are due to start at 7.30am? Especially the motorbike that arrives at exactly 6:25am every morning.
Why is recycling in what was once a beautiful sort after area, so important above the well being of the residents who live in such close proximity.? After another fraught call to the Allstone office I was assured that they are planning to move out but are waiting on you the council to find them a new site. How long does it take?
- 8 -
Page 8 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Surely it is time to do something deserving for the Armscroft and Swallow Park communities that have had enough over the years and move them out ASAP.
And lastly I find it very demoralizing that a few people should dictate the environment in which residents live especially when they themselves have not experienced it first hand. Come and live in our houses.
To conclude ;This is an age old complaint which my late father battled with for years, on behalf of the Armscroft community before he died. And like him, whilst I have no disregard whatsoever for the service that the facility offers it should simply NOT be where it presently is, end of. A new location outside of the city must surely be a cleaner and safer option for all concerned. Thank you for your time and listening.”
Mrs Valerie Gannon (objecting): “Good Morning Chair/Committee.
As stated previously I am up everyday at 06.00. I witness the MRF building open, lorries leaving the site with empty skips, entering the site with waste and hear the racket from the reversing vehicles and loader. The PMO on an unannounced visit found no breach of opening times and the afore-mentioned processes are not deemed operations-unbelievable.
You spend a lot of time in your report looking at the impact of noise and how it doesn’t exceed certain decibels.
My analogy for noise would be chronic pain. The pain initially is manageable but due to the consistent nature eventually it has a major impact on well-being. This would explain why 10% of suicides are due to chronic pain.
You allude to the cumulative effect on a community’s well-being and that there should be engagement with the local communities to understand and mitigate this- when has the applicant ever approached the community?
I rang Allstones on the 10th April (Good Friday) to ask why they were working that day. I explained that it was my first day off for several weeks as I am a nurse manager at the hospital. I was told that they had permission to work the Friday bank holidays- a direct lie. So I informed them I would ring the council on Tuesday to confirm this. The call ended. I was then rang back by a person called Richard who was very aggressive and accused me of ‘you know more about our company than we do’ for the first time I am in agreement with this company. I live and breathe it, not metaphorically, literally. He then proceeded to tell me to f*** off four times before putting the phone down- Very professional, very engaging.
You have recommended to allow the bulking out and receipt of waste to be carried out at the West Door. This will mean those doors continually open but officers have decided it won’t have any further impact. Have you witnessed the bulking out of waste into the large containers? No amount of sprinklers will suppress the dust and debris flying about during that procedure.
- 9 -
Page 9 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
We cannot understand how 12 years ago when the amount of waste coming in was a lot less it was deemed by one of your officers not appropriate for the west doors to be open due to the local amenity-actually I prefer to call it a housing estate, it adds in the human factor so we cannot understand why now you recommend that not only can the doors be open but the majority of the operations will happen at the west doors. Amazingly these doors are metres away from a play area.
The south doors will have the ‘noisy’ bulking out of wood, but its okay everybody because the building will be a barrier. So what is the barrier for the west doors? Our homes presumably.
Why was no enforcement taken about the doors that were cut in before they submitted their application, was it seen as too trivial a breach? And the canteen and the generator-there’s a theme here!!
He has stated that he has spent £100,000 on the roof isn’t that just good housekeeping to keep the building safe. And the automatic doors-well if he hadn’t cut the hole for the doors illegally he wouldn’t have needed the doors.
We have been trying to ascertain from the council who owns the Old Boys Car Park to no avail- again no transparency. Although cars park on it, it has dramatically changed. It has gone from being used for 10 hours a week for rugby training/matches with a locked gate in between for security to a car park for Allstone employees used for 62 hours a week with no locked gate. But it’s ok everybody as they have a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with the rugby club-remarkable.
CONCLUSION
As long as you reach your goal to increase recycling to 60% by 2020 across the county you’ll give yourselves a pat on the back, but you are not so concerned with how it’s done or who it impacts.
Thank you to the County Council, City Council and Environmental Agency for your total lack of support and spineless approach to dealing with this company. Thank you for listening.”
Mr Simon Ford (Applicant): “Thank you Mr Chairman.
My name is Simon Ford and I’m the Managing Director of Allstone.
Allstone is a family business that has traded in Gloucester since 1983. We are one of the largest independent sand and gravel and waste recycling businesses in the south-west.
We currently employ 71 people all from Gloucester, 2 of which are apprentices. Our policy has always been to continually reinvest in our business and our people.
- 10 -
Page 10 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
In the same way that the County Council have had to make changes to the way that they deal with their waste streams we have had to do exactly the same.
Our waste recycling business handles a variety of waste streams including construction and demolition wastes and our customer base spans both the public and private sectors.
Allstone contributes to both the National Waste Policy and the County Council’s sustainable waste management objectives as set out in the Adopted Waste Core Strategy. We recycle 98% of all of our waste streams.
The Planning Officer has clarified in her presentation what we are proposing. The changes proposed have been designed to increase efficiency and improve the safety of our employees.
Mr Chairman, our application has been recommended for planning permission by Officers and I would like to emphasise to Members of the Planning Committee that not one single objection has been made by any Statutory Consultee and this includes Gloucester City Council.
Members will see from the Committee Report that there are 8 pages dedicated to the question of noise. In a nutshell, no objection is raised by Atkins who have carefully evaluated all relevant noise matters.
Allstone has actively engaged in the multi Agency Liaison Group which has met approximately every 3 months and comprises of representatives of Allstone, GCC, the City Council and the Environment Agency. During that time, Allstone have invested over £180,000 on making changes in response to various matters that have been raised by the Liaison Group.
Over the course of the last 12 months only 4 complaints have been made and 3 of them had nothing to do with Allstone. Regrettably, we have experienced one persistent complainant who makes allegations about noise events which upon scrutiny of our CCTV systems have been found to be entirely spurious
I would like to emphasise to Members of the Planning Committee that our entire working area which covers both the inside of the building and all the external areas are covered by CCTV. Sadly, we have experienced one persistent complainant who makes allegations about noise events which upon scrutiny of our CCTV systems have been found to be entirely spurious.
Although we have experienced the lockdown period, our aggregates recycling business has remained open during that period and I can advise that not one single complaint has been made over 8 months.
At the January Planning Committee, the local Councillor made reference to the need for Allstone to relocate our business
On that matter, we have kept your Officers up to date on the efforts we have
- 11 -
Page 11 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
made to identify any suitable potential relocation sites. Setting aside the retained commercial Agent we have instructed, we have also written directly to the County Council’s Economic Development Team, the Director of Planning Policy at the County Council, the Local Enterprise Partnership, the Head of Planning Policy at the City Council and the Director of Regeneration at the City Council. Despite these efforts, no one has been able to pinpoint any potential opportunities for relocation.
It’s all well and good for our local Councillor to make comments about relocation but the reality is that this is a lot easier said than done.
In my view, all options for relocation should be on the table and that should include the County Council making provision in the forthcoming new Waste Local Plan.
In conclusion, we are a hard working local family business that has been established in the City for many years and we employ many local people. We have a track record of helping our local community.
Our planning application has been very carefully assessed by all of the professional Statutory Consultees and it has also been very carefully considered by your professional Officers. No objection has been raised to the acceptability of our planning application and we would respectfully ask that planning permission be granted.
Thank you for your time.”
It was noted that Councillor Preest had lost his live feed during the later part of Mrs Gannon’s presentation and part of the way through Mr Ford presentations. It was noted that Councillor Preest had re-joined the meeting, during the course of Mr Ford’s presentation Once Councillor Preest confirmed that he was present in the virtual meeting room, the Committee Clerk emailed him copies of the speeches for his due consideration.
County Councillor Jeremy Hilton (Speech summarised): Councillor Hilton explained that the Allstone site operated close to local resident’s homes and they had a reputation for not listening to local people. Cllr Hilton referred to Mr Ford’s statement in terms of looking for a new site outside of the city, he fully supported Mr Ford on that point but he felt it was a pity that the applicant had not copied him in as the local member to any correspondence to the statutory consultees as he felt he could of helped Allstones.
Councillor Hilton made reference to the fact that Allstone had already installed the building before applying for planning permission. He noted that a lot of money had been invested in the building but felt the process should be followed first. He stated the County Enforcement Officers were doing a better job, as the City Council and the EHO were not so quick to act in the past, hence local residents concerns.
- 12 -
Page 12 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Councillor Hilton informed the Committee that Conditions associated with this application were stronger o previous occasions, however the application still spoke of bulking waste outside of the main building. He asked officers if they believed the new conditions would make it easier for the County Enforcement Officer and others to enforce the conditions in terms of compliance.
With regard to the liaison group he had not been consulted and referred to his offer the January meeting to be involved in the group. He noted that this was a recommendation and not a requirement, he suggested that either himself, Cllr Howard Hyman or Cllr Emily Ryall as the local representatives should be included as part of the group as they understood what the local concerns were.
Councillor Hilton also referred to the amount of HGV vehicles waiting outside the homes of numbers 10,12 and 14 Norman Ball Way, in relation to the weighbridge. As lorries waited there and the noise and emissions from the engines impacted on their homes. It was noted that there was no screening at the weighbridge either. He felt that Allstones had not considered the impact on those residents who lived close by.
Councillor Hilton once again advised the Applicant that he was happy to help, and asked Mr Ford to copy him in to any future correspondence. He summarised by saying that he didn’t believe Allstones were actively looking for alternative sites outside of the city. Given there was planning permission on the site for houses, he thought Allstones should relocate and all parties would then be happy.
The Chairman asked Councillor Preest if he had read the emailed presentations and he was content to continue. Councillor Preest confirmed this was the case.
Public speakers were invited to remain in the virtual meeting if they wished to do so.
The Chairman invited questions from Members following the presentations Councillor Tracey wished to know if the application site was parallel with the railway line. The Case Officer confirmed that was the case and referred to the aerial photograph within the presentation for clarity.
Councillor Tracey questioned how many of the 71 staff parked in the Old Boys Rugby Club car park, she questioned the noise of the lorries, the condition of the road and also wished to know if the operating hours could change on a Saturday morning.
The Case Officer explained that she didn’t have the information available in terms of the number of individuals who parked in the rugby club car park, as that was not part of the application.
It was noted that a drivers briefing was part of the noise management plan and would require a briefing to be conducted before a visit to the site. It was noted that this was possibly an area that could be taken up via the liaison group.
- 13 -
Page 13 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
The Case Officer explained that in relation to the condition of Myers Road/Horton Road, there was no planning condition to seek a repair. Horton Road was due to be resurfaced in the next financial year and the highway manager was aware of the issues with Myers Road.
It was noted that possibly a later start time of 8:30 may be considered to be too late for the movement of loads.
At the Chairman’s discretion Mr Ford was asked if he could answer the question in relation to the number of staff who parked in the rugby club car park. Mr Ford explained that they had recently undertaken a cycle to work scheme, and some member of staff car shared, however he estimated 22 vehicles parked in the car park.
Councillor Brown questioned that lack of confidence by the local community and shared their concerns in relation to noise and wished to know where the play area was situated in relation to the application site. The Case Officer referred the aerial photograph in the earlier presentation to indicate the play area to the north of the rugby clubhouse.
Councillor Fisher questioned the procedure given that Councillor Preest had lost his connection during the presentations. Legal advice was sought from the Lawyer who confirmed that as Councillor Preest had read and digested the written submissions of the speakers he was in receipt of all the information that other Members had in respect of the application and she was satisfied that he could continue to participate in the meeting. Councillor Preest once again confirmed he had read and digested the speaker’s submissions.
Councillor Parsons questioned if asbestos was handled on site. The Case Officer advised the committee that she was not aware of any asbestos on the site and she had not seen any specialist facility on site either. The Chairman referred the question to the applicant. Mr Ford explained that they didn’t actively encourage it, however on occasion customers buried asbestos sheeting under other waste. In the event of asbestos being found the skip was placed in quarantine, the EHO was advised and the customer was contacted. In addition, staff had full PPE to deal with the situation.
Councillor Preest added that he had sympathy with the objectors and Allstones. He felt that Allstones were a local company that employed locally and supported the economy. He wondered if drivers had been given briefings on having consideration for the local residents and wished to know what the Local Authority were doing in terms of assisting Allstones to relocate. He referred to page 120 of the report, in relation to the site liaison group.
At this juncture the Committee Clerk advised the committee that it was not appropriate at this stage to ask further questions of the applicant. The Lawyer also confirmed the advice given, in that the applicant had the opportunity during his presentation to address the Committee in his allotted time frame. It was noted that
- 14 -
Page 14 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
it could be seen to be unfair by the objectors, to continue to ask questions of the applicant. The Committee were asked to consider the application before them.
The Case Officer explained that the terms of reference for the liaison group were yet to be finalised, especially in relation to representatives from the community and District Council representative. However, It was note that the review of the Waste Core Strategy was about to commence and that this may lead to more potential sites coming forward during consultation. The Lead Commissioner for Strategic Infrastructure was invited to comment on what assistance his department could give and he added that the Economic Development Team would assist where possible.
Councillor Hale questioned the sorting of materials and the noise generated in terms of decibels and the frequency. The Technical Advisor for Noise stated that in the outdoor environment noise levels varied for different sources and there were different frequencies.
Councillor Hale wished to know how many breeches had occurred against noise levels. The Lawyer advised the Committee that breeches were not part of the decision making process.
Councillor Cordwell asked for clarification of what could be amended in a Section 73 application. The case officer confirmed that the principle of development was already established, however, where there were planning conditions it was possible to change and remove these as long as this did not change the principle of the development permitted.
Councillor Preest once again confirmed that he was present and content at this stage.
At this juncture, the committee took a brief adjournment at 11:57am.
The Committee reconvened at 12:05pm and entered into debate.
Councillor Bird proposed to accept the officer’s recommendation, he referred to the points made and felt there were no fundamental reason not to allow the application. This motion was seconded by Councillor Parsons and Councillor Cordwell. Councillor Morgan was supportive of the proposal and for there to be a District representative on the liaison group. However he felt that once a year was not adequate to monitor the noise levels and requested that this be made more frequently.
Councillor Fisher concurred with Councillor Morgan’s point on monitoring and suggested this could be done remotely, in light of the current situation. Councillor Robinson was supportive of the conditions and the need for a district representative on the liaison group. He requested that the Lead Commissioner’s Team work with the applicant to seek an alternative site.
Councillor Parsons requested clarity in terms of amending the conditions in relation to noise. The Lawyer explained that he was looking outside of the remit of the
- 15 -
Page 15 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
application, it was noted that this was within the District Council’s Environmental Health Officers remit.
Councillor Hirst remarked that there were two weaknesses, one was in terms of the enforcement issues in terms of annual noise monitoring, and he felt this should be quarterly and the issue of screening of the weighbridge on site. The Lawyer reminded members that any noise or odour issues were for Gloucester City Council to investigate as the relevant environmental health authority. It was noted that GCC could write to advise Gloucester City Council that it would be beneficial to have a district representative on the liaison group.
Councillor Tracey queried the opening times again the Lawyer explained that was not within the proposal before the Committee for consideration.
The Lawyer explained that members needed to confirm if they accepted the proposed amendments that were highlighted by the Case Officer at the beginning of the presentation when confirming the recommendation. . Members confirmed they were content with the amended conditions.
Councillor Hirst referred to Condition 26 and the new site liaison group asking if the condition could be amended to state who must be party to the group, the Lawyer advised that the liaison group was lead by the operator directly and she was not minded to advise additional wording at this stage.
In terms of the liaison group and its membership, Members asked if the Case Officer could contact the District Authority on behalf of the WPA to request local representation. It was noted as the applicant was present at the meeting; he would undoubtedly be taking this point on board.
Councillor Cordwell referred to the amended conditions and sought clarification. The Case Officer confirmed those amended conditions would be included within the planning permission if granted.
Councillor Brown was disappointed that the Committee were unable to include a condition which related to the local representative in relation to the liaison group. The Case Officer explained that the liaison group were progressing with the terms of reference and this point would be taken up with the applicant.
The Case Officer stated that the liaison group was moving forward with the terms of reference.
The facilitator recapped that the Committee agreed the amended conditions and other matters raised relating to the noise monitoring, the site search and screening of the weighbridge and that these would be brought to the attention of the City Council.
On being put to the vote, the application was passed (10 in favour and 2 against).
The Planning Committee therefore:
- 16 -
Page 16 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Resolved That planning permission be granted for the reasons summarised in paragraphs 7.102 to 7.108 subject to the planning conditions recommended in Section 8.0 of the report as detailed in the presentation.
28. APPLICATION NO: 19/0018/CWMAJW SITE: BADDOWN INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BABDOWN AIRFIELD, TETBURY, GLOS GL8 8YL
Nick Bainton, Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that he had received a late representation and request in relation to Condition 26 (page 182 of the report) of the application. The request asked if the application were to be approved, could the proposed Condition be amended to: “A routeing and vehicle speed strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority within 3 months from the date of this permission in order to address local concerns in relation to the vehicle manoeuvres through Nailsworth, Beverston and Tetbury. The approved strategy shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the duration of the development”.
The late representation explained that the proposed changes would help to ensure that the effects of an approval on Nailsworth residents living on the A46 (in particular) were minimised, while ensuring the hard-won speed reduction measures that were due to implemented in Nailsworth in the near future are acknowledged and respected.
The Case Officer advised the Committee that the wording for this condition had been provided by the Highways Authority; therefore it was not within his gift to amend the wording. Also the speed of vehicles on the public highway network was an issue for the police.
It was noted that the Case Officer had requested the applicant to consider the inclusion of ‘Nailsworth’ within the routeing strategy required by Condition 26. A summary of the application was presented by Nick Bainton, Senior Planning Officer aided by a power point presentation. The Case Officer proceeded to the main presentation and explained the proposal before the Committee was a planning application by Valley Trading Limited for the variation of condition 8 (throughput) relating to planning consent 09/0036/CWMAJW dated 15/01/2010 to increase the annual throughput from 45,000 tonnes to 75,000 tonnes at Babdown Industrial Estate, Babdown Airfield, Beverston, nr Tetbury, Gloucestershire.
The Committee referred to the site location plan at slide 2, the Case Officer orientated members in terms of the site and the closest residential properties.
The photograph on slide 3 showed the site location within the existing Babdown Industrial Estate on the former wartime airfield, located to the south west of Beverston. The 3.5 Ha site was rectangular in shape and formed part of the larger 13.2. Ha industrial estate. The land surrounding the estate comprised of agricultural fields.
- 17 -
Page 17 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
It was explained the view was of the site from the north. There were no adjacent residential properties to the site, with the closest being Babdown Cottages, 750 metres from the site. Views of the site from the landscape were screened by the existing industrial estate and the established bund and planting which bordered the south, west and east boundaries of the site. It was noted that the site was located within a protected landscape; the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Slide 4 showed the view from the same location as the previous slide, but looking north to the A4135. Beverston Bridleway 14 ran left to right at this point. Slide 5 displayed the view of the site from the north-west corner of the screening bund. The bund adorned the south, west and east boundaries of the site, with mature planting. The Case Officer advised the Committee that the enclosed processing building was visible towards the rear of the site, and was screened from view by the neighbouring industrial units.
Slide 6 showed the bund on the west boundary, with accompanying mature planting. Slide 7 depicted the view from the point of access east along the A4135. Slide 8 displayed the view west along the A4135, with a view of Babdown Cottages between the two road signs.
Members noted slide 9 which showed the view west along the A4135 towards the junction with the A46 in the vicinity of Calcot Manor and Spa. Slide 10 displayed the view east along the A4135 with the entrance to Calcot Manor and Spa on the left. Slide 11 showed the relationship between the location of the site, the Cotswold AONB and Zone C, where strategic waste management facilities would be preferred.
The Case Officer drew members attention to slide 12 which referred to Section 7, on page 31 of the report, which detailed that the main considerations material to the determination of this planning application to vary condition 8 (throughput) of planning consent 09/0036/CWMAJW to increase the annual throughput from 45,000 tonnes to 75,000 tonnes. These were noted as:
• The extent to which this development complies with national planning policies and the policies of the Development Plan for Gloucestershire; • Impact of the additional traffic created; • Impact of the development on the special qualities of the Cotswold AONB; • Impact of the development on heritage assets in nearby settlements.
It was explained that additional issues had been raised through consultees which related to: • The necessity for an Environmental Impact Assessment; • The appropriateness of the County Council to determine a planning application according to the provisions of Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. • The impact of the proposal on the Council’s climate change commitment.
- 18 -
Page 18 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Members were advised that the report had addressed the need for an Environmental Statement and the mechanism for consideration of the proposal.
The proposal was considered to be consistent in context with the County Council’s Climate Emergency Declaration.
The proposal was considered to comply with the guidance in the NPPF, particularly Paragraph 80, 83, 109, 172 and 193, National Planning Policy for Waste, Paragraph 1, Policy WCS3, WCS4, WCS14, WCS16, WCS18 and WCS19 of the Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policy EN4, EN5 and INF4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan”.
The Case Officer summarised that on balance, it was considered that the proposal complied with the Development Plan, National Planning Policy and any other relevant policies or Guidance and where there is a conflict with any Policy, other material considerations; the potential impact of the extra HGV traffic – which represented a 0.2% increase in highway traffic, the potential impact to the Cotswolds AONB and the potential impact upon heritage assets were all considered to either not be significant enough to recommend refusal or alternatively they were capable of mitigation.
The Chairman invited the registered speaks to address the Committee. The facilitator recapped the order of speakers for the benefit of the public via You Tube.
Mr Richard Ball (Objecting):
“Chairman of the committee.
I'm the CEO of Calcot collection hotels, we have owned the hotel for over 36 years, repurposing it from a redundant farm to current operation, which employs over 200 staff directly. Calcot is visited by 22,000 hotel visitors every year many from overseas. We therefore support a significant micro economy of small suppliers, retail outlets and visitor attractions but I suggest this is critical to this local economy. These visitors spend well in the struggling communities and visitors visit many visitor attractions providing employment in the region. Calcot probably directly support 1000 jobs or more in the local community.
The increased traffic that it will generate, will directly impact our business. We chose to locate in an AONB because we understood it to be a protected area. Protected from unreasonable incursion or industrial development. Protected by policies such as the Tetbury neighbourhood plan and the waste course strategy, both of which I think will be largely overlooked if this application is allowed to pass.
Despite this “protection” we have before us today an application which is going to enlarge a waste facility in the midst of this AONB, to capacity that is as large as the site that serves the city of Bristol.
This application will take the capacity to way over 50,000 ton threshold that demands exceptional circumstances and rigorous inquiry. Where are these
- 19 -
Page 19 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
exceptional circumstances or what they are that outweigh the importance of tourism and heritage in the AONB that is clearly stated in policy.
Valley Trading is not even operating at capacity. Approving this without greater cause sets a dangerous precedent that poses a risk to torrent sites right across the AONB. Is this the future we have in mind for our region, if we believe tourism is important to our economy, we have to afford it a greater measure of protection?
And where is the rigorous inquiry? The traffic report which took place in the absence of the required data that valley trading are required to keep, was carried out on the day when the road was closed in one direction, this beggars belief and it did not even extend to counting the traffic flowing west from the site past Calcot, it only counted in one direction. The conclusion that a 67% increase in waste capacity would lead to only 12 extra lorries past Calcot, is laughable questionably inaccurate and the process used, surely does not meet the policy of rigorous examination.
Beyond the legality, let me make it absolutely clear that the scale of the uplift, contained in this application is meaningful and one that directly put these jobs and the economy at risk.
The report claims that the rooms at Calcot are protected from the road by car parks, this is not correct 18% of the rooms back directly onto the road and have pillows within three metres of dozens of skip trucks breaking hard as they approach the crossroads.
Once again, I ask where is the rigorous examination. A further 15% of these rooms in the main house have windows facing the A4135. Over a third of our rooms are impacted, it is not unusual for us to handle half a dozen strong complaints each week from people who are unlikely to return. This materially affects the viability of our business and I ask you, is the case for the expansion of the Valley trading so irrefutable, that our business which has supported possibly 1000 rural economy jobs in 36 years should be put at risk.
I should make it absolutely clear that we accept the presence of Valley trading at Babdown, but we can only co-exist if the perfectly reasonable limitations that were imposed in the original consent are maintained. These limitations were considered necessary to protect the AONB in 2001, they’ve already been increased once in 2010. What possible legal justification is there for increasing again. Thank you”
Mr Adam Rabone (Objecting):
“Thank you Chairman and Committee Members.
My name is Adam Rabone and I'm a chartered town planner. Decisions makers are required to determine applications in accordance with policy. The law permits deviation if material considerations allow, but as the NPPF states ‘permission should not usually be granted’ if there is a conflict.
- 20 -
Page 20 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
This application is classed as major developments and approval would redefine the site as a strategic waste facility as it will push capacity far past the 50,000 tonne limit to 75,000 tonnes. The development plan states unequivocally that strategic waste facilities must be located within zone C. Please note policy does not state this as a preference outside of the AONB. Therefore there are numerous policy conflicts confirmed to you within the committee report.
Zone C is part of a carefully planned spatial strategy which was drafted following years of sustainability testing, public consultation and extremely rigorous public examination process. Zone C primarily exist to protect the AONB and its special assets inappropriate development by directing major strategic waste facilities to other locations. Note there is no embargo on smaller facilities such as currently operated by the applicant and there is no reason this business would fail if the application is refused. Within the AONB and in alignment with the NPPF, policy EN5 and WCS14 confirmed that for major developments such as this planning permission should be refused except in exceptional circumstances, it must be subject to the most rigorous examination. The applicants must demonstrate how the development is in the public interest and that it needs, can be met elsewhere, this should be taken into account.
Paragraph 7.50 of the committee report confirms there is unused wasted capacity outside of the AONB, therefore there is no public need shown for the is development or a business case.
In fact approval would be in conflict with the quite exceptional requirements adopted in the AONB Policy and in the zones spatial policy. So to grant a lawful consent, councillors must be satisfied that material considerations are sufficient to overcome conflict. In weighing this, please be mindful that policies would protect the AONB and the Zone C strategy are some of the most strongly worded robustly tested policies that form the fundamental underpinning of the whole plan.
However, far from being clear, I do struggle to identify what the material considerations are from the report, nor can I find sufficient supporting evidence, particularly in relation to any public benefits source of waste, waste size, site operations, and traffic impact on the business case.
I note the report states they'll get negligible increase in traffic impacts, I ask how can adopted policies be so wrong and exceeding the threshold by 25,000 tonnes, resulting in negligible impact. It simply doesn't make any sense the only explanation is that current impacts the tranquillity; heritage; tourism and businesses have been severely underestimated.
Symptomatic of this is the lack of recognition of Tetbury neighbourhood plans, clear objections added HGV traffic through the historic town. Reports also suggest that HGVS will be removed from the highway network, I find this conclusion illogical.
For example please refer to figure 3 on page 168 which shows huge areas of the applicants catchment area beyond AONB boundary, increased capacity is approved it could only draw additional HGV traffic directly into the heart of the Tetbury from
- 21 -
Page 21 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Cheltenham, Gloucester Stroud, Cirencester and Swindon. There’s no evidence to support the reports conclusion. Finally this is a section 73 application, which in law is a new planning permission and not simply an add on. Please do not be swayed because there is an existing business operating it's only been there since 2001.
To conclude I cannot find any material consideration presented which overcomes the weight of policy, indeed I am concerned that an approval would be legally challenged. I ask you not to set a terrible precedent and not erode the sustainable spatial strategy so carefully crafted and adopted in policy. Thank you”
Mrs Caroline Lowsley-Williams (Objecting):
“Everyone agrees that if this application goes ahead there will be a lot more Valley Trading Lorries on the roads. This will have a huge impact on the roads of our AONB, the towns of Nailsworth and Tetbury, plus the villages of Beverston, Horsley, Tetbury Upton and Kingscote – an area which can rightly claim to be the southern gateway to the Cotswolds. This 75,000 tonne application significantly means the 50,000 tonne cap for such a unit in an AONB is disregarded, so we need to be absolutely clear why Valley Trading needs this extra capacity. We need proper figures and an in depth traffic impact survey. Many local people, of the 154 public comments 141 (that’s 90%) raised traffic as an issue, mostly worried about the volume of traffic but also concerns were raised about the CO2 omissions and adverse effects on the environment.
Living locally to Tetbury, and having seen first-hand the impact on Tetbury’ s listed buildings and shops that are subjected to the passing Valley Trading lorries – historic Long Street shudders at the skips and shakes to its core when the articulated waste lorry passes by. This application directly contravenes Tetbury’ s neighbourhood plan. It has more potential impact on the area than the proposed Anaerobic Digester here at Chavenage permission refused in 2016, citing traffic issues as well as the site being in an AONB.
The traffic assessments have not been rigorous. The County Highways officer himself states, that, “Given that there were road works on the A4135 on the day of our visit we were not able to fully appreciate what may be typical inter-peak traffic speeds and flows when traffic speeds tend to be higher” How can the assessment be thorough when carried out on a day when there were roadworks impacting traffic flow?
County Highways also state that they have made a number of assumptions backed by figures supplied by the applicant to identify the potential impact on road traffic. Surely we deserve to have independent data for this?
If you look closely at the traffic survey, it records two HGV movements associated with each sortie to collect waste. This too, is incorrect because Valley Trading does not consume waste - they process it - and therefore extra vehicle movements associated with removing it from site after processing should be added. Admittedly, the waste may go off in fewer vehicles but there will still be a minimum of three
- 22 -
Page 22 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
associated movements for the guessed-at average load size. This is just not good enough.
All in all, the County Highways report is deeply flawed, and without rigorous analysis of these material considerations granting permission will set a very bad precedent for Waste Policy and traffic in the AONB.
Thank you”
Mr Michael Kent (Applicant):
“I’m Michael Kent and I manage the Valley Trading operation at Babdown Industrial Estate . We have been dealing with the area’s waste and recycling for over 20 years in this location and like most businesses we want to be successful, to grow, to employ more people, to put more money back into the local area and just as importantly reduce waste to landfill, reduce HGV miles and recycle and re-use as much of the waste the area generates as possible.
We have invested in highly efficient recycling equipment that is working really well. We coped well with the influx of waste generated by the Covid lockdown, as DIY projects took off and hard-core, soils, plastics, wood, metals have all been sorted , processed and either directly re-used in place of primary materials, or, for instance plastics sent for further specialist re-processing to new products.
The increase in tonnage that was applied for in 2019 is to allow a successful business to grow, just as has happened with other businesses on the Babdown Industrial Estate and in the AONB. The difference is that rarely do any businesses outside of minerals and waste operations attract tonnage limits on the amount of material they can handle so are free to grow without restriction or the type of scrutiny and discussion that the last 18 months has generated.
We are obviously very aware of the location of our business in the AONB, but we are also located on a thriving and growing Industrial Estate which is also a noted Employment site in the Cotswold Local Plan.
We recognise that there is a perception that any additional vehicles from the recycling business will have an impact but having provided a Transport Statement was that considered by the County Highways Team, we are happy to note that they raise no objection. In their response, on Page 150 of your report, they confirm that the increase in HGV movements, would not be materially significant to the existing movements which already occur on the A4135.
At the outset of this submission County Highways had confirmed that the potential for impact had to be considered in the context of the A4135 as a Strategic HGV route and that the increase in vehicles as a result of our application was likely to be less than significant.
Whilst we are aware of course of the concerns of residents living on the A4135 lorry route, we do not believe that there has been any evidence of what is being
- 23 -
Page 23 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
termed as “devastating” impacts when the increase of our vehicles, which is not an overnight switch, but normal business growth, is set against the current number of vehicles using that road.
We are also aware of the surrounding landscape, the AONB, and what that means to the wider County, but equally nothing in this proposal will negatively affect the AONB. The location in the AONB and the Policy issues of the Waste Local Plan have been addressed comprehensively in the Officer report .
Developing our business hasn’t been identified to have any reasons for refusal by the statutory and technical consultees, it is supported by planning policy, it a sustainable option, it reduces HGV miles through the AONB and we respectfully ask that planning is granted”.
Mr Oliver Preston (Parish Council):
“Thank you Chairman and Committee Members.
I am Oliver Preston, speaking on behalf of Beverston. As a Parish Council, we are a small group of five; an NHS anaesthetist, a farmer, a retired solicitor, our chair provides tours of Chavenage House – where they film Poldark. I am a cartoonist. We are not experts in Planning and Waste Strategy.
Beverston has learned to live with HGV vehicles, and we have also lived alongside Valley Trading’s operations since 2001. Yes, we shout a bit about the speed and noise of their vehicles, and whether the chains are sheathed, the wear and tear on the roads and litter. But they are a valuable and sustainable, independent local business – in the AONB, on top of the Cotswolds. We supported their application in 2017 for a sorting warehouse on their site. We are not nimbies.
For us it’s actually an 88% increase since Valley Trading arrived at Babdown since 2001. That’s because this is now their second variation - and in 2010 we were reassured that the increase to 45,000 would be the ceiling.
This application blasts through the 50,000 limit of your own Waste Policy WCS14 for an AONB. It’s in direct conflict with Tetbury’ s Neighbourhood plan, which must be a material consideration. This shouldn’t be a section 73, it should be a full blown planning application. It’s 88% of the total requirements of the Waste Framework Directive for the whole of Gloucestershire. The planning officer’s very long 56 page document of recommendations within is testament to the fact that this is no ordinary application.
What is the point of a Waste Core Strategy or a Neighbourhood plan for Tetbury - approved by councillors and the Secretary of State- if they are to be ignored by planning officers in the decision-making? What are these exceptional considerations, where are the rigorous tests on them, has a proven public interest been demonstrated? We honestly believe the recommendation is legally
- 24 -
Page 24 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
questionable and counsel opinion will unpick the justification of the recommendation.
For example, why does Valley Trading need an increase to 75,000? Their Business Need Statement is conflicting, saying that they are a local business on the one hand, but the data that they themselves have provided shows how widespread their business already is. You only have to see the number of skips travelling through the area to see that the business is not at risk. We have several sightings of Valley Trading vehicles near Oxford and the Vale of the White Horse near Swindon. They cite examples of businesses locally as their clientele, but if they are so local, 45,000 tonnes ought to be enough.
In Paragraph 7.50 the Planning officer states 'There are alternative sites with potential capacity located outside the AONB: Smiths of Eastington, Hogarths in Cam, Tony’s in Berkeley, Beefy’ s skips in Blunsdon. VT's own catchment map area includes huge areas outside the AONB. What exactly is the 'source' of the waste used to justify this? Or are they trying to take business away from their competitors.
In section 8 of today’s recommendation it states, “… operators shall maintain daily records … and all records shall be kept for at least 24 months.” This very same condition was written into the 2010 application, so why has this base traffic data not been made available to us, or to o County Highways? Instead a survey taken at the wrong location by Valley Trading east of there entrance and not by Calcot Manor, 50% of movements were not collected, a site visit when the road was closed by County Highways- is not rigorous. The AONB deserves better than this.
As we have heard, the local communities are shocked – it is going to affect all of our lives going forward. It’s huge. Skip lorries are an emotive type of HGV, and the profusion of the Valley Trading traffic already makes them highly visible – and memorable. Does our AONB deserve to be remembered by tourists for skips? Do the tourists visiting pubs and cafes and shops in Tetbury’ s Long Street need to see more skips and congestion? 18% of Calcot Manor’s rooms have occupants that are regularly complaining about the existing HGV traffic, Calcot explained this earlier.. And where are the new jobs associated with this Valley Trading application?
Finally, it is so important that these ‘material considerations’ are not just gloss, you do need to look at the undercoat. We reject the \application because of WCS4 policy. We respectfully ask you to reject this application too. Thank you”
Public speakers were invited to remain in the virtual meeting if they wished to do so.
The Chairman invited questions from Members following the presentations.
Councillor Cordwell questioned the number of vehicle movements, the Case Officer explained there was daily fluctuation and it referred to two way movements. Councillor Cordwell remarked that the increase in tonnage from 45k tonnes to 75k tonnes was not an increase of 40%. The Highways Development Officer explained that the comment predated the report, he accepted there were daily variations in
- 25 -
Page 25 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
traffic flow. The Committee were advised there were no grounds for highway refusal.
Councillor Robinson questioned why Nailsworth had not been included in the routing strategy. The Case Officer explained that the A46 was a strategic ‘A’ Road and Beverston were on the A4135, which was a different classification.
Councillor Preest felt the Parish Councils had valid points during the presentation and he referred to Paragraph 7.27 in the report he felt that the relevant Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) should be included or the relevant paragraphs should be included within the report. It was explained that the NDP was local to housing and not waste applications, therefore it had limited weight, whilst material to the consideration, did not form part of the development plan for waste proposals.
Councillor Preest also wished to know if the Cotswold Conservation Board (CCB) had replied. The Case Officer advised the Committee that the CCB had not formalised its response, he had contacted them but they had not responded.
Councillor Tracey wished to know if there were many more HGV’s and extra traffic on the lane. She wondered if drivers/staff could be given a briefing on neighbour consideration. The Case Officer informed Members that the access road was wide enough for two HGV vehicles to pass, however it was not clear who owned the access road beyond the application site. The Highways Development Officer referred to the application Transport Statement, he explained that there was a net increase of 30 skip lorries and 6 twenty tonne lorries which equated to 72 vehicle movements. The Highways Authority did not have information relating to cars, but they estimated there were approximately six thousand per day. He added that weight restrictions on lorries would serve no benefit in this instance.
Councillor Brown referred to the Parish Council statement, that in 2010 the application was submitted for 45,000 tonnes. He wished to know the nature of the assurances. The Case Officer explained that the Planning Authority was not privileged to that information, therefore the limit had been set by the condition within the report.
Councillor Preest once again referred to NDP and Paragraph 7.27. Members were advised that the plans were reviewed in detail but the NDP was not pertinent to the application, so therefore it wasn’t included.
Councillor Parsons questioned the alternative sites, he was informed that information was confidential as the business was regarded as proximate to the site. Councillor Parsons wished to know what percentage of the business was deemed as core. The Case Officer explained it was approximately 85%.
Councillor Robinson referred to the NDP and questioned why Horsley was not included. The Case Officer reiterated that the NDP had limited weight, as it was not relevant to waste applications.
- 26 -
Page 26 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Councillor Hale wished to know how many times the applicant had exceeded the 45,000 tonne limit. The Committee were informed that there had been no allegations of exceeding the weight limit, so those details had not been requested from the applicant given there were no grounds to seek to request the information. The application sought to increase the limit to 75,000 tonnes and there was no section 106 agreement attached to the permission.
On there being no further question, the committee moved into debate.
Councillor Bird proposed to accept the officer recommendation as it stood, he felt there was no over riding policy, the balance was within context and it was a balanced decision in the AONB.
Councillor Fisher seconded the proposal as stated by Councillor Bird.
Councillor Parsons remarked that he was not happy with the application as the increase was significant and he felt it was a step too far. He added that he would vote against the application.
Councillor Cordwell added that he lived close to the site and the A4135, HGV increase in lorry movements was small, therefore he felt there was no viable objection to the application.
Councillor Vines declared he was in favour of the application, he added there was a lot of agricultural movement in that area on a daily basis and the increase in traffic couldn’t be laid solely at Valley Trading’s door.
Councillor Robinson advised the Committee that he would vote against the application. He added that there were a number of large lorries in the area, some of which were unable to pass on the A46 at Nailsworth. He felt it was huge ask of residents to increase the number of vehicle movements associated with the application.
Councillor Fisher stated that there was legislation in place to ensure waste was dealt with appropriately through the waste hierarchy and that this application supported this.
Councillor Hale supported the application; he felt it was essential to have the facilities available to reuse waste. He remarked if such facilities weren’t available then fly tipping would be on the increase, therefore he supported the application.
Councillor Morgan added that he would unhappily support the application; he referred to the increase of fly tipping in the Forest area due to the Covid restrictions applied to waste recycling facilities locally. He noted that the site was on an existing industrial estate and added there were numerous sites available on the forest area for businesses to grow.
On being put to the vote, the application was passed (9 in favour, 2 against and one abstention).
- 27 -
Page 27 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
The Planning Committee therefore:
Resolved
That planning permission be granted for the reasons summarised in paragraphs 7.89 to 7.92 subject to the planning conditions recommended in Section 8.0 of the report.
29. APPLICATION NO: 19/0089/CMAJM SITE: LOADERS BARN, LAND OFF STATION ROAD, BLOCKLEY, GLOS
A summary of the presentation was presented by the Case Officer, Denis Canney, (Senior Planning Officer ), aided by a Power Point presentation.
The Case Officer proceeded to the main presentation and explained the proposal before the Committee was to seek permission to extract approximately 1.4 million Tonnes of clay from an agricultural field near to the existing Wellacre Quarry.
The Committee viewed the submitted site location plan. The plan showed the site outlined in red with the extraction area dashed blue. Wellacre Quarry was located to the North West, Paxford was to the North East, Aston Magna to the South East and Draycott was to the South West. Adjoining the site to the East was the Cotswold Main Railway Line.
The existing brickworks were located in the Parish of Blockley. The site was located off the B4479 Station Road. The Case Officer explained the site itself was currently in agricultural use and measured approximately 12.7 hectares (Ha) of which approximately 8 Ha would be for mineral extraction. The existing site (21 Ha), where the brickworks was located, included Wellacre Quarry (9 Ha) to the North and ancillary industrial / commercial land-uses. The surrounding area was rural, comprising of predominantly arable fields.
Members were advised the nearest residential properties/agricultural dwellings from the application site were at Stapenhill Farm and Longmeadow located 300m to the North East and North respectively. Kettle’s Barn was located 390m to the south and Wellacre Farm was located 420m to the West.
The application site lay within the Cotswold AONB. Wellacre Quarry was designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Regionally Important Geological Site (RIGS). Grade II listed buildings were located at Stapenhill Farm and Wellacre Farm; and also within the village of Blockley. The nearest Scheduled Monument (Upper Ditchford medieval settlement) was located 1km to the West of the site.
The Case Officer reported that Blockley Brook flowed West to East through the site which then joined Knee Brook and eventually the Thames. An area of Flood Zone 2 and 3 was located either side of the Blockley Brook. A Public Right of Way
- 28 -
Page 28 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
(PROW) (Blockley Footpath 16) crossed East to West through the site and bridleway (Blockley Bridleway 23) passed along the site’s Southern boundary.
Slide 3 showed the Direction of Works showing 5 phases. The plan also showed the water treatment area, temporary soil storage area, Blockley Brook and bridge crossing, haul road running parallel to the railway line and Station Road crossing point.
The Case Officer explained that rate of mineral extraction from Loaders Barn and Wellacre Quarry would be up to 50,000 T per annum (pa) stated as being the capacity of the brickworks. Quarrying operations were proposed to take place in 5 phases over 24 years.
Slide 4 explained that Years 1-3 would involve site preparations including topsoil and overburden storage within the application site. Slide 5 showed that Years 3-10 would see the export of overburden material and clay to Wellacre Quarry and the brickworks. From Year 10, clay would be removed from the site to the brickworks.
Slide 6 displayed Year 24 which showed stripped overburden and soils placed for restoration along with overburden from the storage area. Slide 7 sections showed views from PROW Footpath 16 (top) and PROW Bridleway 23. The bottom section showed the soil bund would be 3m tall and the overburden bund 5m tall.
Slide 8 showed the Concept Restoration Plan. It showed the PROW Bridleway 23 which adjoined the South of the site (purple dots) and PROW Footpath 16 crossing the haul road and railway line to the North of the site (yellow dots). Joining the PROW was the proposed Permissive Path on the Western boundary of the site. Tree and hedgerow planting was depicted by green dots with woodland blocks (green) and water bodies in blue.
Slide 9 referred to the initial extraction slide. Clay would be transported by dump truck to the existing brickworks via a new haul road, running from the extraction area parallel to the railway line nearby. The haul road, measured approximately 6m wide and 400m in length, would be soil stripped and appropriately stored .hedgerow planting on the southern boundary of the haul road would be implemented within the first year of operation.
The overburden removal would generate 8 movements per day (16 movements) and the operations would generate approximately 6 loads of clay per day (12 movements). The intention was that site traffic would give way to the through-traffic on Station Road.
Mining operations were proposed to take place during the day between the hours of 0700 to 1800 Monday to Saturday and not at all on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays. It was reported that the applicant had since agreed to not work Saturday afternoon. No artificial lighting was proposed within the application site. Blockley Brook would be culverted with mitigation for otters implemented at the point of construction of the bridge/culvert.
- 29 -
Page 29 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Members were advised that a crossing with the B4479 (Station Road) would be formed to allow access to the brickworks along with a new hedgerow, where necessary, planted inside the visibility splays. Towards the southern side of Station Road on the haul road would be located a wheel wash. A road sweeper would be used, when required, to ensure that the crossing point was kept free from mud or clay that was not removed by the wheel wash. In addition, collected rainwater from the base of the extraction area would be pumped to the surface water settlement treatment area (lagoon) before being released into the Blockley Brook. Other disturbed ground, such as the haul road, would also be drained to the settlement lagoons.
Slide 10 showed the Final Void with southern overburden mound removed and placed for restoration. The soil screening mounds would remain in situ until required for restoration. Slide 11 detailed progressive restoration of the site, which would be undertaken concurrently with extraction operations to a mix of agriculture and meadow with woodland blocks, water and hedgerow. The applicant had stated there was no intention to import material to bring the land back to original levels, hence a water body was proposed in the final restoration. A “Permissive” public access was proposed upon restoration through the restored site to link with the existing PROW access network.
At Slide 12, the Case Officer explained that Section 3 of the Officer Report at Page 7 referred to the planning history and showed the updated Review of Mineral Permission in 1999 along with a deepening and widening application in 2015. The application referred to the removal of the overburden material from the site to Wellacre Quarry.
The Case Officer explained that the Officer Report from page 8 provided the planning policy context with the recently adopted Mineral Local Plan policies on pages 10 to 15 and the Cotswold District Council Policies on pages 15 to 20. Pages 21 and 22 of the report summarised the publicity undertaken and the representations made.
The Committee noted that the application was advertised by site and press notice.
It was explained that representations received in favour of the application, were on the following reasons: • Good employer; • Rural employer; • Long standing business in the community, supports the local people, local charities and provides important employment to many, skilled employees, • avoids imports; • Heritage, artisan, bespoke brick supply, master brick maker; • Traditional firing technique; • Supports businesses indirectly; • Important to maintain UK manufactured bricks; and • Winner of the RIBA National Sterling Prize for its bricks and the Brick Development Association's National Brick Awards' Supreme prize on no less
- 30 -
Page 30 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
than 3 of the last 4 years, putting Gloucester at the forefront of traditional quality brick making.
Representations against the application were on the following reasons: • Visual impact; • Located in AONB and visible; • Noise impact; • Property value depreciation; • Hours of operation; • Ecology impact, including the destruction of environment and biodiversity, Knee Brook drainage interference; • Flooding impact; • Highway safety concerns regarding clay/mud on roads, crossing point on Station Road; • Increased volume of traffic through villages; • Road use delay; • Tourism reduction; • Concern regarding restoration being achieved; • Light pollution; • Need for heritage bricks disputed; • Bricks not used locally; • Brick works has moved from a small local business to a” huge industrial polluting monster”; • Incorrect accident data; • Concurrent working of two sites; • Fossil fuel use; • Opencast operation; and • Need for quarry should not override concerns
The Committee were advised that pages 22 to 39 of the Officer Report summarised the consultation responses. It was noted that objections were received from Cotswold District Council and the Cotswold Conservation Board regarding the impact on the AONB.
It was noted that the Planning Considerations were set out in Part 7 of the Officer Report on pages 39 to 83. The main issues related to:
• The need for the mineral development and planning policy context including impact upon the Cotswolds AONB; and • The environmental impacts of the proposed development.
The Case Officer explained the planning policy context regarding the need for the mineral development as this was due to the current inferior clay reserve at Wellacre Quarry and was detailed in the application submission. The clay at Wellacre Quarry would be used for blending purposes at the brickworks.
Relevant Mineral Local Plan (MLP) policies were summarised in paragraph 7.4.2 of the Officer Report on page 40 onwards. Members were asked to note that MLP Policy MW04 referred specifically to Brick Clay referring to a 25 year land bank as
- 31 -
Page 31 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
well as making a positive contribution to growing local economies and upholding cultural heritage. Paragraphs 7.4.5 to 7.4.11 of the Officer Report considered this policy, concluding that the proposed development would provide a contribution towards the supply of brick clay necessary for the long term production at the Northcott brickworks or beyond for at least 25 years throughout and at the end of the MLP period.
The Officers report also considered that the proposal would make a positive contribution to sustaining or growing local economies (including securing the long term securing of 65+ direct jobs) and upholding cultural heritage throughout Gloucestershire. As such it was considered that the proposed development was in accordance with Policy MW04 Brick Clay.
MLP Policy DM09 detailed that landscape was also most relevant to the determination of this application. This policy considered mineral development within an AONB. The Loader’s Barn proposal was, by virtue of its size and scale, a major development within the Cotswold AONB. As such, it had to be shown it that it was in the public interest and should only be permitted under exceptional circumstances. To demonstrate this, an overriding need for brick clay must be shown along with the ability to show that the local economy would not be subject to unacceptable adverse impacts and that alternative non-AONB sources of brick clay could not be used having taking into account their working constraints and availability based on practicality and viability grounds.
The Officer Report considered in detail Policy DM09 on pages 40 to 51 including the CCB objection. The report also referred to the relevant NPPF policy before concluding on page 53 that the NPPF did not raise any material considerations which were not considered through the policy considerations and did not raise any matters which outweighed the primacy of the development plan.. Overall, having considered the exceptional and public interest requirements of NPPF paragraph 172, MLP DM09 and MW04, the Officers considered reasons in favour of the proposal including: • being located closer to the brickworks than a site further afield, resulting in less transport impacts; • compliance with national and local policy (MLP MW04) regarding land bank provision; • securing brick production in the long term and preserving existing jobs (direct and indirect); • likelihood of being t a more sustainable option by avoiding the environmental cost and financial cost of securing the appropriate clay resource from further away; • provision of high quality clay from Loaders Barn in order to augment current reserves of poorer clay quality; • allowing continued long term provision of bespoke bricks; and • reduction in flood risk in local area by removal of some of the catchment and the acceptance of flows into the site from the Blockley Brook in extreme events.
- 32 -
Page 32 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
The Case Officer then went on to advise the Committee on the environmental impacts of the proposal, The Planning Statement provided information on the following; • Landscape and Visual Amenity, (including Arboriculture); • Ecology and Biodiversity; • Archaeology and Cultural Heritage; • Noise and Air Quality; • Hydrology and Hydrogeology; • Highway and Transport; and • Rights of Way
The Case Officer explained that, in his opinion, Landscape and Visual amenity (including restoration), ecology and biodiversity and noise and air quality were the main issues. Members were advised that that landscape and visual amenity (including restoration) were detailed in the Officer Report on pages 53 - 55. The application was supported by a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) at Chapter 3.2 of the Planning Statement and Appendix 7.
Overall the County Landscape Advisor (CLA) did not object to the proposed development and the full consultation response was set out on page 35 -38 paragraphs 6.16 of the Officer Report. The CLA was of the opinion that with an appropriate phased detailed restoration proposal conditioned for early submission, then the submitted application was acceptable in landscape and visual terms.
At Slide 13 it was explained that the LVIA examined the effects of the proposed development through the change on the landscape. The LVIA recognised the site and study area were part of the Cotswold AONB and lay within National Character Area (NCA) 107: Cotswolds that displays a number of characteristics which define this area. The site was located within Pastoral Lowland Vale Landscape Character Type and displays some of the characteristics of this classification. The dark green line on Slide 13 showed the Cotswold AONB boundary which lies to the West of the line.
Slides 14 to 25 displayed the various viewpoints in relation to the site. Slide 26 showed the submitted site access detail including the visibility splays and tree and hedge removal.
The Case Officer informed the Committee that Slide 27 reverted to the proposed concept restoration plan which showed the Permissive Path benefit referred to in detail in paragraph 7.6.14 of the Officer Report. It was explained that the long term public provision could not be secured by planning condition alone after the 5 year aftercare period.
Overall, the Officer Report concluded that, having considered the landscape and visual impacts during and post development, the proposed concept restoration and the advice of the CLA, the proposed development was considered acceptable subject to appropriate restoration and aftercare conditions to accord with MLP Policies DM09 and MR01.
- 33 -
Page 33 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
In relation to noise, paragraphs 7.9.14 - 7.9.25 on pages 67 – 70 of the Officer Report detailed these factors. Slide 28 showed the Noise Sensitive Properties used in the Noise Assessment. It was noted that noise concerns regarding the proposed development were raised by CDC, CCB, the parish council and the public. The district planning authority, CDC, stated that “the cumulative impact of the adjacent quarry works would adversely impact upon the overall tranquillity of the AONB in this location.”
The Case Officer explained that the CCB considered that the proposed development would have significant adverse impacts on the tranquillity of the AONB and strongly disagreed with the assertions that the proposed development would: “constitute temporary or infrequent workday noise” or be “consistent with Policy CE4 (Tranquillity) of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan”. The CCB considered that an adequate assessment had not been undertaken regarding noise and had not compared the scenario where the Wellacre Quarry had come to an end.
The Committee were informed that, having considered the planning policy context and advice in the NPPF and PPG, Officers had concluded that the applicant had appropriately considered the noise impacts of the proposed development on noise sensitive properties but not on the nearby PROW network. The MPA considered this was required to assess whether operational noise impacted to an unacceptable degree upon the amenity enjoyed in using the PROWs near to the proposed site, as well as the impact on tranquillity in the AONB. The noise concerns raised were considered to be relevant matters which needed to be addressed in the determination of the application.
Slide 29 showed the predicted noise levels at the PROWs during routine operations. Slide 30 displayed the predicted noise levels at the PROWs during temporary operations i.e. creation and removal of soil and overburden bunds/storage areas.
The assessment provided by the County Acoustic Advisers assessed noise impact on the users of the PROW 16 and 23. The duration of the impact differed for routine operations (up to 1 minute) and temporary operations (up to 9 minutes). The assessment identified that the baseline noise assessment was already affected by nearby existing industrial and transportation noise sources. Any impact would be within the thresholds set within the PPG and could be within noise limit conditions accordingly. Based on the technical advice provided by the CAA, Officers did not consider that there would be, subject to planning conditions, an unacceptable noise impact on the users of the PROWs.
The site was located in an area of the Cotswold AONB that was not considered by Officers to be particularly tranquil because of the existing industrial and transportation noise referred to in the baseline noise assessment in the application documents. It was accepted that at the identified Noise Sensitive Properties (NSPs) that there was unlikely to be an adverse noise impact. At the PROWs there was some impact, but it was of a transient nature and for a temporary period and was within thresholds identified within the PPG. Conditions controlling noise limits were recommended regarding both the NSPs and the PROW’s affected.
- 34 -
Page 34 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Therefore it was concluded that, subject to compliance with planning conditions controlling noise limits at the NSPs and at the PROWs, the proposed development would be in accordance with Policies DM01, DM03, and DM09 of the GCC MLP, Policies EN4 and EN5 of the CDC Local Plan and paragraphs 170 and 180 of the NPPF.
At this juncture in the meeting, it was noted that Councillor Bird had to leave the meeting and would no longer be participating..
In terms of air quality, Slide 31 showed the Air Quality (AQ) Plan Site setting and Receptors. The AQ assessment concluded that;
• There would be no additional traffic movements onto the highway network and impacts were negligible; • There were no ecological sites of European or national interest close to the site; • There was one residential receptor within 400m of the site - it was considered that at worst there would be a slight adverse effect on this receptor; and • It was not considered to be a potential for breach of the air quality objectives at any location.
It was noted that the AQ Assessment submitted had been assessed by the County air quality advisers. It concluded that the proposed area of extraction and associated activities were a sufficient distance away (over 300 metres) from sensitive human health receptors such that they were unlikely to cause any loss of amenity due to dust emissions during construction and operation, subject to appropriate mitigation being identified and secured. Residual effects were deemed not to be significant.
The advice considered that a Dust Management Plan (DMP) was established to manage dust impact. Whilst the proposed conditions referred to dust mitigation, they do not include a Dust Management Plan. This would need to be agreed with the MPA. This was an omission and it was proposed that an extra planning condition regarding the submission for approval of the MPA of a DMP be attached to the decision notice if the application was approved at Committee.
The Committee were advised that, having considered the planning policy context and technical advice provided, Officers had concluded that the applicant had appropriately considered the noise impacts of the proposed development and had suggested appropriate mitigation. Concerns raised regarding air quality impacts were not considered so significant, with mitigation, to be considered unacceptable. As such, subject to appropriate planning conditions, it was considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with Policies DM01 of the MLP and EN15 of the CDC Local Plan.
The application was supported by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) and Slide 32 showed the Preliminary Ecological Assessment Site Survey. The Case
- 35 -
Page 35 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Officer explained that keys on the slide. Trees 2 and 3 (red dots) showed trees with a high potential for bat roosting, red hatching showed tall/ruderal game cover, the orange area was semi improved natural grassland, blue was standing water, green dot - scattered tree, green crosses – scattered scrub , ‘A’ denoting arable with ‘TN’ representing Target Note numbering.
Members were advised that the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) identified the need for additional survey work for badgers, bats, otters, crayfish, water voles and breeding birds/barn owls. These surveys were carried out at the appropriate time of year. The PEA also considered the opportunity for the enhancement of habitats to produce biodiversity net gain. It concluded that the proposed restoration scheme would create habitat for a range of protected species in the long term. The County Ecologist considered that the information contained in the PEA, Bat Activity Survey, Bat Roost Survey, Breeding Bird Survey (Including Barn Owl), Otter, Water Vole and Crayfish Survey (OWVC) and the Otter Mitigation Method Statement were sufficient to assess and inform a decision on the development. Detailed comment could be viewed in paragraphs 7.7.7 to 7.7.55 of the Officer Report.
The County Ecologist raised no objection to the planning application subject to planning conditions and advice notes. The County Ecologist considered that, with safeguards, mitigation, effective restoration and long-term aftercare, the development could result in an overall biodiversity net gain being achieved. Given the sensitive location within the AONB and a range of protected and priority species matters to be managed, the proposed development must be properly secured. This could be done by appropriately worded conditions as recommended and also by the imposition of a S106 Agreement. The Agreement would cover the ongoing management beyond 5 years for each completed phase of aftercare.
Having considered the planning policy context and advice in the NPPF, Officers had concluded that the applicant had appropriately considered the ecology impacts of the proposed development. As such, it was considered that the proposed development would, subject to planning conditions, be in accordance with Policies DM05 and DM06 of the MLP and EN7 and EN8 of the CDC Local Plan.
The Case Officer concluded at Slide 33 that the application sought removal of 1.4M Tonnes of clay from agricultural land within the Cotswold AONB. The clay was required for use by the nearby brickworks and would significantly contribute to maintaining the supply of bricks for at least 25 years for such an industrial mineral in accordance with the MLP Policy MW04 and the NPPF. In this respect the proposed development was in accordance with this MLP Policy.
The Case Officer informed the Committee that the purpose of the application was to secure a long term reserve of clay of a sufficient quality for blending purposes with that from the existing Wellacre Quarry for use at the brickworks. The applicant had stated that there was a two year supply of suitable good quality clay available at Wellacre Quarry. The brickworks employed 66 employees. It was indicated by the applicant that these jobs were at risk if a source of good quality clay could not be secured. The social and economic argument regarding the preservation of a rural employer supported that identified in the AONB Management Plan. Officers agreed
- 36 -
Page 36 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
with the social and economic case made and was considered to accord with MLP Policy MW04.
The Case Officer remarked that the application site was by definition located in a “sensitive area” in that it was within the Cotswolds AONB. It was also considered to be “major” development. The NPPF at Paragraph 172 identified that: “Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues…..” and “…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 was in the public interest….”
The applicant had put forward a case for the exceptional circumstances being satisfied. Officers had considered the evidence put forward regarding the “…cost, and scope for developing outside of the designated area...” Officers accepted that on practicality and viability grounds there was merit in the case made. Overall, in the planning balance, Officers considered that the proposed development did accord with MLP Policy DM09 – Landscape regarding major development in Part b (III) of that policy.
The restoration of the site was a material consideration if the extraction of clay was deemed acceptable in the AONB location. The CCB had objected to the proposal for the reasons referred to above. NE had clarified their position regarding its consultation response and deferred its consultation response regarding the designated landscape to the CCB. The CLA advised that the proposed concept restoration, subject to detailed design and controlled by planning conditions, to be acceptable in landscape terms in this part of the AONB.
In the consideration of this application, Officers had had regard to the “highest status of protection” referred to in the national policy context and in particular focusing on the requirements contained in the MLP Policies DM09 Landscape and MR01: Restoration, aftercare and facilitating beneficial after-uses.
The County Ecologist had raised no objection subject to the attachment of planning conditions. Biodiversity gain was required and also controlled via planning conditions - although its management outside the 5 year aftercare period for a further 5 years for each phase of restoration completed would require a Section 106 planning obligation. Given the location in the AONB, it was considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
The acoustic information provided had been assessed and was accepted as appropriate with regard to noise sensitive properties. Consideration had also been given to the impact on users of the PROW Footpath 16 and Bridleway 23 and the tranquillity at this location in the AONB. Whilst there was found to be a noise impact, it was such that it would be transient and of a temporary nature for
- 37 -
Page 37 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
approximately 9 walking minutes and within PPG thresholds. The site location was already affected by nearby industrial and transportation noise and Officers had concluded that the impact on users of the PROWs would not be unacceptable.
The Highways Authority had raised no objection to the proposed development subject to planning conditions and informative including compliance with Section 184 of the Highways Act prior the proposed access being brought into beneficial use.
The environmental impacts of the proposed development were able to be managed through planning conditions to acceptable levels such that they were not expected to give rise to any significant adverse impact on the public and the nearest residential properties.
The Case Officer referred to Slide 34, which detailed the recommendation
“ It was recommended that planning permission was granted for the reasons set out in this report and summarised in paragraphs 7.14.1 – 7.14.11 subject to the prior completion of a S106 planning agreement to secure the long term provision of biodiversity management of a further 5 years outside the 5 year aftercare period for each restored restoration phase, and substantially in accordance with the conditions contained in the report and regarding an annual tonnage limit of 50,000T between this application and that of Wellacre Quarry and dust management”.
The Chairman invited the registered speaks to address the Committee. The facilitator recapped the order of the speakers for the benefit of the public via You Tube.
Mr Stewart Bell (Objecting):
“As the former chairman of the Parish Council when the application was made. I'm very well aware of local concerns of many parishioners. unlike the existing quarry the proposed sites is in a central beautiful unspoilt Valley. It will create a scar of a landscape but cannot be shielded as it will be seen from the hills and villages all around.
The stark reality of traditional fired bricks is that their manufacturing process creates a very serious environmental impact, the highest among any brick manufacturing. The firing of the clay consumes large amounts of energy produced from fossil fuel, causing the release of C02.
A fossil fuel used by Northcott bricks is with coal imported from Colombia. The emissions released are from the combustion of this fuel and are the gaseous emissions driven off, as the clay is fired, that includes sulphur dioxide, hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride.
The emissions are released from a chimney down through the Valley, where the temperature inversion traps them causing a build-up of dangerous pollutants.
- 38 -
Page 38 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Noise pollution from the proposed new cast pit will echo throughout the Valley. Unlike the existing quarry where it's been very deep since the early 1900s and thus contains much of the noise. Noise from the new site will be heard in the villages of Paxford, Aston Magna, Draycott, Ditchford and Blockley.
The officer's report states about being no complaints about current noise for five years and the applicant is not aware of any. This is untrue, there have been many complaints. I myself have complained directly to the brickworks and the applicant, the managing director who personally acknowledged my complaint. Complaints were also copied to the Environment Agency who holds copies.
The environmental impact on wildlife will be significant the proposed mine is positioned left to Blockley Brook this is chosen because water needs to be pumped out of a quarry and disposed off.
It is acknowledged in the report that otters, water voles, White clawed crayfish all protected species live in Blockley Brook. Approval of the application would make a mockery of wildlife protection laws.
The application is not in the national interest, there is no overriding national need for the mineral. There is no shortage of clay or bricks locally or nationally. This new pit will produce clay of which there is no shortage in the UK. The British Geological Survey clearly states this. There are over 3000 million bricks produced in the UK every year.
The officer’s report asked where else the brickworks could source clay from, the applicant failed to answer this question, one wonders why. This application is not in the public interest.
The Cotswold AONB should be protected, it is known and loved for its honey limestone, honey coloured walls and buildings.
The brickworks application makes much of the fact that they say that the bricks are used a lot locally. This is not the case in the AONB. Tourism is the lifeblood of the Cotswolds. Why would tourists wish to visit when there are machines producing 108DB on a flat Valley and the scar seen from all around. There could be little doubt with this application will cause real harm to the local tourist economy.
Loss of employments is always a serious concern but it’s questioned by many if the Wellacre’s quarry is shortly to be exhausted as it is claimed. It should be noted that the employment in the brickworks is mainly minimum wage workers, most of whom travel a distance to work.
Workers in brick manufacturing face major health problems from exposure to have the substances that includes respiratory disease, occupational asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and silicosis a form of lung fibrosis.
Much of that site is already repurposed as a trading estate, if this was increased there would be many more jobs created without the health hazards involved.
- 39 -
Page 39 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
Approving this application will lead directly to increased air pollution, noise pollution, water pollution and destruction of the wildlife and habitats. Causing significant environmental damage and increased carbon emissions. The UK economy was the first economy to fit a set zero emission by 2050 this application flies in the face of that ambition.
I urge you to reject the application and protect the AONB. As your decision will affect the parishioners of the Paxford, Draycott, Ditchford, Aston Magna and Blockley for generations. Thank you”
Mr Tom Gold (Presented by Mr Jeremy Mahony) (objecting):
“My name is Jeremy Mahony. I am here representing the views of Mr and Mrs Tom Gold of Stapenhill Farmhouse, a neighbouring property.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP’s election manifesto stated: "I shall continue to promote the Cotswolds, which is one of the most attractive parts of England, by supporting the thriving agricultural and tourist Industries". We believe this proposed development is not only contrary to the spirit of the local MP's stated aims, but is also not in the Public interest; and what's more the disbenefits to the community and the tourist industry hugely outweigh any benefit, which is limited to only the applicant.
We doubt the need for the quantity of end product. I quote from the Builders Merchants Federation: ‘There are more than sufficient stocks of bricks to meet most needs. Bricks, which are barely used in the Cotswolds anyway, will not be needed so much elsewhere. As both Boris Johnson and Lord Goldsmith state ‘build back greener’ and when so many shops and offices are vacant in our cities, the housing stock will be filled by conversion rather than new-build. Ergo, we shall need fewer bricks, not more.
Also compromising an asset of nature, however thoughtfully and sympathetically you do so, you lose that asset for ever. The damage is irreversible; particularly as in this case where the proposed "act of recovery", the creation of a lake or reservoir, is entirely inconsistent with the fact that the piece of land is in an area of Pastoral Lowland Vale. For proof of this you need go no further than Wellacres Quarry, which, according to the GCC Atkins report, 28 January 2020: "will result in a less than optimum restoration to this quarry". The prospect of another "less than optimum restoration" at the end of the life of this quarry with two open cast pits is frankly "less than" appealing.
The noise pollution from the new quarry will be more considerable than suggested. The report provided is unhelpful providing information on noise levels at the brickworks, not the quarry. A diesel lorry of the type likely to be used on the proposed site will emit 80-100 decibels and not just "up to 70". The intensity of the noise will be so much greater when three or four lorries and/or trucks are working and certainly will be higher than normally acceptable levels. Added to this will be the noise from the generator and the pumps at the extraction point and the water
- 40 -
Page 40 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
retaining tanks, both of which may have to be activated during unsocial hours. The local population and tourists will be required to say goodbye to the tranquillity and serenity previously enjoyed and which is one of the main attractions of this area. Tourism creates local employment.
The proposed development will inevitably have a detrimental effect upon the Blockley Brook (which, incidentally, does not flow into the Thames, but the Severn (1.6). When the natural flow of the brook is interrupted, wildlife will be disturbed and endangered; and the flow is likely to be intermittently either excessive or insufficient; and when it's excessive the prospect of flooding looms. Clause 7.11.9 is incorrect. The Golds can confirm there has been flooding on many, many occasions over the last 20 years.
Finally and to summarise, there is no need for this project. There are significant disbenefits in this development in the AONB of noise pollution, the loss of agricultural land, the inevitable loss of tourists in the area, disruption of the waterway and the loss of tranquillity generally outweighs this proposed development, in this AONB. We don't need to consult Extinction Rebellion on the effects of interfering with nature; we interfere at our peril and to our cost.
The proposed development is not in the public interest, it is solely in the private interest of the applicant and is indeed contrary to the welfare and well-being of the general public.”
Richard Hunt (Agent):
“I really don't want to get into a slanging match and starting to contradict previous two speakers but there are a couple of points which I think need correct.
The first is that coal is not purchased by the applicant from Columbia, the second is that there is a concern expressed amount exposure to harmful emissions. The workforce are the people who would have the greatest and longest exposure to any of those potentially harmful elements.
A recent X Ray examination of the workforce showed that there is zero industrial lung disease at the brickworks.
However this application is for the winning and working of the mineral, the basis of the need for the mineral which is accepted by the case officer, is that it is feeding brickworks, but the brickworks themselves will continue.
Obviously as the recommendation is to grant planning permission subject planning conditions, I endorse that recommendation and I can confirm that I have had some input into earlier versions of the planning conditions. However we haven't had sight of condition 12 and I'm assuming that that is from the recommendation that's been put up on the screen now, is a total extraction aspect of 50,000 tonnes combined between the two quarries. I can confirm that the applicant will be content to accept that figure.
- 41 -
Page 41 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
What condition 12 was originally trying to do was limit the amount of material taken away from the extraction site, such that the restoration was that has been recommended to you is guaranteed. So the quarrying operation itself is very unobtrusive, it's very low key and the clays works on a daily basis.
So there isn't massive campaigns of extraction and then stock piling to allow the clay to weather, it is used immediately on extraction and taken into the brickworks for use. So the environmental impacts of the proposals be considered a series of reports, which resulted in no objections from following statutory non statutory consultees, Natural England, Environment Agency, Networks Rail, Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, Severn Trent Water the Local Lead Flood Authority and I could continue to list them.
The Officer has given you a very comprehensive explanation of all of those people and the lack of objections have come forward.
The two objections from statutory consultees I think he has dealt with in an excellent manner in his report and has come to the conclusion that the proposals are largely in accordance with the development plan. That is the minerals and waste development plan and the District Council local plan.
We acknowledge that there are 19 representations of support and 19 objections for rejection, but the benefits come forward again set out the economic benefits, the provision of a safe tried and tested building product, biodiversity enhancement and post restoration flood alleviation. there is a requirement recommended that we enter into a section 106 agreement, we have offered to accept a planning condition that covers a period of 10 years of aftercare and we feel that there is no need to take your already overworked legal Department to start creating a legal obligation.
I would like to draw attention to paragraph 7.4.16 of the committee report where it stated that the mineral planning authority considers the proposed development would not prejudice the conservation of the character features and qualities of the landscape where the site is situated or the scenic beauty of the AONB overall.
I commend it to you for your approval”
Public speakers were invited to remain in the virtual meeting if they wished to do so.
The Chairman called for a brief adjournment, the Committee reconvened at 15:50pm.
The Chairman invited questions from Members following the presentations.
Councillor Morgan wished to know if the specialist clay was used to manufacture engineering bricks. The Case Officer explained that the clay source was dependant on the physical and chemical properties.
Councillor Preest felt there was a need for site visits and he proceeded to refer to the recent train derailments in Scotland and Hampshire, he felt it would be remiss to
- 42 -
Page 42 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
ignore the Cotswold mainline, in relation to the site. Members were referred to page 27 of the Officer Report, paragraph 6.7 which detailed the Network Rail response, it was noted there was no objection subject to the conditions. Councillor Preest remarked that recent rail events superseded the response. The Case Officer explained that conditions were acceptable to Network Rail.
Councillor Cordwell required confirmation in relation to the AONB and that the site was on the edge of the boundary. The Case Officer confirmed this was the case, as it was an arbitrary boundary, and was covered in the Landscape Character Assessment.
Councillor Hirst questioned if the existing quarry at Wellacres was still in operation on the nearby site. It was confirmed that was the case. However the new application site was required for the quality of the clay reserves. The applicant needed to secure a long term provision of good quality clay - if not this would limit the production and could impact on jobs going forward. It was explained that the lifetime of the quarry would be determined by this application, and the restoration time of the quarry would also be impacted.
Councillor Fisher felt that the Officer Report was clear and concise and well informed Members as to the extraction of clay.
On there being no further question, the Committee entered into debate.
Councillor Fisher wished to propose to accept the Officer Recommendation within the report. Councillor Cordwell seconded this proposal.
Councillor Morgan remarked that stock piled amounts would be used when required and he was happy to support Councillor Fisher.
Councillor Hirst stated if the application were refused then it would inevitably cause the brickworks to close.
The Case Officer clarified that a Section 106 Agreement would be required and this was subject to the applicant’s acceptance. The amended conditions were read out for the benefit of the Committee. These were duly noted as:
- Tonnage extraction limit - Revised condition 12: “The combined total tonnage of clay extracted from Loaders Barn and Wellacre Quarry as indicated by the red and blue lines on drawing number M17.148.D.015 Rev B dated October 2019 shall not exceed 50,000 Tonnes in any calendar year (January to December) and no more than a total of 100,000 cubic metres of overburden shall be removed from the Loaders Barn site”.
- Dust management Plan condition to be added - Revised Condition 30: “Within one month of the commencement of development, a dust mitigation scheme, including a dust management plan to minimise dust emissions, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Mineral Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of all dust suppression measures and the methods to monitor
- 43 -
Page 43 Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
emissions of dust arising from the development including the mitigation measures identified in the submitted Air Quality Assessment report dated November 2019 (Ref: 01.0142.001 (v2)). The scheme shall then be implemented as approved with the approved dust suppression measures being retained and for the duration of the development hereby permitted”.
On being put to the vote, the application was unanimously passed (11 in favour).
The Planning Committee therefore:
Resolved That planning permission be granted for the reasons set out in the Officer Report and summarised in paragraphs 7.14.1 – 7.14.11, subject to the prior completion of a S106 planning agreement to secure the long term provision of biodiversity management of a further 5 years outside the 5 year aftercare period for each restored restoration phase, and substantially in accordance with the conditions contained in the report, to include an annual tonnage limit of 50,000T between this application and that of Wellacre Quarry and a Dust Management Plan condition.
CHAIRPERSON
Meeting concluded at 4.07 pm
- 44 -
Page 44 Agenda Item 6
APPLICATION NO: 20/0032/CHR3MJ VALIDATION DATE: 6th August 2020
DISTRICT REF: 20/01573/DEEM3
AGENT: Evans Jones Ltd, Royal Mews, St. Georges Place, Cheltenham.
APPLICANT: Head of Property Services, Gloucestershire County Council
SITE: Land Between Farm Lane/Kidnappers Lane Cheltenham Gloucestershire
PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 (Scope of the Development) relating to planning consent 19/0058/CHR3MJ dated 21/07/2020 [for construction of a new 6 forms of entry secondary school building, with a new all-weather pitch, sports playing fields, a multi-use games area, onsite parking and other associated works]. Substitution of revised plans to show increased number of photovoltaic cells and a minor amendment to the proposed external compound within the grounds of the school.
PARISH OF Leckhampton SITE AREA: 5.66 Ha GRID REF: 937198
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted for the variation of condition 2 in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, for the reasons set out in sections 8.69 to 8.74of this report and subject to the conditions set out in section 8 of this report and the existing planning obligation being endorsed.
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
1.1 The proposed Cheltenham Secondary School site is located within the Leckhampton area on the southern outskirts of south Cheltenham. The 5.66 Ha site is roughly rectangular in shape, largely comprised of fields which have been used for arable agricultural purposes and equestrian use. There are two small farming sheds located in the southern area of the site, adjacent to the residential property of Little Vatch.
1.2 Kidnappers Lane lies to the north of the site’s boundary, with Farm Lane running along the majority of its western side. There is well-established hawthorn hedgerow planting approximately 5-6m high along both roads. The south boundary abuts an existing field, and is delineated by an existing native shrub buffer with occasional tree planting. Little Vatch, a detached residential property, is located to the south west corner of the site between the site boundary and Farm Lane and is screened by an existing Leylandii hedge
Page 45 20/0032/CHR3MJ
Page 46 approximately 1.8m high. Hatherley Brook (designated as an ordinary watercourse) runs along the length of the site’s eastern boundary and forms a natural division between this site and the rear gardens of the adjacent small businesses and residents along Kidnappers Lane. These properties are set back from the site boundary approximately 30-65m.
1.3 A former plant nursery is located to the north of Kidnappers Lane. Existing residential properties lie on the west side of Farm Lane comprising predominantly dormer bungalows all east facing towards the site. Views of the site from these units are currently screened by the existing established hawthorn hedge that borders the west boundary of the site.
1.4 The site is not within a protected landscape; however the Green Belt (GB) and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) share a boundary, on the southern side of Church Road which lies approximately 300m from the site. A prominent feature of the AONB and the surrounding landscape, is Leckhampton Hill which incorporates a large footpath network that affords views across the site towards Cheltenham.
1.5 An existing public right of way (PROW) runs through the site, east to west, and is located within the more elevated part of the site close to the southern boundary.
1.6 Vehicular access to the site is currently obtained via two gated entrances off Farm Lane, on the western boundary. The first entrance is approximately 140 metres south of the Farm Lane/ Kidnappers Lane junction. The second entrance is situated further south along Farm Lane, approximately 10 metres from the Brizen Lane Junction. Pedestrian access is afforded to an existing PROW running west/east across the site (Leckhampton Footpath 9). (This is subject to a separate stopping up application of the footpath related to the consideration of this planning application).
1.7 The topography of the site entails a level difference of 7.0m, falling from the highest point in the south west corner of the site, to the lowest point in the north east corner of the site. As well as this cross fall across the length of the site, an approximate fall of 2.0m also exists directly along the eastern boundary falling towards the direction of Hatherley Brook. As a consequence of this, the PROW drops away sharply at its eastern end where it crosses Hatherley Brook.
1.8 A scheduled ancient monument is located approximately 250m south-east of the application site, referred to as the moated site and fish ponds at Church Farm, Leckhampton. The closest listed buildings are located 90m south of the site which comprise of the 18th Century Grade II listed buildings known as Leckhampton Farmhouse and a late 16th Century to mid- 17th Century Barn.
1.9 The site falls within the Impact Risk Zone 1 of Leckhampton Hill and Charlton Kings Common Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI) which lies 1.3km from the Site. The Hatherley Brook and the existing hedgerow/tree network are considered of local level value.
Page 47 1.10 Environment Agency mapping shows the majority of the site located within Flood Zone 1, an area of land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea flooding. A small strip along the eastern boundary is within Flood Zones 2 and 3 of the Hatherley Brook. The extent of the Flood Zone 2 reaches approximately 15m west into the site in the far northeast corner of the site, at the Kidnappers Lane crossing. Anecdotal evidence confirms that the public highway (Kidnappers Lane) flooded during the major flood event of 2007.
1.11 A desktop study analysis reveals the Agriculture Land Classification of the site as Subgrade 3b, a grade of moderate quality agricultural land capable of producing moderate yields of a narrow range of crops, principally cereals and grass or lower yields of a wider range of crops or high yields of grass which can be grazed or harvested over most of the year. As lower quality agricultural land, no statutory policy protection is provided.
Screening Opinion
1.12 The proposal is an amendment to an existing planning permission, which was screened for the need for an environmental statement and after consultation with Statutory Consultees, one was not requested. This proposal falls under Schedule 2 10 (b) Urban development projects, including the construction of shopping centres and car parks, sports stadiums, leisure centres and multiplex cinemas. From Column 2, (i) the development includes more than 1 hectare of urban development which is not dwelling house development; or (iii) the overall area of the development exceeds 1ha.
1.13 Whilst the proposed S.73 amendment to the school development falls within the scope of Schedule 2 it would not, in the opinion of this Authority, be likely to have a significant effect on the environment in terms of the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Having consulted with the County Landscape Advisor and Cheltenham Borough Council, it is considered that the proposed amendments would not have a significant effect on the environment to warrant the production of an EIA. An Environmental Statement has therefore not been requested.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Members will recall that the planning application for the proposed new school 19/0058/CHR3MJ was determined by the Planning Committee on the 14th May 2020. The determination was subject to the completion of a s.106 Agreement to secure biodiversity offset land, which was completed and signed on the 17th July 2020. The planning permission certificate was issued on 21st July 2020. At that time, while not forming part of the submitted proposals, the Applicant committed to improving the sustainability credentials of the building to a net zero carbon emission with an energy performance certificate rating of ‘A’. It is to address these issues that this further application has been made and is before Committee for determination.
Page 48 2.2 Further, a written application was made to seek a judicial review of the planning decision19/0058/CHR3MJ. On 29th October 2020 the High Court refused permission to proceed with the judicial review claim. On 5th November 2020 the Claimant requested a renewal of their application to be heard by way of oral hearing. The oral hearing was listed to be heard on the 15th December 2020. However, this was postponed until 23rd February 2021 when HHJ Cotter granted leave for a Judicial Review on one point of the claimants submission only, in respect of valued landscape. He has advised that date for hearing will be 16th March and will be set down for a day, recognising the urgency to conclude this matter. A further update will given at planning committee.
2.3 The proposal within this application is for the variation of condition 2 (Scope of the Development) relating to planning consent 19/0058/CHR3MJ dated 21/07/2020 [for construction of a new 6 forms of entry secondary school building, with a new all-weather pitch, sports playing fields, a multi-use games area, onsite parking and other associated works]. This application is for the substitution of revised plans to show increased number of photovoltaic (PV) cells and a minor amendment to the proposed external compound within the grounds of the school.
2.4 The following is a summary of the information submitted by the Applicant in support of this application:
2.5 This application seeks to substitute amended plans which respond directly to the County Council’s commitment to address the climate change emergency. The approved scheme included a small array of PV cells upon the roof. This together with a fabric first design philosophy already achieved significant betterment when compared with the 2013 building regulation requirements. The revisions proposed within this application include covering the whole of the proposed roof with PV cells in so doing lifting the sustainability credentials of the building to a net zero carbon emission with an energy performance certificate rating of ‘A’.
2.6 This proposal will introduce additional PV cells and increase the height of the roof parapet wall. The increase in the area covered by PV panels will increase from 650m2 to 1,500 m2. The parapet wall will increase by 450mm on the main classroom buildings and 575mm on the main hall. The PV panels will not be on the sports hall nor the main hall roof.
2.7 In addition, this application also includes a minor amendment to the proposed external compound within the grounds of the school. At the request of the Academy Trust the size of the compound has been increased, thus the opportunity has been taken within this application to also seek approval for that minor amendment.
2.8 The primary amendment to the approved scheme flowing from the provision of the larger PV array is a requirement to slightly raise the height of the parapet wall surrounding the roof covering. This is necessary to provide adequate protection for those working upon the roof when undertaking maintenance of the PV array.
Page 49 2.9 The requirement for a large compound results from a review of the storage requirements undertaken by the Balcarras Academy Trust.
2.10 Additional information in respect of glint and glare was received on 3rd and 23rd December 2020 to address the issues raised by the GCC Glint and Glare Advisor. The updated glint and glare report provides further and fuller explanation in respect to the assessment of various receptor points. In addition further information has been supplied in respect of the landscape and visual impact.
https://ww3.gloucestershire.gov.uk/PROW/PROWWS.asmx/GetFileGCCConte nts?Filename=images%2f20_0032_CHR3MJ_AGT_G%26G_REBUTTAL.PD F https://ww3.gloucestershire.gov.uk/PROW/PROWWS.asmx/GetFileGCCConte nts?Filename=images%2f20_0032_CHR3MJ_GLINT%26GLARE_30NOV20. PDF https://ww3.gloucestershire.gov.uk/PROW/PROWWS.asmx/GetFileGCCConte nts?Filename=images%2f20_0032_CHR3MJ_AGT_RESP_03DEC20.PDF
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 A review of Cheltenham Borough Council’s (CBC), Tewkesbury Borough Council’s (TBC), and Gloucestershire County Council’s (GCC) online planning register identified the following planning history associated with this site.
Gloucestershire County Council Planning Applications. Ref number Description Decision 20/0035/COMPLI Compliance with conditions 14 Compliance (Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS)) & with 23(Arboricultural Method Statement) Conditions relating to planning consent 19/0058/CHR3MJ dated 21/07/2020. 20/0064/COMPLI Compliance with condition 16 (Community Compliance Use Agreement) relating to planning with consent 19/0058/CHR3MJ dated Conditions 21/07/2020. 20/0075/NONMAT Amending the hedgerow removal on site to Decision accommodate construction phasing on site awaited 21/0009/COMPLI Compliance with condition 12 (Materials) Decision awaited 21/0008/COMPLI Compliance with condition 26 (tree, shrub, Decision hedgerow planting scheme) relating to awaited planning consent 19/0058/CHR3MJ dated 21/07/2020. 19/0058/CHR3MJ Construction of a new 6 forms of entry Consent secondary school building, with a new all- 21/07/2020 weather pitch, sports playing fields, a multi- use games area, onsite parking and other
Page 50 associated works.
Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Borough Councils’ neighbouring land applications. Ref number: Description Decision 19/00334/OUT Residential development of up to 25 Allowed on dwellings, associated infrastructure, open Appeal space and landscaping, with creation 23/03/2020 of new vehicular access from Kidnappers CBC Lane, Demolition of existing buildings Land Off Kidnappers Lane Cheltenham Gloucestershire. 19/00471/FUL Erection of two self-build dwellings and Refused associated works. Little Vatch, Farm Lane, 22/04/2020 Leckhampton, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, CBC GL53 0NS. 13/01605/OUT Residential development of up to 650 Refused dwellings; mixed use local centre of up to 08/08/2014 1.94ha comprising a local convenience retail CBC unit Class A1 Use (400sqm), additional retail unit Class A1 Use for a potential pharmacy (100sqm), Class D1 Use GP surgery (1,200sqm,) and up to 4,500sqm of additional floor space to comprise one or more of the following uses, namely Class A Uses, Class B1 offices, Class C2 care home, and Class D1 Uses including a potential dentist practice, children’s nursery and/or cottage hospital; a primary school of up to 1.72ha; strategic open space including allotments; access roads, cycle ways, footpaths, open space/landscaping and associated works; details of the principal means of access; with all other matters to be reserved. 14/00838/FUL Full application for residential development Consent comprising 377 dwellings, including access 26/04/2016 and associated infrastructure. Land To The Tewkesbury West Of Farm Lane, Shurdington. BC
3.2 The remaining area to the north of the school application site, covered by Cheltenham Local Plan policy MD4 is the subject of pre-application discussions between the developer and CBC (not involving GCC Planners). Pre-application public consultation by the developer has taken place in the last year, but it is unclear when an application will be forthcoming.
4.0 POLICY CONTEXT
National Planning Policy Framework
Page 51 4.1 The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF3) published on 19th February 2019 sets out the Government’s planning policy for England and how this is expected to be applied and is a material consideration in determining this application. In assessing and determining planning proposals, the local planning authority should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is the main focus of the NPPF3 in relation to both the plan-making and decision making process.
4.2 Paragraph 124 of the NPPF3 states that “the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities. Being clear about design expectations, and how these will be tested, is essential for achieving this. So too is effective engagement between applicants, communities, local planning authorities and other interests throughout the process.”
4.3 Paragraph 127 of the NPPF3 states that planning decisions should ensure that developments:
a. “will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b. are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c. are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience..”
4.4 Paragraph 148 of the NPPF3 states “…The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.”
Page 52 4.5 Paragraph 150 b) of the NPPF3 states that “…New development should be planned for in ways that can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as through its location, orientation and design. Any local requirements for the sustainability of buildings should reflect the Government’s policy for national technical standards.”
4.6 Paragraph 153 of the NPPF3 states that “In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should expect new development to: b) take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption.”
4.7 Paragraph 154 of the NPPF3 states that “When determining planning applications for renewable and low carbon development, local planning authorities should: a) not require applicants to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy, and recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and b) approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.. Once suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas.”
4.8 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF3 requires planning decisions to enhance the natural and local environment by:
“a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate; d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.”
Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy (WCS) (2012)
Page 53 4.9 Under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
4.10 The WCS forms part of the Development Plan. Policies from the adopted WCS which are relevant to this application are: Policy WCS1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy WCS2 – Waste Reduction
Joint Core Strategy – Adopted 5th December 2017
4.11 The adopted Joint Core Strategy (JCS) forms part of the Development Plan and provides the strategic policy for development across the three administrative areas of Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury until 2031. Tewkesbury Borough Council formally adopted the Joint Core Strategy (5th December 2017) along with Gloucester City Council (23rd November 2017) and Cheltenham Borough Council (11th December 2017).
Relevant JCS policies are: Policy SP1 – The Need for New Development. Policy SP2 – Distribution of New Development. Policy SD3 – Sustainable Design and Construction. Policy SD4 – Design Requirements. Policy SD6 – Landscape. Policy SD7 – The Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Policy SD8 – Historic Environment. Policy SD14 – Health & Environmental Quality. Policy INF3 – Green Infrastructure. Policy INF4 – Social and Community Infrastructure. Policy INF5 – Renewable Energy and low carbon energy development. Policy INF6 – Infrastructure Delivery.
Joint Core Strategy Review
4.12 The JCS authorities have published an 'Issues and Options' consultation under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The consultation period ran from 12th November 2018 to the 11th January 2019. This is at an early stage in the review process therefore carries no significant weight.
Cheltenham Plan 2011-2031 (Adopted 20th July 2020)
4.13 Relevant policies (applicable to this section 73 application) are summarised below: Policy D1: Design Policy L1: Landscape and setting Policy H2: Land allocated for mixed use development Policy MD 4: Leckhampton.
Page 54 4.14 All of the above factors were considered in detail in consideration of the original application. This proposal accords with the policy objectives of the now adopted Cheltenham Plan, in part of the allocated mixed use development as set out within policy MD4: Leckhampton.
4.15 The newly adopted Local Plan does not contain any specific policies relating to climate change.
Other District Council Policy
Leckhampton and Warden Hill Neighbourhood Plan
4.16 On 15th September 2015, CBC approved the designation of a neighbourhood area covering Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish made under Section 61G of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Regulation 5(1) of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 to enable the Parish Council to undertake neighbourhood planning and prepare a neighbourhood plan. To be adopted by the Borough Council, the neighbourhood plan must be in general conformity with the development strategy and policies set out in existing development plans. CBC’s website shows no neighbourhood plan has been adopted for this area to date.
Other County Council Policy
Gloucestershire County Council Climate Change Commitment
4.17 On the 15th May 2019, GCC endorsed a climate change emergency and committed to help deliver a carbon neutral county by 2050. Councillors agreed at Full Council to work with partners to identify what measures are needed to deliver a stepped target of 80 percent reduction of carbon emissions by 2030. This commitment refers to the inclusion in the Council’s major strategies such as the Local Transport Plan (LTP) to having clearly identified strategies to reduce carbon emissions.
4.18 While not part of the Development Plan, the Council’s Climate Change Commitment could be considered a material consideration when determining planning applications.
Gloucestershire’s Climate Change Strategy (December 2019)
4.19 Gloucestershire County Council’s vision: “By 2050 we will create a carbon neutral county that provides quality of life now and for future generations, having improved the quality of our natural environment. By 2030 we will have reduced our carbon emissions by 80%.”
Page 55 The strategy sets out a challenging action plan with short, medium and long term measures to reduce carbon emissions. Most relevant actions to this application are:
Action By Who Resources needed Lead Organisation 11. Work with our partners Leadership To be established GCC to ensure that all new Gloucestershire public buildings and residential and commercial developments support the move to zero carbon and improve resilience 12. Work with our partners Leadership To be established GCC to aim for all new Gloucestershire development sites to deliver high quality green infrastructure in line with the ‘Building with Nature’ standards, developed by Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust.
The Council has pledged to:
2. Buildings – ours, residents, businesses and partners Work with our partners to aim for all new development sites to deliver high quality green infrastructure in line with the ‘Building with Nature’ standards, developed by Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust.
7. Land use Develop and implement the ‘Million Trees Challenge’; an extensive tree planting programme with public and private landowners across the county, aiming to plant a million trees by 2030 as a significant contribution to Net Zero by 2050. Support Gloucestershire Local Nature Partnership to maintain and enhance the quality of our natural environment, protecting and enhancing biodiversity including in managing our own estate.
Gloucestershire’s Local Transport Plan 2015 – 2031
4.20 Whilst not part of the Development Plan, the adopted (2011) LTP is a material consideration to be taken into account when preparing the Development Plan and when determining planning applications. The LTP sets out the long-term transport strategy up to 2031. It aims to influence how and when individuals choose to travel so that individual travel decisions do not cumulatively result in the failure of the transport network, negatively impacting on the desirability of Gloucestershire as a place to live, work and invest. The LTP is currently being reviewed as new priorities emerge, and was subject to public consultation early in 2020, the 10 week consultation period closed on 26th March 2020. The revised LTP was approved at Cabinet on 27th January 2021 and will be considered for adoption at Full Council on 17th March 2021.
Page 56 4.21 The LTP explains that GCC is the local Highway Authority and the Transport Authority and does not have resources to address problems without close partnership working and shared responsibility of parish and district councils, businesses, transport operators and individuals. Funding streams are needed to support the delivery of the Plan. It is no longer the function of the LTP to identify all of the required funding for transport. Funding contributions may be obtained from developers of land through planning obligation agreements with local planning authorities and / or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to mitigate the impact of development in line with policies of the NPPF3.
Other Policy
Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Management Plan 2018-2023
4.22 The Cotswolds AONB Management Plan is a statutory plan prepared by the Cotswold Conservation Board, which sets out the vision, outcomes and policies for the management of the Cotswolds AONB for the period 2018- 2023. The Management Plan has two primary purposes:
1. To conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Cotswolds AONB. 2. To increase the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Cotswolds AONB.
The relevant policies are:
Policy CC2: Compliance with Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (the ‘Duty of Regard’) Policy CC7: Climate Change – Mitigation Policy CE1: Landscape
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The application was publicised by site notices dated 15th October 2020 and a press notice in the Gloucestershire Echo newspaper on the 15th October 2020. The expiry date for comments was 5th November 2020.
5.2 234 neighbour notification letters were sent to all persons having made representations on the previous planning application 19/0058/CHR3MJ. No public comments have been received.
5.3 Local Member County Councillor R Vines - Brockworth Division
“I have no comments to make.”
Local Member County Councillor I Dobie – Leckhampton and Warden Hill
Page 57 “As the local county councillor, I have been invited to comment on this application.
I strongly support increasing the use of photovoltaic arrays to generate more electricity at the new High School Leckhampton.
This will help towards achieving the aim of making this new build CO2 neutral - which is entirely in line with the current, publicly declared, policy of Gloucestershire County Council.”
6.0 CONSULTATIONS
6.1 Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC)
No objection raised.
6.2 Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council
No objections to the application.
6.3 Shurdington Parish Council
No comments received.
6.4 Up Hatherley Parish Council
No comments received.
6.5 Natural England (NE)
NE currently has no comment to make on the variation of condition 2.
Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, NE should be consulted again. Before sending us any further consultations regarding this development, please assess whether the changes proposed will materially affect any of the advice we have previously offered. If they are unlikely to do so, please do not re-consult us.
6.6 Cotswold Conservation Board
Thank you for consulting the Cotswolds Conservation Board on the above planning application, which relates to a proposed variation of condition 2 for planning consent 19/0058/CHR3MJ.
The proposed development is located in the setting of the Cotswolds AONB, approximately 1.7km from elevated AONB viewpoints on Leckhampton Hill.
Page 58 At present, the Board does not have capacity to provide a substantive response to this consultation. The lack of a substantive response from the Board should not be taken to mean that the Board has taken the view that the proposed development would, or would not, have any adverse impacts on the AONB.
The Board asks that, when the local planning authority assesses and reaches a decision on the planning application, explicit consideration is given to the:
Statutory duty to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB (Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/section/85); Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-2023 (https://www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2018/12/Management-Plan-2018-23.pdf) ; Views from and to the AONB, in relation to the Cotswold escarpment - these views are one of the 'special qualities' of the AONB, as outlined in Chapter 3 of the AONB Management Plan; Cotswolds AONB Landscape Character Assessment (https://www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/our-landscape/landscape- character-assessment/ ), particularly, in this instance, with regards to Landscape Character Type (LCT) 2 (Escarpment); Cotswolds AONB Landscape Strategy and Guidelines (https://www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/our-landscape/landscape-strategy- guidelines/ ), particularly, in this instance, with regards to the strategy and guidelines for LCT 2 (link); Cotswolds AONB Local Distinctiveness and Landscape Change (https://www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/our-landscape/local-distinctiveness- landscape-change/ ); Cotswolds Conservation Board Position Statements (https://www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/our-landscape/position-statements/ ), in particular, in this instance, the Position Statement on Development in the Setting of the Cotswolds AONB (https://www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2017/08/setting-position-statement-2016-adopted-with- minor-changes-30616-1.pdf ).
6.7 Historic England
Thank you for your letter of 14 October 2020 regarding the above application for a variation of condition 2 (scope of development) relating to planning consent 19/0058/CHR3MJ. On the basis of the information available to date, we do not wish to offer any comments. We suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as relevant.
It is not necessary for us to be consulted on this application again, unless there are material changes to the proposals. However, if you would like detailed advice from us, please contact us to explain your request.
Page 59 6.8 Western Power Distribution
No response.
6.9 Gloucestershire Airport No response.
7.0 STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE OBSERVATIONS
7.1 County Ecologist This variation proposal is for amendment of the roof of the new school to be built but also an increase in size of the proposed external compound. My attention in considering any biodiversity implications is to study the proposed replacement landscape masterplan. This is a crucial document in the construction and operation of the new high school.
I have compared the new Landscape Masterplan drawing P19-0501_02 Rev C dated 06/07/2020 with current approved drawing P19-0501_02 Rev B dated 4/02/2020. Revision C shows a larger external compound 'to allow 4 high cube containers'. This change results in one less formal tree being planted and a small area of amenity shrub/ground cover not being introduced. This is quite a small change and a negligible reduction of biodiversity enhancement represented in the landscaping scheme. I therefore have no objections to allowing this variation which has no significant implications for biodiversity.
Recommendations The following items should be addressed to be able to consent this development.
Pre-determination: Determine whether there are implications for the wording of the S106 agreement associated with consent 19/0058/CHR3MJ dated 21/07/2020. If so I assume it will need updating and re-signed.
Determination: As part of a consent that may be granted items including the following below should be attached:
1. The new landscape masterplan drawing P19-0501_02 Rev C dated 06/07/2020 must be reflected in the new Scope of Development condition (previously numbered 2) and previously numbered condition 29.
2. Informatives as for 19/0058/CHR3MJ are still required, i.e. previously numbered 7, 8 and 19. In respect of informative 19, which covers the S106 agreement, I refer you to the pre-determination item above.
Biodiversity enhancement is not recommended because it is unreasonable to require it or achieve it given the scale and type of variation concerned.
Page 60 7.2 County Landscape Advisor (GCC Landscape & Visual Architect Consultant)
Comments received on 17/09/2020
Thank you for your email and letter regarding the above Reg 73 application to vary Condition 2 of application 19/0058/CHR3MJ dated 21/07/2020. Firstly, to deal with your request for my opinion on the need for a formal environmental statement as the application falls within Section 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. Having reviewed the submitted information, I am content that in respect of landscape and visual impacts a formal ES is not required. As previously discussed and subsequently requested by you, an addendum to the previous LVIA [Landscape Value Impact Assessment] has been produced and submitted. Taking account of this and the proposed variations, I do not consider them to be of sufficient significance. Secondly, to assess the landscape and visual impacts and mitigation proposed, the planning statement refers to three changes to the approved design: 1) To increase the currently approved "small array" of PVs to full coverage of the roof 2) Raising the parapet to provide safety for those maintaining the PVs etc. 3) Increasing the size of the storage compound adjacent to the MUGAs [Multi Use Games Area]. I note that a separate Glare and Glint Report has been commissioned and is submitted and also included as Appendix 3 to the LVIA addendum. Having read this, I am concerned that, whilst the potential impact on the Gloucester Airfield and planes landing/taking off is very fully assessed but I have concerns that the assessment of impact on other receptors is too closely drawn at (para 5.1) a 1km radius. This has the effect of ignoring potential receptors in the AONB and from viewpoints on the rising scarp slope where the PV cells and any glare from them is likely to be more obvious as it will not be screened either by the building form or intervening vegetation. I would suggest this needs to be addressed in both Glare/Glint and LVIA assessments. It is unclear why the parapet needs raising? It suggests it wasn't at a suitable height to provide safety originally? I can accept the LVIA assessment that the increase in parapet height by 450mm to 575mm is probably insignificant, it would be helpful to understand why other potential safety measures have not been assessed, for example railings or similar that would provide the same level of safety but avoid the massing of the increase in solid structure? As you know, when I first commented to you, I had concerns that, on an already heavily developed site, the doubling in size of the storage building could not be off-set by appropriate biodiversity gain and landscape improvements. From reviewing the revised site plan and the LVIA addendum, as set out in paras 1.5 and 1.6, it is clear that there are significant visual, landscape and biodiversity gains now proposed compared to 19/0058/CHR3MJ with increased hedgerow retention, new hedgerow and tree planting and other improvements. These are to be welcomed. I note that in part these have been able to be brought forward on the basis of a now
Page 61 completed Arboricultural Survey. This does not appear to form part of this application but it would be helpful to have sight of it before making any final comments.
I would be pleased if you could seek the above additional information and clarification from the applicant so that I can take that into consideration before making my final comments and proposed conditions.
Comments received on 29/10/20
Thanks for your email and letter.
I've reviewed the additional information provided by the agent; in particular the Evans Jones letter of 2nd October 2020.
With regard to my comments on the parapet, I am content with the justification given as being the best H&S [Health & Safety] solution for operatives working on the roof.
I am disappointed that the agent has sought to dismiss consideration of glare impacts on the AONB on the grounds of no safety impacts and considers "annoyance" not to be an issue. I am also disappointed that the Pegasus Group LVIA statement ignores residential receptors. I have forwarded you separate request for comment on glare to our intrusive lighting expert and am happy to be guided by his comments in respect of the significance of potential impacts on the AONB.
Comments received on 16/12/2020
Thanks for your email and the further information.
In respect of landscape and visual matters I’ve read the revised report and also, in particular, the letter from David Jones of Evan Jones of 3rd December [2020] (Ref: 14229) with the additional comments and assessment from Pegasus Landscape Architects. I am content with their assessment and thank them for drawing my attention to the cross-section showing the parapet wall and association with the PV array.
Considering the above, I have no further comments in respect of landscape or visual matters.
7.3 GCC Glint/Glare/Lighting Advisor
Comments received on 17/11/2020
We have reviewed this document and find it to be a detailed document that follows accepted practices with regard to Glare and Glint generally. The document covers two types of receptors aviation receptors and ground based receptors. There are no residential receptors identified. The aviation receptors for both the approaches, runways and ATC [Air Traffic Control] control tower
Page 62 are covered well and taking the report at face value there are no issues. You have to accept all the assumptions within the report to get to this conclusion. However noting that Pager Power are specialists in this area their knowledge is good indication that the assumptions are reasonable for the airport.
The ground based receptors is a different case they have identified 53 receptors of which 24 they say have a view of the panels. It is not clear how that reduction from 53 to 24 receptors has been made as the mitigation is seen to be by the shielding of vegetation we would expect that the report be supported by ground level photographic evidence from the points and not aerial photography. This approach is the one that is adopted for obtrusive light assessments and is recognised methodology when assessing views. What is common in this report along with the recent report for Quayside house is insufficient background supporting information about the project itself such as key sections and elevations showing the arrangement of the panels to enable understanding orientation of the panels, roofscape and any shielding that may be offered in terms of parapets and projections, etc. We would not expect Pager Power to produce the architectural information but they should include information from the architects or contractors to support their knowledge about the project and identify the dataset they have used in their programme to produce the analysis.
We also note that there is no assessment for the additional points for the AONB are not taken into account and would support the statement that from a health and safety statement that you would not consider a point beyond 1 Km. However the Glint and Glare Advisor believes the point being made here is that this is one of visual nuisance. He cannot establish from the report as to whether the glare or glint would exist. However there is no guidance or legislative framework for the nuisance to be assessed.
In summary we would suggest that the report needs strengthening with regard to the ground based receptors and some additional project drawings be included to detail the arrangement of the panels and the general arrangement of the roof.
Comments received on 17/12/2020
We believe there is not a substantial issue with glare and glint with this project, but this general opinion has had to be based upon the assumptions that are made in the Pager Power (PP) report (ref 9917A rev3) dated 30th November 2020.
The aviation section of this report follows established practice and is comprehensive enough to say there are no issues.
It is clear in revision 3 of the report that some of our previous comments have been addressed but not all of them. The format of the report is not ideal and you have to continually move between sections to see whether a point has been addressed in another section of the document. There is little to no cross- referring between sections.
Page 63 It is the residential and public right of way receptors that cause a certain amount of concern.
General concerns
We still have to make significant assumptions about the PV installation, position and view of sensitive receptors. Atkins would expect that substantiation of the sensitive receptor locations in terms of road name and residence number with photographic evidence that there is a view of the panels. From the report we are of the opinion that the report’s author has not been to site and established the views of the receptors. This is a basic requirement for obtrusive lighting assessments which are very similar in nature and glare and glint assessments should be following a similar methodology.
The Pager Power report is based upon the use of their own software and there is no evidence of third-party validation of this software as would be required in form of calibration certificates for measurement instruments for obtrusive lighting surveys.
It should be noted that there is currently no best practice guidance on Glare and Glint assessments as there is with obtrusive light. Aviation receptors are covered by documentation from both CAA and FAA and the Pager Power report is based upon this guidance.
The Pager Power report is still lacking on details on the building itself. The layout of the PV panels is not covered by dimensioned architectural drawings. There are details on the panel in terms of the angle of elevation the panels but not layout, number, size or orientation of the panels. The omission of a layout of the PV panels is significant as it will indicate the orientation of the panels and their direction of tilt (normally due south).
The quality of the images of the building are poor and it is difficult to establish key dimensions and salient notation such as North arrows are still missing (which are important to fix the sunpath positioning).
The letter from Evans Jones shows a parapet wall around what are essentially flat rooves. The maximum angle on the rooves is 2 degrees (taken from Pager Power table). The PV cells do not protrude above the parapet so we would suggest that any sensitive receptor, where glare might be an issue, would have to live in either a multi-storey property that is over 12m or higher than the level of the school or walking at high ground possibly Leckhampton Hill (height 293m above sea level). It is not clear that Pager Power report takes into account the shading from the parapet. It should be noted that the Pager Power report only takes into account residential receptors at 1.8m above ground level for ground floor windows upper storey windows do appear not to have been considered.
The Pager Power report does not refer to the relative heights of the receptor points in relationship to the school and the heights PV panels. The report does
Page 64 refer to the PV panels as being 85m above mean sea level, hence the ground level receptors on the public rights of way adjacent to the school can never see PV panels due to the parapet wall which we assume to be between 900mm and 1200mm in height.
The sun paths range between 58 -15 deg altitude summer to winter solstice in the UK hence with the angle of the panels the direct specular reflection will be upward. Diffuse reflected component will be at a multitude of angles dependant on the choice of PV cell. Sensitive receptors would have to be above the height of the parapet to be able to have a view of the PV Panels and then be within the azimuth angle range of the sun-path and have a direct view of the PV panels. We would expect to see a project specific sun-path diagram including a plan of the building so that the times of the year and time of day that glare is likely to occur can be evidenced.
As there is no description of the receptor locations we cannot establish whether reasonable positions have been assessed on Leckhampton Hill. A couple of contoured maps highlighting the levels of the sensitive receptors would be helpful as the PV panels are on a flat roof the cells will only be visible from higher points as mentioned earlier in this review.
In conclusion the report is comprehensive but uses a significant amount of assumptions to make its case and we cannot test these assumptions. We have therefore used our experience to assess the report and its findings and on this basis we would suggest that glare and glint will be of minimal significance for this project.
Comments received on 14/01/2021
I have read the report, the bottom line is the report is not very well put together. It basically says that there is the possibility of glare and glint for short periods of time for some of the ground level receptors but it is difficult for me to assess the validity of their statement as there is not enough detail about the local topology. The additional data provided within the report helps the overall understanding of the installation but has not been altered to take account of our comments e.g. site survey or accounting for the parapet both of which require the applicant to make significant changes to their current report. The applicant statement about what they have done is take a more worse case analysis is true but does not aid a lay person say one of the identified receptors, understand whether they are likely to be affected.
It is our view that the report should be accepted on the basis that the level of affected residential and rights of way receptors is small but if there is a specific objection from one of the receptors for glare and glint then the applicant should be required to provide additional information to support that specific case which may include a site survey and additional information.
7.4 The Highway Authority
Page 65 The County Council as the Highway Authority acting in its role as Statutory Consultee has undertaken a full assessment of this planning application. Based on the appraisal of the development proposals the Highways Development Management Manager has no objection.
The justification for this decision is provided below.
The Highway Authority has undertaken a robust assessment of the planning application. Based on the analysis of the information submitted the Highway Authority concludes that there would not be an unacceptable impact on Highway Safety or a severe impact on congestion. There are no justifiable grounds on which an objection could be maintained.
The Highway Authority therefore submits a response of no objection.
7.5 County Archaeological Advisor
The County Archaeologist is happy that the archaeology on the site is currently being perfectly adequately dealt with via condition 19 of 19/0058/CHR3MJ and there is no need to formally consult us on this.
8.0 Planning Considerations:
8.1 The planning condition 2 which is proposed to be varied is concerned with the scope of the development and involves the substitution of revised plans to show an increased number of PV cells and raising the roof parapet. This is a direct response to the Council’s commitment to address the climate change emergency. The revisions proposed within this application include covering the whole of the proposed roof with PV cells, in so doing lifting the sustainability credentials of the building to a net zero carbon emission with an energy performance certificate rating of ‘A’.
8.2 In addition, this application also includes a minor amendment to the proposed external compound within the grounds of the school. At the request of the Academy Trust the size of the compound has been increased, thus the opportunity has been taken within this application to also seek approval for that minor amendment.
8.3 The main considerations material to the determination of the original planning application were:
the relevant legislative and planning policy context. This includes statutory instruments, the national policy context such as the NPPF, the existing Development Plan, and any draft policy including any proposed allocations within the emerging Cheltenham Local Plan; highways and transport; ecological impact including species protects under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and lighting; landscape impact including glint and glare; AONB impact;
Page 66 archaeology – including the setting of the SAM; heritage assessment – listed buildings; design; amenity impact (including noise, dust and air quality); energy efficiency and carbon footprint and its relationship with policy on climate change; and other relevant planning issues.
8.4 These issues were considered in full in the report and were discussed in full at the Planning Committee in May 2020. The principle of development was established at that Committee and through the subsequent granting of planning permission upon completion of the planning obligation to secure the biodiversity offset land, by decision notice dated 21st July 2020.
8.5 As stated by the Cotswold Conservation Board in their consultation response, the proposed development is located in the setting of the Cotswolds AONB, approximately 1.7km from elevated AONB viewpoints on Leckhampton Hill. In addition to the policy context, the material considerations relevant to the current application relate not to the siting of a new school in this location, but to the potential landscape and visual impact of the proposed additional PV panels on the roof and the potential glint and glare arising from them, together with the increase in the height of the parapet.
Planning Policy Context
8.6 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF3) was revised on 19th February 2019. The Framework sets out the Government’s economic, environmental and social planning policies for England and details how these are expected to be applied. It is, in itself, a material consideration in planning decisions. In assessing and determining planning proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is the main focus of the NPPF3 in relation to both the plan-making and decision-making process. Relevant policy is detailed in section 4 of this report.
8.7 The Development Plan comprises the Cheltenham Plan (Adopted 20th July 2020), the Joint Core Strategy (Adopted December 2017) (JCS), the Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy (2012) (WCS).
8.8 The relevant Cheltenham Plan (Adopted 20th July 2020) policies relate to design, landscape and setting, land allocated for mixed use development are set out in section 4.11 of this report. Policy H2 Land allocated for mixed development and Policy MD 4: Leckhampton, relate to a site allocated for approximately 350 dwellings and a secondary school.
8.9 Policy MD4 states “Originally a JCS site, development at this location will need to take into account landscape impacts, highways issues and green space. Site boundaries are based on the JCS Inspector’s comments in her Note of Recommendations from 21 July 2016. Development at this location will need to ensure that the JCS examination’s consideration and findings related to this
Page 67 site are fully taken into account. Along with this, the site has an extensive planning history related to the earlier, larger proposal (13/01605/OUT); the Inspector’s and Secretary of State’s findings in this appeal should also be reflected in any future scheme.”
8.10 In terms of the construction of a new secondary school and the site specific requirements in respect of pedestrian and cycle access, the form and layout of the site, impact upon heritage assets, and layout and form of development that respects the visual sensitivity and landscape character of the site as part of the setting for the AONB, were examined in detail in consideration of the original application. The implications or material considerations of the current proposal are set out below.
8.11 In an attempt to make the new building more energy efficient, the current proposal will introduce additional PV cells, covering a majority of the available roof area and increase the height of the roof parapet wall. The area covered by PV panels will increase from 650m2 to 1,500 m2. This will introduce PV panels onto the roof of the classrooms forming the sides of the ‘U’ shape and in addition to those already approved on the main part of the building between the halls. The parapet wall will increase by 450mm on the main classroom buildings and 575mm on the main hall. The PV panels will not be on the roof of the sports hall or the main hall. The roof edge parapet has been increased in size to provide a safe working environment to any operative that needs to visit the roof for maintenance and to screen the solar array from view. Further to this two extra fire escapes will be provided which will be screened from view by the parapet edge.
8.12 These additions have two main implications that affect the visible aspects of the building. Where the roof parapet has increased in height, the building has become slightly taller and the proportion of brick work above the first floor windows to the parapet coping is larger. Secondly, the roof has more PV panels on it. These changes need to be viewed in the context of the approved building. https://ww3.gloucestershire.gov.uk/gccdocs/gcc_docs_start.aspx?action=sho w&appName=planning&appNumber=20/0032/CHR3MJ
Landscape and AONB Impact
8.13 JCS Policy SD6 sets the context for landscape and states that “development will seek to protect landscape character for its own intrinsic beauty and for its benefit to economic, environmental and social wellbeing. Proposals will have regard to the local distinctiveness and historic character of the different landscapes in the JCS area, drawing, as appropriate, upon existing Landscape Character Assessments and the Landscape Character and Sensitivity Analysis. They will be required to demonstrate how the development will protect or enhance landscape character and avoid detrimental effects on types, patterns and features which make a significant contribution to the character, history and setting of a settlement or area. All applications for development will consider the landscape and visual sensitivity of the area in which they are to be located or which they may affect. Planning
Page 68 applications will be supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment where, at the discretion of the local planning authority, one is required. Proposals for appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures should also accompany applications.”
8.14 JCS Policy SD7 provides the context for the Cotswolds AONB. All development proposals in or within the setting of the Cotswolds AONB will be required to conserve and, where appropriate, enhance its landscape, scenic beauty, wildlife, cultural heritage and other special qualities.
Glint and Glare
8.15 Glint and glare from the PV panels have been identified by the CPA as a potential area for concern, particularly when viewed from the AONB. The Applicant provided a design amendment statement and a glint and glare study (Nov 2020) in support of the planning application. Paragraph12 of NPPG - Renewable and low carbon energy June 2015ID states that “the proposal’s visual impact, the effect on landscape of glint and glare (see guidance on landscape assessment) and on neighbouring uses and aircraft safety” should be considered.
8.16 Pager Power was retained by the Applicant to assess the possible effects of glint and glare from a solar PV development on the roof of the proposed Cheltenham Secondary School in the Leckhampton area of Cheltenham. The assessment relates to the possible impact of glint and glare upon surrounding dwellings, pedestrians on the nearby Cotswolds, and aviation activity associated with Gloucestershire Airport.
8.17 The closest aerodrome to the proposed development is Gloucestershire Airport, which is located approximately 5km northwest of the development. Gloucestershire Airport is a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) licensed aerodrome used predominately by jet and fixed wing propeller aircraft for private and commercial use. The relevant aviation receptors assessed within the report are considered to be the Air Traffic Control Tower and approaching aircraft.
8.18 The analysis by Pager Power has shown “that solar reflections from the proposed solar development towards the ATC Tower are geometrically possible however reflections will not be experienced in practice due to the intervening terrain. No impact upon the ATC Tower is therefore expected and no mitigation is expected to be required. The modelling has shown that solar reflections are predicted towards the entirety of all assessed 2-mile approach paths. However, all predicted solar reflections will be outside the pilot’s field of view or have glare intensities of low potential for temporary after-image. Therefore, all solar reflections are deemed acceptable under the associated guidance. No significant impact upon pilots on any 2-mile approach path is expected.”
8.19 Pager Power state that “there is no formal guidance with regard to the maximum distance at which glint and glare should be assessed. From a technical perspective, there is no maximum distance for potential reflections. A
Page 69 1km buffer is considered appropriate for glint and glare effects on ground- based receptors. Receptors within this distance are identified based on mapping and aerial photography of the region. The analysis has considered dwellings that are within, or close to one kilometre of the proposed development; and have a potential view of the panels.”
8.20 The Pager Power analysis considered PROW that are within two kilometres of the proposed development; and have a potential view of the panels. (These PROWs are identified on figure 9 of the Pager Power report which can be viewed through public access.)
Figure 9 Public right of way receptors (Pager Powell Report 30/11/2020)
8.21 “The results of the modelling indicate that solar reflections are geometrically possible towards seven out of the 12 assessed dwelling receptors. However, a review of the available imagery and the Landscape Masterplan has shown screening in the form of existing trees and vegetation surrounding the proposed development will obstruct views of the reflecting panels for the dwellings represented by dwelling receptors 3 and 9 to 12.” (See figure 8 below extract from Pager Powell Report 30/11/2020).
Page 70 Figure 8 Dwelling receptors (1 to 9) (Pager Powell Report 30/11/2020)
Figure 14 Dwelling receptors (10 to 12) (Pager Powell Report 30/11/2020)
Page 71 8.22 Pager Power conclude for dwellings that “solar reflections are geometrically possible towards seven out of the 12 assessed dwelling receptors; however, effects are only predicted to be experienced at dwellings represented by dwelling receptors 7 and 8 due to significant screening in the form of existing trees and vegetation.
For these dwellings, despite screening in the form of existing vegetation, formal tree planting, and the raised parapet, it cannot be conclusively determined whether views of all of the panels will be completely obscured from the upper floors of the dwellings. A site survey or visibility analysis may reveal that views of the reflecting panels are completely obstructed by the identified screening.
Based on a conservative approach, whereby it is assumed that partial views of the panels are possible, a moderate impact is predicted…However, mitigation is not recommended for these dwellings because: • The duration of effects will be significantly or entirely reduced by the identified screening; • Effects could only be experienced from the upper floors of the dwellings due to the existing vegetation and proposed native hedgerows.”
8.23 Pager Power state that “compared to road users, safety is much less of a concern for pedestrians on a public right of way. Conclusions have therefore been based on the nuisance of the proposed development. The considerations for determining impact significance are: • Whether a reflection will be experienced in practice; • The duration of effects; • The relative position of the Sun and the reflection.
8.24 The modelling indicates that solar reflections are geometrically possible towards 24 out of the 53 assessed public right of way receptors. https://ww3.gloucestershire.gov.uk/gccdocs/gcc_docs_start.aspx?action=sho w&appName=planning&appNumber=20/0032/CHR3MJ However, a review of the available imagery, Landscape Masterplan, and building elevations has shown that solar reflections will not be experienced by pedestrians along the entirety of the potentially affected public rights of way in practice due to screening in the form of existing trees and vegetation surrounding the proposed development, as well as the raised parapet. This review has included historical imagery of the area, which suggests that the vegetation in the area is evergreen will also provide sufficient screening during the winter months.”
8.25 For impact upon the PROW’s, Pager Power conclude that “solar reflections are geometrically possible towards 24 out of the 53 assessed public right of way receptors. Effects will, however, not be experienced in practice due to significant screening in the form of existing trees and vegetation, which will block views of the panels for pedestrians at all locations throughout the entire year, as well as the raised parapet. No impacts upon pedestrians are expected and mitigation is therefore not required.”
Page 72 8.26 The Pager Power report has been reviewed by Atkin’s Glint and Glare Advisor (GGA) specialists acting on behalf of the County Planning Authority (CPA). They have twice asked for and received clarification on the information submitted. The GGA are satisfied that the aviation receptors for both the approaches, runways and ATC control tower are covered well and taking the report at face value there are no issues. The GGA states that “you have to accept all the assumptions within the report to get to this conclusion. However noting that Pager Power are specialists in this area their knowledge is good indication that the assumptions are reasonable for the airport.”
8.27 In the GGA’s final observations regarding dwellings and PROW they state “I've read the report, the bottom line is the report is not very well put together. It basically says that there is the possibility of glare and glint for short periods of time for some of the ground level receptors but it is difficult for me to assess the validity of their statement as there is not enough detail about the local topology. The additional data provided within the report helps the overall understanding of the installation but has not been altered to take account of our comments e.g. site survey or accounting for the parapet both of which require the applicant to make significant changes to their current report. The applicant statement about what they have done is take a more worse case analysis is true, but does not aid a lay person, say one of the identified receptors understand whether they are likely to be affected.”
8.28 In conclusion the GGA states “It is our view that the report should be accepted on the basis that the level of affected residential and rights of way receptors is small but if there is a specific objection from one of the receptors for glare and glint then the applicant should be required to provide additional information to support that specific case which may include a site survey and additional information.”
Landscape
8.29 The Applicant submitted an addendum to the LVIA (dated May 2020) which reviews the potential changes to landscape and visual effects of the LVIA (August 2019) in relation to the approved Landscape Masterplan P19- 0501_02 Rev A and the addition of PV solar panels on the school building roof.
8.30 Changes have been made to the submitted Landscape Masterplan P19- 0501_02 REV A to provide increased ecological benefit and to include additional tree survey information along Hatherley Brook. Amendments have been made to include increased vegetation retention along the Hatherley Brook, and along Farm Lane, further planting for ecological enhancement, substations relocated, hockey pitch relocated plus associated changes to retaining walls to accommodate this. Relevant revised photomontages have been supplied.
8.31 The amended LVIA concludes that “The proposed changes to the Landscape Masterplan will result in a small change to landscape elements, overall character and views of the site. The retention of hedgerows and trees along
Page 73 Farm Lane and Hatherley Brook and proposed planting within and around the site will have a beneficial impact, predominantly for ecological benefit but also in preserving the field pattern through retention of existing boundaries and maintaining screening. There would be no change to the overall landscape and visual effects assessed within the LVIA (2019).”
8.32 The County Landscape Advisor (CLA) initially expressed concerns about the need to increase the height of the parapets but accepts the findings of the LVIA that it is probably insignificant. He also asked to see the completed Arboricultural Survey. The additional information provided by the agent; in particular the Evans Jones letter of 2nd October 2020 was reviewed by the CLA who is content with the justification given as being the best H&S solution for operatives working on the roof.
8.33 The CLA was disappointed that the agent sought to dismiss consideration of glare impacts on the AONB on the grounds of no safety impacts and considers "annoyance" not to be an issue. A revised report and supporting letter from David Jones of Evan Jones of 3rd December 2020 (Ref: 14229) was submitted with additional comments and assessment from Pegasus Landscape Architects. The CLA is content with their assessment and thanks them for drawing his attention to the cross-section showing the parapet wall and association with the PV array. Considering the above, the CLA offered no further comments in respect of landscape or visual matters.
Comments of the Cotswold Conservation Board (CCB)
8.34 The CCB noted the location of the development within the setting of the AONB. They state that whilst they do not have the capacity to provide a substantive response to the consultation that should not be taken that the Board has the view that the proposed development would, or would not, have any adverse impacts on the AONB. In their response the CCB helpfully provided links to their relevant policy documents (para. 6.7 above).
8.35 The CCB refer to the general duty of public bodies exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an AONB, to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB. As required by Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which is further reinforced by policy CC2 of the Cotswold AONB Management Plan (CMP).
8.36 This proposal is for the provision of additional PV panels on a building which has planning permission, in an area outside of, but close to the AONB. It is this aspect that needs to be assessed against the CMP policies and whether this will have a greater impact upon the AONB. The CLA and GGA have, on balance, concurred with the findings of the Applicant’s consultant. Having reviewed the revised photomontages, especially the view from Leckhampton Hill, the CLA does not consider that the increase in height of the parapet will be discernible at that distance. Clearly the greater number of PV panels may be distinguishable, but they will be set against the background of a grey roof.
Page 74 8.37 Policy CC7 of the CMP relates to climate change. Part 1 of this policy seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a range of measures, inter alia: improving energy efficiency, including building energy-efficient new buildings and retrofitting existing buildings; using small-scale forms of renewable energy that are compatible with the purpose of AONB designation.
Part 2 of the policy seeks to ensure that climate change mitigation should be a key consideration in all new development.
8.38 Policy CE1 of the CMP relates to landscape and part 1 seeks to ensure that “proposals that are likely to impact on, or create change in, the landscape of the Cotswolds AONB, should have regard to, be compatible with and reinforce the landscape character of the location, as described by the Cotswolds Conservation Board’s Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Strategy Guidelines”. Part 2 requires that these “proposals should have regard to the scenic quality of the location and its setting and ensure that views – including those into and out of the AONB – and visual amenity are conserved and enhanced.”
8.39 The CCB Cotswolds AONB Landscape Strategy and Guidelines make reference to solar farms on or in the setting of the escarpment. Whilst this is not considered to be a solar farm, or a solar array of that scale, the principles can be applied as a starting point. It reviews the potential landscape implications and suggests strategies and guidelines which the Applicant has complied with for this application.
Local Forces For Change Potential Landscape Implications Landscape Strategies and Guidelines Solar Farms on or in the setting of the Escarpment Industrialisation of the rural Prevent proposals for solar farms landscape that will impact negatively on Change of character due to colour landscape character and/or intrude and texture and heliographic glint into views to and/or from the Loss of seasonal change in the Escarpment landscape Avoid proposals that will result in Loss of characteristic pastoral the loss or harm to landscape landscape features such as Strip Lynchets, Damage to and loss of landscape hedgerows and walls features such as Ridge and Furrow, Ensure a comprehensive LVIA is Strip Lynchets, trees, walls and undertaken (including potential hedgerows. cumulative effects) Concealment of geomorphological Ensure a glint/glare assessment is or archaeological features undertaken to determine the Impact of supporting infrastructure heliographic impact on receptors. such as buildings and cables, Reduce landscape impact with roadways, security fencing, CCTV appropriate screening masts and lighting. Bury cables underground and seek Decline in quality of landscape opportunities to bury existing power lines Keep supporting infrastructure to a minimum and ensure it is in keeping with landscape character Ensure removal and restoration on temporary construction access.
Page 75 8.40 In 2014 the CMB produced a position statement on renewable energy which recognises that the Cotswolds AONB along with other areas must play its part in reducing emissions, and this may be helped by the small-scale, local generation of energy from renewable sources. However, any schemes should ensure the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the area. Particular reference is made to solar photovoltaic (domestic scale and solar farms).
8.41 The position statement states “generally, solar power installations will be micro- or small-scale, usually serving individual properties, and are likely to have minimal landscape or other impacts if appropriately sited on buildings or land. The Board will therefore generally not object to such installations, many of which now benefit from permitted development rights. Concerns may arise in connection with micro- or small-scale schemes in respect of listed buildings or non-designated heritage assets, and in Conservation Areas, where a solar array may detract from the character and appearance of the building or area. With careful design and siting even these locations may be appropriate for such installations.”
8.42 “Subject to the location of panels on the top (and in exceptional circumstances) the side of existing buildings, large well-designed solar arrays are likely to be acceptable. There are many large farm buildings where panels could be placed with little or no negative impact on the landscape of the AONB.”
8.43 The CPA considers that the Applicant has addressed the potential for impact of this proposal upon the setting of the AONB. As recognised by the CCB, PV panels benefit from generous permitted development rights on domestic properties. There would be no control or consideration of the possible effects of PV panels across the roof tops of the recently constructed neighbouring residential properties upon the AONB.
8.44 Given the comments of the CLA and the GGA and the information within the documents submitted in support of the application, the CPA does not consider that the proposal would be contrary to the policies of the CCB. In accordance with JCS Policies SD6 and SD7 the proposal will not detract from the setting of the Cotswold AONB, the raised parapets will help to screen the PV panels, without adversely affecting the visual appearance of the proposed building.
Heritage Assets
8.45 Paragraph 190 of NPPF3 states that “Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.”
Page 76 8.46 The school site is located approximately 245m North West of the remains of a medieval settlement known as ‘Moated site and fishponds at Church Farm’, also known as ‘Leckhampton Moat’ and designated as a Scheduled Monument. The County Archaeologist and Historic England (HE) were consulted because this development may therefore have the potential to impact on the setting of that Scheduled Monument. The monument is located to the north of Church Farm Leckhampton. HE did not wish to offer any comments on this application and suggested that the County Archaeological Advisor be consulted. The latter is satisfied that archaeology and wider heritage assets are being adequately dealt with by condition 19 of the planning consent.
Design
8.47 Policy SD4 of the JCS, Policy D1 of the Cheltenham Plan require development to be of a high standard of architectural design that responds positively to and respects the character of the site and its surroundings. Policy SD6 of the JCS seeks to ensure proposals seek to respect landscape character, local distinctiveness and historic landscapes and introduces the need for LVIAs in support of applications. Policy SD7 of the JCS seeks the protection of the AONB.
8.48 The design of a building is very important for, as well as being aesthetically pleasing, it should blend naturally with its neighbouring structures and be easy to use for its occupants. In addition it must meet with Building Regulations.
8.49 The Applicant put very careful consideration into the design of the School, both to meet the ambitions of the potential users and to ensure that it is sympathetic to the local environment whilst making the best use of the available space within the key site constraints.
8.50 JCS Policy SD4 states “ Where appropriate, proposals for development - which may be required to be accompanied by a masterplan and design brief - will need to clearly demonstrate how the following principles have been incorporated:
i. Context, Character and Sense of Place ii. Legibility and Identity iii. Amenity and Space iv. Public Realm and Landscape v. Safety and Security vi. Inclusiveness and Adaptability vii. Movement and Connectivity”
8.51 The Applicant submitted a Design Amendment Statement (dated July 2020) https://ww3.gloucestershire.gov.uk/gccdocs/gcc_docs_start.aspx?action=sho w&appName=planning&appNumber=20/0032/CHR3MJ
Page 77 together with appropriate plans, artists’ impressions, elevational and block plans and supporting documents, which demonstrate how the above principles have been incorporated.
8.52 In paragraph 8.12 above the main change to the building is to the roof parapet which has increased in height, the building has become slightly taller and the proportion of brick work above the first floor windows to the parapet coping is larger. There will be no change to the ground floor internal arrangement of the building. The internal arrangement of the first floor of the amendment design remains largely as the approved scheme. The only developments are the addition of two escape /egress ladders from the roof providing fire escape options for any roof operatives that may need them in a fire escape situation. The supporting documents illustrate the differences between the approved building compared to the amended building. The revised sections through the building demonstrate that the additional height on the parapet has minimal effect on the overall perception of the building in terms of height and scale.
8.53 The Applicant states that “one of the key criteria for upgrading the schemes energy criteria was to minimise impact on the overall building appearance, recognising the sensitivity of its setting. The parapet were set at a minimum height which provides safe access to the roof and at the same time screening of the PV panels.”
8.54 The CPA does not consider that this will have a significant impact upon the overall appearance and will not disrupt the visual appearance of the building. Given the scale and massing of the building it is unlikely that the change will be discernible.
Amendment to the Storage compound.
8.55 The Applicant states that “the requirement for a large compound results from a review of the storage requirements undertaken by the Balcarras Academy Trust.” The larger external compound will allow 4 high cube containers and is located adjacent to the MUGA on the Kidnappers Lane, elevation of the school. The County Ecologist considers that the loss of one tree that will arise from this amendment results in a negligible reduction of biodiversity enhancement represented in the landscaping scheme.
8.56 The CLA initially had concerns that, “on an already heavily developed site, the doubling in size of the storage building could not be off-set by appropriate biodiversity gain and landscape improvements. From reviewing the revised site plan and the LVIA addendum, as set out in paras 1.5 and 1.6, it is clear that there are significant visual, landscape and biodiversity gains now proposed compared to 19/0058/CHR3MJ with increased hedgerow retention, new hedgerow and tree planting and other improvements.”
8.57 The CPA considers that, overall, the amendment to the storage compound is acceptable.
Energy efficiency and carbon footprint
Page 78 8.58 NPPF3 Chapter 14 - ‘Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change’, paragraph 148 requires the planning system to support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.
8.59 NPPF3 Paragraph 150 (b) seeks to ensure that new development should help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. NPPF3 Paragraph 154 (b) suggests that an authority should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.’ JCS Policy INF5 applies to proposals concerning renewable energy or low carbon energy-generating technologies and supports such proposals “provided the wider environmental, social or economic benefits of the installation would not be outweighed by a significant adverse impact on the local environment.”
8.60 Hydrock has produced a revised energy statement (dated June 2020) on behalf of the Applicant. The purpose of this document is to inform the design team, and Gloucestershire County Council, of the energy strategy for the project and how it relates to national and local planning requirements.
8.61 Hydrock state “the school will have a high electricity demand throughout the day and makes use of the available roof space. It has a relatively good payback period, easy to install, maintain and long lifetime warranty which will benefit the school over the duration of the building’s lifespan. When the schools demand is lower than the output of the PV array, they will be able to sell the excess energy back to the grid further benefitting the school.”
8.62 The Hydrock report concludes that “after analysis of carbon emissions under Building Regulations Part L2A using the Simplified Building Energy Model (SBEM) it is proposed that the development will provide a 100% reduction of the Target CO2 Emission Rate (TER)1 to meet the target of net zero carbon by 2030 set by the Council.”
8.63 The CPA considers that the design of the proposed new school, through the use of appropriate materials and technology together with innovative design, has met the requirements of JCS Policy INF5 and Paragraph 150 (b) of the NPPF3 which seeks to ensure that “new development should be planned for in ways that can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as through its location, orientation and design.” This amendment to the approved design will contribute towards meeting the Council’s Climate Change Strategy.
Planning Obligation.
8.64 The original planning permission 19/0058/CHR3MJ approved in May 2019 was subject to a planning obligation, the requirements of which are still applicable to this S.73 variation application. A copy of the obligation can be viewed through public access.
1 The target CO2 emission rate (TER) sets a minimum allowable standard for the energy performance of a building and is defined by the annual CO2 emissions of a notional building of same type, size and 2 shape to the proposed building. TER is expressed in annual kg of CO2 per m .
Page 79 https://planning.gloucestershire.gov.uk/publicaccess/ . Paragraph 8.1 of the obligation states that “any new permission(s) granted pursuant to Section 73 of the 1990 Act with effect from the date that the said new planning permission is granted the obligations in this Deed shall(in addition to continuing to bind the Site) relate to and bind all subsequent planning permission(s) in respect of the Site granted pursuant to Section 73 of the 1990 Act and the site itself without the automatic need to enter into any subsequent deed of variation or new agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the 1990 Act.”
8.65 Paragraph 8.2 states “This Deed shall be endorsed with the following words in respect of any future Section 73 application ‘ The obligations in this Deed relate to and bind the Land in respect of which a new planning permission reference [ ] has been granted pursuant to Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)”.
8.66 The requirements of the obligation dated 17th July 2020 will be carried forward with this new permission.
Human Rights
8.67 From 2nd October 2000, the Human Rights Act 1998 has the effect of enshrining much of the European Convention on Human Rights in UK law. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees a right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 of the First Protocol guarantees the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Article 8 also provides that there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the freedom of others.
8.68 No objections have been received from a statutory consultee or public comments made. For the reasons set out in the Planning Considerations above it is not considered that the granting of planning permission would result in any breach of Convention rights. Even if there was to be an interference with Convention rights then, in this case, it is considered that the interference would be justified in the interests of economic well-being and to be a proportionate and balanced decision. Accordingly, it is considered that it would not be unlawful to grant planning permission for this development.
Summary Reasons for the recommendation to Grant of Planning Permission
8.69 The planning condition 2 which is proposed to be varied is a direct response to the Council’s commitment to address the climate change emergency. The revisions include covering the whole of the proposed roof with PV cells in so doing lifting the sustainability credentials of the building to a net zero carbon emission with an energy performance certificate rating of ‘A’.
8.70 There is a minor amendment proposed to increase the size of a storage compound adjacent to the MUGA. It results in a negligible reduction of
Page 80 biodiversity enhancement represented in the landscaping scheme and will be screened from views outside of the school by existing and proposed landscape planting.
8.71 The material considerations relevant to this application relate not to the siting of a new school in this location, but to the potential landscape and visual impact of the proposed additional PV panels on the roof and the potential glint and glare arising from them, together with the increase in the height of the parapet.
8.72 The possible effects of glint and glare arising from the solar PV development on the roof of the proposed Cheltenham Secondary School have been assessed. It relates to the possible impact of glint and glare upon surrounding dwellings, pedestrians on the nearby Cotswolds, and aviation activity associated with Gloucestershire Airport. No impacts upon pedestrians or upon the aviation receptors for both the approaches, runways and ATC control tower are expected. Solar reflections are geometrically possible towards seven out of the 12 assessed dwelling receptors; however, effects are only predicted to be experienced at dwellings represented by two dwelling receptors along Farm Lane in the immediate vicinity of the school. Based on a conservative approach, whereby it is assumed that partial views of the panels are possible, a moderate impact is predicted, however no mitigation is recommended because the duration of effects will be significantly or entirely reduced by the identified screening; and the effects could only be experienced from the upper floors of the dwellings due to the existing vegetation and proposed native hedgerows.
8.73 Given the comments of the CLA and the GGA and the information within the documents submitted in support of the application, the CPA does not consider that the proposal would be contrary to the policies of the CCB. In accordance with JCS Policies SD6 and SD7 the proposal will not detract from the setting of the Cotswold AONB, the raised parapets will help to screen the PV panels, without affecting the visual appearance of the proposed building.
8.74 The CPA considers that the design of the proposed new school, through the use of appropriate materials and technology together with innovative design, has met the requirements of Paragraph 150 (b) of the NPPF3 which seeks to ensure that “new development should be planned for in ways that can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as through its location, orientation and design.” This amendment to the approved design will contribute towards meeting the Council’s Climate Change Strategy.
Positive and Proactive Statement
8.75 In determining this planning application, the CPA has worked with the Applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to any potential problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application by liaising with consultees and the agent, and by discussing outcomes, findings and comments with the applicant where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and
Page 81 proactively in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012.
9.0 RECOMMENDATION
9.1 That planning permission be granted for the variation of condition 2 in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, for the reasons set out in sections 8.69 to 8.74of this report and subject to the following conditions and the existing planning obligation being endorsed.
It should be noted that schemes have been submitted and approved in writing for conditions 14, 16 and 23. The conditions have been amended accordingly to ensure compliance with the approved schemes. Submissions have been made for conditions 12 (materials) and 26 (hedgerow planting) and an update will be provided at the Committee meeting.
Commencement
1. The development hereby authorised shall begin not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the County Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Scope of the Development
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted application form, its accompanying documentation, and the approved drawings except as varied by other condition(s) of this consent as follows: 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-RP-A-0001-AP Design and Access Statement ( August 2019) T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-RP-A-0001-AP-P1Design Amendment Statement (July 2020) 000893-AHR-XX-00-GA-A-2001 - P1 Ground Floor Plan T19002-AHR-ZZ-00-GA-A-2001-AP-P1 Ground Floor Plan 000893-AHR-XX-01-GA-A-2001 - First Floor Plan T19002-AHR-ZZ-01-GA-A-2001-AP-P1 - First Floor Plan 000893-AHR-XX-RF-G A-A-2001-AP P2 Roof Plan T19002-AHR-ZZ-RF-GA-A-2001-AP-P1 - Roof Plan 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-E E-A-2003-AP P2 Elevations T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-EE-A-2003-AP-P1 - Elevations 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-E E-A-2031-AP P1 Detail Façade Study -Farm Lane- Teaching Wing
Page 82 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-E E-A-2032-AP P1 Detail Facade Study - Farm Lane - Main Entrance & Admin 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-E E-A-2033-AP P1 Detail Facade Study - Kidnappers Lane - Main Hall 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-R P-A-0001-AP P1 Design and Access Statement T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-EE-A-2004-AP-P1 - Elevations - Comparison with the Approved Scheme 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-S E-A-2001-AP P1 Sectional Elevations 01 – West T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-SE-A-2001-AP-P1 - Sectional Elevations 01 - West 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-S E-A-2002-AP P2 Sectional Elevations 02 – East T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-SE-A-2002-AP-P1 - Sectional Elevations 02 - East 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-S E-A-2003-AP P1 Sectional Elevations 03 – South T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-SE-A-2003-AP-P1 - Sectional Elevations 03 - South 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-S E-A-2004-AP P2 Sectional Elevations 04 – North T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-SE-A-2004-AP-P1 - Sectional Elevations 04 - North 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-S E-A-2005-AP P1 Site Sections T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-SE-A-2005-AP-P1 - Site Sections 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-V S-A-2001-AP P3 Artists Impression 01 - View of Main Entrance Approach from Farm Lane LaneT19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-VS-A-2001-AP-P1Artists Impression 01 - View of Main Entrance Approach from Farm Lane 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-V S-A-2002-AP P2 Artists Impression 02 - View of Main Entrance T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-VS-A-2002-AP-P1 Artists Impression 02 - View of Main Entrance 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-V S-A-2003-AP P2 Artists Impression 03 - View of the Entrance Colonnade T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-VS-A-2003-AP-P1Artists Impression 03 - View of the Entrance Colonnade 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-V S-A-2004-AP P2 Artists Impression 04 - View of Community Entrance T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-VS-A-2003-AP-P1Artists Impression 03 - View of the Entrance Colonnade 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-V S-A-2005-AP P2 Artists Impression 05 - View of the Courtyard 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-V S-A-2006-AP P2 Artists Impression 06 - View of the Covered Dining 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-V S-A-2007-AP P2 Artists Impression 07 - View of Teaching Block 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-V S-A-2008-AP P2 Artists Impression 08 - View from Sports Pitches T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-VS-A-2005-AP-P1 Artists Impression 05 - View from Sports Pitches 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-V S-A-2009-AP P3 Artists Impression 09 - Site & 3D Massing 01 T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-VS-A-2006-AP-P1 Artists Impression 06 - Site & 3D Massing 01 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-V S-A-2010-AP P3 Artists Impression 10 - Site & 3D Massing 02
Page 83 T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-VS-A-2007-AP-P1 Artists Impression 07 - Site & 3D Massing 02 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-V S-A-2011-AP P3 Artists Impression 11 - Site & 3D Massing 03 T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-VS-A-2008-AP-P1 Artists Impression 08 - Site & 3D Massing 03 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-V S-A-2012-AP P3 Artists Impression 12 - Site & 3D Massing 04 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-V S-A-2013-AP P3 Artists Impression 13 - Site & 3D T19002-AHR-ZZ-ZZ-VS-A-2009-AP-P1 Artists Impression 09 - Site & 3D Massing 04 T19002-HYD-R-C-0002 P01 Sustainable Drainage System Strategy 24/02/2020 CSS ASHP With PV_brukl Report on air source heat pumps and photovoltaics - BRUKL output Document Cheltenham Secondary School _ brukl Op3 BRUKL - Output Data 11689-HYD-XX-ZZ-RP-ME-0003 Hydrock Energy statement - PV + photovoltaics 11689-HYD-XX-ZZ-RP-ME-0003 Revised energy statement (17 July 2020) 000893-HYD-XX-XX-D RE-8000 P09 Lighting Details-electrical services external lighting lux plot Construction Method V2 March 2020) Statement P19-0501 01 Rev A 28/02/2020 Location Plan sheets 1 &2 P19-0501 02 Proposals Rev B 4/02/2020 Landscape Masterplan P19-0501 03 Rev A Vegetation Retention Protection & Removal plan P19-0501 04 Hard landscape Proposals P19-0501 05 Boundaries and Fencing P19-0501_06_1 to 7 Rev A Planting Plan and Schedule CTP-18-102 SK02 Rev H Offsite Key Works Plan CTP-18-102 SK03 Rev E Off Site Works Sheet 1of7 CTP-18-102 SK04 Rev G Off Site Works Sheet 2of7 CTP-18-102 SK05 Rev H Off Site Works Sheet 3 of 7 CTP-18-102 SK06 Rev G Off Site Works Sheet 4of7 CTP-18-102 SK07 Rev E Off Site Works Sheet 5of7 CTP-18-102 SK08 Rev H Off Site Works Sheet 6of7 CTP-18-102 SK09 Rev F Off Site Works Sheet 7of7 CTP-18-102 SK10 RevD Access Visibility CTP-18-102 SK13 Rev C A46 Traffic Calming CTP-18-102 SP08 Rev B Swept Paths A46 Junction Works CTP-18-102 SP09 Rev A Swept Paths Road Narrowing VRP1098 - RSA 1 Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (September 2019) PROW Supporting Statement PROW Supporting Statement CHESC-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-7020 P09 Cut and Fill Sections CHESC-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-7022 P10 Cut and Fill Sections CHESC-HYD-XX-XX-DR-C-7023 P10 Cut and Fill Sections R9092 Geo Environmental Report Air Quality Assessment Report (August 2019) J3837A/2/F2 AQA Construction Dust Assessment Western Power - area plan diversions Plan showing diversion of electrical supply crossing site 26/04/2019
Page 84 Archaeology WSI for post approval further investigations (February 2020) GN2019011A_PEA_Protected_Species report v5 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Protected Species Report GN2019011Fv1 Ecology - Leckhampton (offsite) Highways Prelim Ecological Appraisal K.3235_AS/AIA_ACU_REV1_Aug 19) Arboricultural impact assessment addendum (offsite) GN2019011H_CEMP (March 2020) Construction Ecology Management Plan T19002-HYD-R-C-0002 _24.02.2020 SuDs strategy Drawing Number T19002-HYD-00-XXRD- C-7004 Drainage strategy T19002-HYD-00-XX-DR-C-7002 Drainage strategy P19-0501_01_2A landscaping details P19-0501_01_01A landscaping details P19-0501-02 B Landscape Masterplan P19-501_02 C Landscape Masterplan P19-0501_09 Landscape Site Sections (kidnappers Lane) P19-0501_08 Landscape Site Sections (Farm Lane) P19-0501_07 Landscape Site Sections (Wildlife & Habitat P19-0501_11 Off Site Highways Improvement Works - Landscape Proposals P19-0501_10 Land Adjacent to Moat Cottages - Ecological Mitigation drawing 211_002 Highway street lighting offsite calculation report J3837_B F2 March 2020 Construction dust assessment GN2019011H_CEMP_ Leckhampton2020 v3 Construction Ecology Management Plan (CEMP) 11/03/2020 K.3235_AIA CSS Leckhampton (Main site and Highways) Addendum Feb 2020 Arboricultural Impact assessment - offsite highway works and main site updates P19-0501 01_1A Location Plan Revised location plan P19-0501 01_2A Location Plan revised location plan P19-0501-12 Landscape and ecology management plan (LEMP) 02/2020 SP1187 Rev 1 CSS Leckhampton Farm Lane Lighting Impact Report All weather pitch lighting design SP1187 Rev 1 Leckhampton Lane_200 Lux Philips at 2.m All weather pitch lighting design SP1187 Rev 1 Leckhampton Lane_200 Lux Philips at 2.m All weather pitch lighting design SP1187 Rev 1 Leckhampton Lane_200 Lux Philips at 0m All weather pitch lighting design SP1187 Rev 1 Leckhampton Lane_200 Lux Philips at 0m All weather pitch lighting design SP1187 Rev 1 Leckhampton Lane_200 Lux Philips at 10m All weather pitch lighting design SP1187 Rev 1 Leckhampton Lane_200 Lux Philips at 10m All weather pitch lighting design SP1187 Rev 1 Leckhampton Lane_200 Lux Philips at 5m All weather pitch lighting design SP1187 Rev 1 Leckhampton Lane_200 Lux Philips at 5m All weather pitch lighting design
Page 85 Additional Documents S73 Planning Statement – Evans Jones (31/07/2021) 000893-HYD-ZZ-RF-DR-E-6200 P02 PV ROOF PLAN Cheltenham Secondary School _ epc EPC certificate 9917a- Solar Photovoltaic Glint and Glare Study Cheltenham Secondary School (Pager Powel 3rd Issue 30Nov 2020)
Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details and for the avoidance of doubt.
Construction hours of working
3 No construction works authorised by this permission shall be carried out on site except between the following hours: 08.00 to 17.00 hours Monday to Friday. 08.00 to 13:00 Saturday No construction work related to the development shall take place on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. The term 'construction work' shall, for purpose of clarification of this condition include: the use of any plant or machinery (mechanical or other), the carrying out of any maintenance/cleaning work on any plant or machinery, deliveries to and from the site and the movement of construction vehicles within the curtilage of the site.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance Joint Core Strategy Policy SD14.
Highways
4 Throughout the construction period of the development hereby permitted provision shall be made within the site that is sufficient to accommodate the likely demand generated for the following: i. parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv. provide for wheel washing facilities.
Reason: To reduce the potential impact on the public highway and accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and to ensure that the adjoining public highway is kept free from mud and debris in accordance with Paragraph 108 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
5 The vehicle routeing strategy as submitted T1902/Site logistics/03 (02/07/2019) (Construction Method Statement, Appendix A, March 2020) shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.
Reason: To reduce the potential impact on the public highway and accommodate the efficient delivery of goods in accordance with Paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Page 86 6 The details contained within the submitted interim travel plan shall form the basis of a detailed Travel Plan to be submitted for the written approval of the County Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved. The detailed Travel Plan shall commence with a base study with the achieved results and targets being annually monitored and reviewed with the results being submitted the County Planning Authority by the 31st December each year for their approval in writing. The detailed Travel Plan shall be implemented as approved from the first occupation of the school building.
Reason: The development will generate a significant amount of movement and to ensure that the appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes a re taken up in accordance with Paragraphs 108 and 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
7 Prior to first occupation of the proposed development hereby permitted the first 10 metres of the proposed access road, including the junction with the existing public road and associated visibility splays, shall be completed to at least binder course level.
Reason: - To minimise hazards and inconvenience for users of the development by ensuring that there is a safe, suitable and secure means of access for all people that minimises the scope for conflict between traffic and cyclists and pedestrians in accordance with Paragraphs 108 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
8 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the cycle storage facilities have been made available for use in accordance with the approved plan and those facilities shall be maintained and made available thereafter for that purpose at all times thereafter.
Reason: To give priority to cycle movements by ensuring that adequate cycle parking is provided, to promote cycle use and to ensure that the appropriate opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up in accordance with Paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
9 The buildings hereby permitted (or part of building where phased handover is required) shall not be first brought into use until the vehicular parking, turning and loading/unloading facilities and external highway improvements leading to the site have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and those facilities shall be maintained and made available for those purposes at all times thereafter insofar as the vehicular parking, turning and loading/unloading facilities are required to serve the occupied part of the building.
Reason: To ensure that a safe, suitable and secure means of access for all people that minimises the scope for conflict between traffic and cyclists and pedestrians is provided in accordance with the Paragraphs 108 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Page 87 Landscaping
10 For the first five years, an annual landscape inspection by the Applicant and a suitably qualified Landscape Architect of the approved and implemented landscaping scheme shall take place each year. Thereafter the landscape inspection should take place every three years for the duration of the Landscape and Environmental Management Plan (LEMP). A report with appropriate mitigation measures should be prepared and submitted for the written approval of the County Planning Authority. Any mitigation measures should be implemented as approved.
Reason: To ensure the implementation of the LEMP to ensure the successful establishment and development of the landscape to meet landscape, visual and ecological mitigation requirements and provide for the expected biodiversity gain.
11 Any tree or shrub forming part of a landscaping scheme approved in connection with the development that dies, is damaged, diseased or removed within the duration of 5 years during and after the completion of the development (operations) shall be replaced during the next available planting season (October to March inclusive) with others of a similar size and species in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that biodiversity and amenity is conserved and in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 8, 170 and 175.
Building Materials
12 Prior to the construction of above ground works details and samples of the materials to be used for the external appearance of the building(s) shall be submitted for the written approval of the County Planning Authority. The details shall be based on the external building materials and the finishes detailed in section 5 of the submitted Design and Access Statement 000893- AHR-XX-ZZ-RP-A-0001-AP-P1 (August 2019)Only the external building materials and the finishes detailed in section 5 of the submitted Design and Access Statement 000893-AHR-XX-ZZ-RP-A-0001-AP-P1 (August 2019) shall be used in the development.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area in accordance with Saved Policy CP7 of the Cheltenham Borough Local Plan.
Water and Drainage
13 The drainage plan drawing no.: T19002-HYD-00-XX-DR-C-7001 Rev P08 for the disposal of foul and surface water flows shall be implemented in full as approved by the County Planning Authority before any part the development is first brought into use.
Page 88 Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to prevent or to avoid exacerbating any flooding issues and to minimise the risk of pollution and in accordance with Joint Core Strategy Policy INF2.
Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) (amended wording condition discharged)
14 The detailed Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) Strategy document was submitted on 17/08/2020 (Drainage Strategy Report Hydrock 24/06/2020, Sustainable Drainage System Strategy Hydrock 24/06/2020 and Hydrock Technical Note and plan for condition 14.22/09/2020) and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority on 13/10/20. The approved SuDS Strategy shall be carried out in full and in accordance with the approved details before the development is first put in to use/occupied.
Reason: To ensure the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage and thereby preventing the risk of flooding. It is important that these details are agreed prior to the commencement of development as any works on site could have implications for drainage, flood risk and water quality in the locality.
15 With the exception of the archaeological investigation works as detailed in condition 19 and within the agreed WSI, no works shall commence on the construction of the artificial grass pitches and MUGA until details of the design and layout have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The artificial grass pitches and MUGA u shall not be constructed other than in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the development is fit for purpose and sustainable and to accord with Joint Core Strategy Policies SD3 and INF4.
Community Use Agreement. (amended wording condition discharged)
16 The community use agreement prepared in consultation with Sport England dated 10th November 2020 and approved by letter o 28th January 2021 shall be implemented as approved. The development shall not be used otherwise than in strict compliance with the approved community use agreement.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of local residents and to secure well managed safe community access to the sports facility/facilities, to ensure sufficient benefit to the development of sport and to accord with Joint Core Strategy Policy INF4.
Page 89 17 Before the artificial grass pitches are brought into use, a Management and Maintenance Scheme for the facility including management responsibilities, a maintenance schedule and a mechanism for review shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The said scheme shall contain measures to ensure the replacement of the Artificial Grass Pitch within the manufacturer's recommended period. The measures set out in the approved scheme shall be complied with in full, with effect from commencement of use of the artificial grass pitches.
Reason: To ensure that a new facilities are capable of being managed and maintained to deliver facilities which are fit for purpose, sustainable and to ensure sufficient benefit of the development to sport and to accord with Joint Core Strategy Policy INF4.
Lighting
18 All non-essential lighting on the school site shall be turned off every night by no later than 22:00 hours to 06:00 hours Mondays to Fridays, and 20:00 to 06.00 hours Saturdays, Sundays and Bank / Public Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of seeking to protect the residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and in accordance with Saved Local Plan policy CP4, Joint Core Strategy Policy SD14.
Archaeology
19 The approved Written Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Excavation Issue no.2 by Oxford Archaeology dated February 2020, shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details throughout the construction period of the school building and associated ground works.
Reason: The programme of archaeological work makes provision for the investigation and recording of any archaeological remains that may be destroyed by ground works required for the scheme. The archaeological programme will advance understanding of any heritage assets which will be lost, in accordance with Paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Construction Method Statement
20 The submitted Construction Method Statement (Appendix v) and supplementary Construction Dust Assessment by Air Quality Consultants dated March 2020 shall be implemented and adhered to for the duration of the development works including any demolition works.
Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area in accordance with Policy SD14 of the Joint Core Strategy.
Noise
Page 90 21 Atmospheric noise emissions from any items of fixed building plant or equipment installed at the school site shall not exceed the criteria outlined in Table 6 of the submitted Acoustic Report by Hydrock (5/7/2019) when assessed in accordance with BS 2142:2014 to the nearest noise sensitive receptor, which are equal to the prevailing background noise levels.
Reason: To protect the amenity of adjoining land users and in accordance with Saved Local Plan Policy CP4, Joint Core Strategy Policy SD14 and Paragraph 127 of the NPPF.
Ecology
22 Prior to commencement of any tree, shrub and hedgerow removal on site or associated highways, except for imperative safety reasons, the County Planning Authority must be provided with either: 1. Evidence that a bat licence and a dormouse licence has been issued by Natural England pursuant to The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) authorising the activities of the development can go ahead; or 2. a statement in writing from the relevant licensing body to the effect that it does not consider that the activities of the development will require a licence.
Reason: To ensure that certain activities in certain areas liable to cause harm to a European Protected Species will not likely to be in breach of the Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended). This is also in accordance with ODPM Circular 06/2005.
(Amended wording condition 23 discharged)
23 The Arboricultural Method Statement July 2020 (Rev A) prepared by Barton Hyett was submitted on 17/08/2020 and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority on 23/09/2020 shall be implemented as approved. All protective structures installed shall be maintained until construction work has been completed. No materials, soils, or equipment shall be stored under the canopy of any retained tree or hedgerow within the application site unless indicated otherwise in the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that biodiversity and amenity is conserved and in accordance with Joint Core Strategy Policy SD9, ODPM Circular 06/2005 plus National Planning Policy Framework Paragraphs 8, 170 and 175. This is also in accordance with Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which confers a general biodiversity duty upon Local Authorities.
24 With the exception of the archaeological investigation works as detailed in condition 19 and within the agreed WSI, no works shall be commenced in respect of the off-site highway improvement works until an off-site Arboricultural Method Statement based on the details of tree and shrub removal, retention and protection as set out within the submitted drawings
Page 91 BHA_667_02A Rev. A and BHA_667_03A Rev. A are submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority and then implemented as approved. All protective structures installed shall be maintained until construction work has been completed. No materials, soils, or equipment shall be stored under the canopy of any retained tree or hedgerow within the application site unless indicated otherwise in the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that biodiversity and amenity is conserved and in accordance with Joint Core Strategy Policy SD9, ODPM Circular 06/2005 plus National Planning Policy Framework Paragraphs 8, 170 and 175. This is also in accordance with Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which confers a general biodiversity duty upon Local Authorities.
25 Notwithstanding condition 18 above, prior to occupation and beneficial use of the development a final Exterior Lighting Scheme for the site and the immediately adjacent highways subject to facilitating works should be submitted for the written approval of the County Planning Authority. The said scheme is to be based on draft drawing External Lighting Lux Plot 000893- HYD-XX-XX-DR-E-8000 Rev. P04, the Lighting Impact Assessment report by Neil Johnson and the Outdoor Lighting report by Lighting Reality Ltd. External lighting to be implemented is to be restricted as follows: (a) Any LEDs used must not exceed a colour temperature of 3,000K; (b) The MUGA should not be illuminated to more than an average of 200 lux; (c) All non-essential lighting on the school site must be switched off between 22:00 and 06:00 hours throughout the year; (d) Adjacent highways lighting must be dimmed between the hours of 22:00 and 05:30 throughout the year; and in addition; (e) Floodlighting for the multi-use games area must be switched off between the hours of 20:30 and 05:40 from April to October inclusive plus between the hours of 21:30 and 06:00 from November to March inclusive;
The approved Exterior Lighting Scheme shall be implemented for the duration of the development hereby permitted and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and scheme details.
Reason: To conserve amenity and ensure that bats, dormice, otters and badgers are not discouraged at this location. In accordance with Joint Core Strategy Policy SD9, ODPM Circular 06/2005 plus National Planning Policy Framework Paragraphs 170, 175 and 180 and Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 which confers a general biodiversity duty upon local authorities whilst exercising their functions.
(Amended wording condition discharged)
26 The tree, shrub, and hedgerow planting scheme to be implemented on other County Council owned land and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority on 24th February 2021 shall be implement as approved. The approved plans are
Page 92 Drawing No: P190501-PPG-00-00-DR-L-0031 Rev F dated 19/02/2020 Land Adjacent Moat Cottages - Ecology Mitigation (this is an update of an approved drawing to include additional planting as required by C26 of 19/0058/CHR3MJ) Landscape and Ecological Management Plan Feb 2020 P19-051_12 (already approved C2 [scope of the development], C10 [landscaping] and C27 [ecological mitigation land safeguarded]) Table ‘Construction Programme View – Land Adj. Moat Cottage’ Rev. R1d1 dated 01/02/2021
Reason: In the interests of the conservation and enhancement of local biodiversity and amenity in accordance with Joint Core Strategy Policy SD9 and Paragraphs 170 and 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This is also in accordance with Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which confers a general biodiversity duty upon Local Authorities.
Ecological mitigation land safeguarded.
27 The Ecological offset mitigation area on land adjacent to Moat Cottages outlined blue and identified as number 2 on submitted drawing number P19- 0501-01, sheet 1 Rev A dated 27/02/2020, shall be maintained in accordance with the details set out in the submitted Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (PL19-0501_12) dated February 2020 for the duration of this permission. The said offset mitigation area shall not be developed in any way that would impact upon its status as ecological mitigation land.
Reason: In the interests of the conservation and enhancement of local biodiversity and amenity in accordance with Joint Core Strategy Policy SD9.
Removal of Permitted Development Rights
28 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification) no buildings, structures, alterations or operations, as defined within Class A of part 4, Class M of Part 7 and Class A of Part 12 of Schedule 2 of the Order, shall be carried out on the site otherwise than in accordance with a planning permission granted by the County Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the County Planning Authority to adequately control, monitor and minimise the impacts on the amenities of the local area, and in the interests of the conservation of local biodiversity and public amenity in accordance with Joint Core Strategy Policies SD6, SD9 and SD14.
29 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) the layby bay identified on the Landscape Master Plan no. P19-0501-02 Rev B (04/02/2020) shall not be installed without the benefit of express planning permission.
Page 93 Reason: To enable the County Planning Authority to adequately control, monitor and minimise the impacts on the amenities of the local area, and in the interests of the conservation of local biodiversity and public amenity in accordance with JCS policies SD6, SD9 and SD14.
INFORMATIVES :-
Highways
1. The proposed development will involve works to be carried out on the public highway and the Applicant is required to enter into a legally binding Highway Works Agreement including an appropriate bond with the County Council as Highway Authority before commencing those works.
2. The school Safety Zone and parking restrictions as shown on the submitted plans will require Traffic Regulation Orders and the Applicant is advised to commence these procedures as soon as practicable.
3. The improvements to the footways, cycleway and carriageways are shown and included on the submitted and amended application plans. These form an integral part of the documents for any approval of the application. For the avoidance of doubt and for the purposes of the works and improvements to the public highway under the terms of the T & C P Act 1990, the Highway Authority is satisfied that the statutory consultation period has been complied with.
4. The highway works hereby approved will require a Road Safety Audit Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the Applicant is advised to contact an approved Road Safety Auditor to formally adhere to those requirements.
Sports Pitches
5. The Applicant is advised that the design and layout of the artificial grass pitches, netball courts and pavilion should comply with the relevant industry Technical Design Guidance, including guidance published by Sport England, and England Hockey for Sport.
Severn Trent Water
6. Please note for the use or reuse of sewer connections either direct or indirect to the public sewerage system the Applicant will be required to make a formal application to the Company under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991. They may obtain copies of our current guidance notes and application form from either our website (www.stwater.co.uk) or by contact our Development Services Team (Tel: 0800 707 6600).
Ecology
7. If a protected species (such as any bat, great crested newt, dormouse,
Page 94 badger, water vole, otter, reptile, barn owl or any nesting bird) is discovered using a feature on site that would be affected by the development or related works all activity which might affect the species at the locality should cease. If such discoveries can be dealt with satisfactorily by the implementation of mitigation measures that have already been drawn up by your ecological advisor and approved by the County Planning Authority and/or you and your contractors then these should be implemented. Otherwise a suitably experienced ecologist should be contacted and the situation assessed before works can proceed. This action is necessary to avoid possible prosecution and ensure compliance with the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Works taking place between 1st March and 31st August require special care as trees, shrub, open fields or certain parts of built structures could harbour nesting birds unless it is reasonably determined by observation or survey by an experienced person that nesting bird activity is absent. This advice note should be passed on to any persons or contractors carrying out the development/works.
8. In relation to the County Council's Service Level Agreement with the Local Biological Records Centre and to assist in the strategic conservation of countywide biodiversity, all species and habitat records from the ecological work commissioned by the Applicant should be copied [if not already] to the Gloucestershire Centre for Environmental Records (GCER).
Environment Agency
9. For our flood risk comments please refer to our Area Flood Risk Standing Advice.
10. For contaminated land matters, you are advised to seek the comments of your Environmental Health Officer or Contaminated Land Officer, with reference to our 'Development Guidance' sheet.
11. For foul drainage matters, you are advised to seek the completion of the 'Foul Drainage Assessment Form' for your consideration.
12. For Pollution Prevention and any consent requirements (separate to planning) you are advised to refer to our 'Development Guidance' sheet which includes pollution prevention advice relating to specific activities.
The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)
13. The LLFA will give consideration to how the proposed sustainable drainage system can incorporate measures to help protect water quality. However pollution control is the responsibility of the Environment Agency.
14. Future management of Sustainable Drainage Systems is a matter that will be dealt with by the County Planning Authority and has not, therefore, been considered by the LLFA.
Page 95 15. Any revised documentation will only be considered by the LLFA when resubmitted through [email protected] e-mail address. Please quote the planning application number in the subject field.
Western Power Distribution.
16. Western Power Distribution have High Voltage overhead distribution network within this proposed development. The Applicant must agree to either a permanent easement to protect our access rights, or the diversion of our network from the area at the developer's cost.
17. We must emphasise that any alteration, building or ground works proposed in the vicinity of our network that may or may not directly affect our cables, must be notified in detail to Western Power Distribution.
Public Right of Way
18. In the event that Public Right of Way Leckhampton 9, is not permanently stopped up, an application will need to be made to the County Planning Authority to regularise any necessary amendments to fencing.
S106 Agreement
19. This planning permission should be read in conjunction with the planning agreement pursuant to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to land at Farm Lane and Kidnappers Lane, Leckhampton, Cheltenham, dated 17th July 2020.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
Planning Application file 20/0032/CHR3MJ which may be viewed by appointment with the case officer below or on the Council’s Public Access website https://planning.gloucestershire.gov.uk/publicaccess/ by a search with the application reference.
Planning Application file 19/0058/CHRG3MJ containing the planning application, supporting statement, drawings, consultation responses and representations, decision notice and planning obligat
ion may be viewed on the Council’s Public Access website https://planning.gloucestershire.gov.uk/publicaccess/ by a search with the application reference.
Cheltenham Borough Council Air Quality Action Plan April 2014 https://www.cheltenham.gov.uk/downloads/file/3780/air_quality_action_plan_2 014
County Council Cabinet Meeting
Page 96 Friday 20 December 2019 10.00 am Agenda Item 8 Leading The Response To The Climate Emergency Gloucestershire Climate Change Strategy 2019/20 To 2024/25 https://glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/documents/g9232/Public%20reports%2 0pack%20Friday%2020-Dec-2019%2010.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=10
Planning Committee Meeting Thursday 14th May 2020 10.0 an Agenda Item 7 Planning application number 19/0058/CHR3MJ by Head of Property Services for Construction of a new 6 forms of entry secondary school building, with a new all-weather pitch, sports playing fields, a multi-use games area, onsite parking and other associated Works on land between Farm Lane/Kidnappers Lane Cheltenham Gloucestershire. https://glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/documents/g9484/Public%20reports%2 0pack%20Thursday%2014-May- 2020%2010.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=10
CONTACT OFFICER: Case Officer: Sarah Pearse, Principal Planning Officer Telephone: 01452 425617 Email: [email protected]
Page 97 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7
APPLICATION NO: 18/0065/CWMAJM VALIDATION 9th October 2018 DATE: DISTRICT REF: 20/00185/CPO
AGENT: David Jarvis Associates Ltd, 1 Tennyson Street, Swindon, Wiltshire. SN1 5DT
APPLICANT: Breedon Southern Limited, Main Street, Breedon on the Hill, Derby. DE73 8AP
SITE: Breedon (Naunton) Quarry, Buckle Street, Naunton, Gloucestershire.
PROPOSAL: Southern extension including revision to the consented working arrangements with restoration to a combination of agricultural, nature conservation & geological interest. PARISH OF Naunton SITE AREA: 80.2 Ha GRID 412584 E REF: 225343 N
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission is GRANTED for the reasons summarised in paragraphs 7.106 to 7.111, subject to the prior amendment or variation of the existing Section 106 Planning agreement and subject to the planning conditions recommended in Section 8.0 of this report.
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
1.1 Naunton Quarry (formally known as Huntsman’s Quarry but renamed by the current mineral operator) is located within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) approximately 2 kms to the north east of Naunton and 6 kilometres to the west of Stow on the Wold. The only entrance to the quarry is located directly off Buckle Street (3103), a class 3 highway that runs in a north west to south east direction. The current extraction area at the quarry lies to the west of Buckle Street. The extension area is to the south of the current workings while the red line area of this application includes the processing plant area and main access to the east of Buckle Street.
1.2 The quarry has been operating since the early 1900s. Mineral exports from the site have been running at sustained level for a significant number of years. Planning permission reference 06/0038/CWFUL (also 06/0038/CWMAJM and CD.0165/1/X) was granted in 2006 for the ability to extend the quarry floor in the extraction area to the west of Buckle Street by a further 12 metres depth. At this time, the output from the quarry was limited to 500,000 tonnes per calendar year. It is recognised that the quarry has been operating at up to this level for a considerable time. Before 2006 there was no output restriction of the quarry.
1.3 Part of this application relates to the area of land within the ‘main’ quarry to the east where historic quarrying has taken place and where the main site office, weighbridge, plant and stockpile are now located. As well as these
1
Page 99 areas utilised for operations associated with quarrying, parts of this area have been restored many years ago. Hereafter this shall be referred to as the ‘quarry plant area’. The other part of this application relates to a site that lies to the south of the current, active quarry extraction area. The southern extension extends directly south from the current operational quarry area across open fields. The entire site area encompassed by the application red line boundary will cover 80.2 Hectares. It is anticipated that the extension area will provide 5.8 million tonnes of limestone reserve and comprise an additional 16.5 Hectares. The limestone reserve produces a range of products, which includes a significant proportion of aggregates – the site is the only source of Type 1 aggregate within the Cotswolds; ready mix concrete; building, walling and tiling stone and other specialist products including individual concrete blocks.
1.4 A public bridleway runs alongside the west boundary of both the extension area and the existing quarry. A vegetated soil bund, with an extra section of periphery forestry planting effectively screens views into the existing quarry from the northern section of the public bridleway, leading south from the minor road linking Buckle Street with Guiting Power. This minor road forms the northern boundary of the existing quarry, Buckle Street forms the eastern boundary of the quarry area and the south boundary (the proposed extension area) is open fields, with very few features. The topography slopes downwards north to south across the existing mineral extraction area towards a transverse valley feature at the junction between the existing quarry and the extension, the land forming the proposed extension then rises steeply again to the south before reaching an elevated plateau beyond the southern site boundary.
1.5 Building stone quarries of a smaller scale to the Naunton operation are located in proximity to the application site. Tinkers Barn Quarry lies c.300m west of consented working areas. Grange Hill Quarry lies c.490m south of the proposed southern boundary.
1.6 The nearest residential property is Huntsman’s House, located to the east and south east of the application site, across Buckle Street, at a distance of approximately 280 metres to the proposed screening bund in Phase 2. To the south there a number of buildings associated with Summerhill Farm and Summerhill Cottage, approximately 350 metres from the boundary of the application site, and nearby James Barn Farm, approximately 680 metres (still to the south) from the boundary of the application site.
1.7 The site falls outside Flood Zones 2 and 3, therefore it is deemed to be land with a low probability of flooding. The application site lies within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB). Two elements of the restored, previously quarried areas to the north of the current plant site have been designated as Geological Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There is a SSSI located at Barton Larches, 1km to the north west of the northern edge of the proposed extension, designated for wildlife value. It is noted that there are a number of barrows 320 metres to the south of the proposed extension and immediately west of Summerhill Farm which are classified as Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM), but none within the boundaries of the site.
2
Page 100 Fig. 1. The application site.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
2.1 The applicant proposes a southern extension to the current extraction area with revisions to the approved working and restored scheme. The proposed extension is expected to yield approximately 5.8 million tonnes of limestone. Combined with remaining consented reserve of 2.2 million tonnes (assessed at time of the submission of application details in 2018), the development would extend the life of the quarry to approximately 16 years.
2.2 The current quarry area will provide an ongoing source of material until the currently approved mineral has been fully extracted. The operator will then commence extraction into the southern extension, following the submitted phasing plan from east of the extraction area to west. Restoration will occur in sequence following extraction, also from east to west. The current screening bunds constructed of overburden soil will be augmented and replaced where necessary to continue the mitigation of views into the workings.
2.3 All extracted mineral will be conveyed by the existing fleet of site vehicles via the internal haul routes, under Buckle Street via the existing access tunnel for processing within the quarry plant area. No new accesses will be created onto Buckle Street in relation to the extension, for the movement of mineral.
2.4 Whilst the main reserve consists of mineral in the form of limestone suitable for aggregate production, investigations into the underlying geology reveals that a potential 90,000 – 180,000 tonnes of quality Cotswold Building Stone resource deposits lie within the extension area. The applicant has stated that whilst the Building Stone element is purely an ancillary, yet valuable element 3
Page 101 to the main aggregate operation. Building Stone resource will be stockpiled separately within the quarry plant area.
2.5 The final restoration of the quarry (existing and extension areas) has subsequent to negotiations with officers and the applicant, been revised submissions made and consulted upon. Amendments have been made to the final restoration profiles, in order to create a more sympathetic landform.
2.6 The proposal also includes an element of addressing the extraction of material which was not previously consented. Whilst this material, which has been used as aggregate supply, was located within the current permission boundary, it was not designated for extraction under the phasing plan and was located in an area of the extreme south eastern corner of the quarry to remain undisturbed. The proposal therefore seeks to regularise the extraction and incorporate the feature into the proposed final restoration of the quarry.
Pre-application Engagement
2.7 The application falls as Environment Impact Development (EIA) by nature of scale and location. The site extends beyond 25 hectares. In accordance with paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, the proposal automatically triggers the requirement for an Environmental Statement. The advice of the Mineral Planning Authority (MPA) was sought prior to submission to determine the scope of the EIA to accompany the application. No other formal pre application advice was sought by the applicant.
Further Information submitted December 2019 (Regulation 25 EIA Information).
2.8 Further information was submitted by the Applicant on 2nd December 2019. This further information consisted of information and plans submitted to address the various comments and requests from consultees. This was subsequently advertised on 16th January 2020 and further consultation was undertaken on this material.
Further Information submitted May 2020 (Regulation 25 EIA Information)
2.9 This further information consisted of information submitted to address the various comments and requests from consultees. This was subsequently advertised on 16th July 2020 and further consultation was undertaken on this material.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
4
Page 102 Planning Reference Development Decision 18/0065/CWMAJM Southern extension including Currently revision to the consented working under arrangements with restoration to a Consideration combination of agricultural, nature conservation & geological interest. 13/0032/CWMAJM Variation of condition 2 relating to Consent planning permission 19/08/2013 10/0041/CWMAJM dated 28/07/2010 [Variation of condition 5 of planning permission CD/0165/1/S, dated 28/01/2003 [for aggregates recycling, plant area rationalisation and agricultural restoration and infilling works] to extend the end date of permission. CD0165/1/Z Variation of condition 5 (Method of Consent (10/0041/CWMAJM) Working) of planning permission 28/07/2010 CD/0165/1/S (dated 28/01/2003) to enable the continuation of development, the installation of semi-mobile belt press and washing plant within the aggregates recycling facility. CD.0165/1/X Deepening of the existing quarry Consent – (06/0038/CWFUL) floor by approximately 12 metres, to 20/07/2006 include a revision to the approved scheme of working, a revision to the approved restoration contours, and a programme for the development of a sequence of silt lagoons CD/165/1/W Construction of Dry Storage Building Consent – 19/05/2006
CD/165/1/V Demolition of a vacant building and Consent – relocation of existing offices into a 03/02/2006 new building (reserved matters) CD/165/1/U Construction of Silt Lagoon Content – 28/10/2004 CD/165/1/T Replacement Office Block Consent – 15/09/2003 CD/165/1/S Aggregates Recycling, Plant Area Consent – Rationalisation, Agricultural 21/11/2003 Restoration and Infilling Works CD/165/1/R Erection of new office building – Consent – Outline 06/03/2003
CD/165/1/Q Installation of concrete batching Consent – plant 10/06/2004
5
Page 103 CD/165/1/P Continued Extraction of Limestone Consent – (incorporating variation of condition 22/06/2001 of planning permissions CD/165/1/G and CD/165/1/M) CD/165/1/N Variation of Condition 10 to Consent – CD/165/1/G – Advance Extraction of 10/11/1999 Walling Stone CD/165/1/M Extension of Existing Operating Consent – Building Stone Quarry 07/07/1999 *CD/165/1/K Review of Minerals Site: Condition Consent – Submission 18/12/1997 CD/165/1/H Variation of Condition 15 of Consent Consent – CD/165/1/G relating to pumps for 17/11/1995 dewatering CD/165/1/G Extension to the Existing Quarry for Consent – the Continued Extraction of 30/09/1996 Limestone CD/165/1/F Extension to Existing Quarry for the Consent – Extraction of Limestone 21/12/1989 CD/165/1/C Landscaping and Restoration of Consent – Existing and former Quarry 19/07/1979 CD/165/V Use of land for Quarrying Limestone Consent – 14/08/1975 CD/165/S Limestone Extraction Consent – 26/02/1980 CD/165/R Quarrying of Limestone Consent – 04/01/1974 CD/165/M Extension to Quarry Workings Consent – 10/04/1973 CD/165/G Extension to Quarries Consent – 05/09/1969 CD/165/E Quarrying of Limestone Consent – 05/07/1968 CD/165/D Quarrying of stone Consent – 11/10/1966 CD/165/C Quarrying of stone Consent – 24/04/1964 CD/165/B Proposed extension of existing Consent – quarry 03/11/1960 CD/165/A Extensions to existing quarry Consent – 09/09/1950
* CD/165/1/K reviewed the conditions of the earlier permissions.
6
Page 104 4.0 POLICY CONTEXT
National Planning Policy Framework
4.1 The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published on 19th February 2019 sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied and is a material consideration in determining the application. In assessing and determining planning proposals, the local planning authority (in this case the MPA) should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is the main focus of the NPPF in relation to both the plan-making and decision making process.
4.2 Paragraph 2 of the NPPF states that planning law requires that applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in preparing the development plan, and is a material consideration in making planning decisions. Planning policies and decisions must also reflect relevant international obligations and statutory requirements. Within this context, the NPPF references Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
4.3 Paragraph 8 of the NPPF identifies sustainable development: Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives):
a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;
b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well- designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and
c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.
4.4 Paragraph 80 states that:
Planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. 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.
7
Page 105 4.5 Paragraph 82 states that decisions should:
…. recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors….
4.6 By supporting a prosperous rural economy… (Paragraph 83) …Planning policies and decisions should enable:
a) the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings; …
c) sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside;
4.7 Paragraph 102 states:
Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan- making and development proposals, so that:
a) the potential impacts of development on transport networks can be addressed;
d) the environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure can be identified, assessed and taken into account – including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects, and for net environmental gains…..
4.8 Paragraph 109 states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
4.9 Paragraph 111 requires that all developments that will generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a travel plan, and the application should be supported by a transport statement or transport assessment so that the likely impacts of the proposal can be assessed.
4.10 Paragraph 170 advises that planning…. decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); …
4.11 Continuing in Paragraph 172… 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
8
Page 106 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.
4.12 Paragraph 183 identifies that the focus of planning … decisions should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than the control of processes or emissions (where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes). Planning decisions should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Equally, where a planning decision has been made on a particular development, the planning issues should not be revisited through the permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities.
4.13 Paragraph 193 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.
4.14 Paragraph 203 recognises 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.
4.15 Paragraph 205 recommends that when determining planning applications, great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy. In considering proposals for mineral extraction, minerals planning authorities should:
a) as far as is practical, provide for the maintenance of landbanks of non- energy minerals from outside National Parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and World Heritage Sites, scheduled monuments and conservation areas;
b) ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality;
c) ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and
9
Page 107 establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties;
e) provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity, to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions….
4.16 Paragraph 207: Minerals planning authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by:
f) maintaining landbanks of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for crushed rock, whilst ensuring that the capacity of operations to supply a wide range of materials is not compromised; g) ensuring that large landbanks bound up in very few sites do not stifle competition;
Development Plan
4.17 Under Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan (MLP) (adopted 2020) forms part of the Development Plan and provides the strategic and local policy for all minerals- related land use matters for development within the county for the consideration of mineral matters until 2032. The following are the main policies of the MLP that are considered the starting point and relevant to this planning application are listed as follows: -
Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire - adopted 2020
MW01 – Aggregate provision; MW02 – Natural building Stone; MA01 – Aggregate working within allocations; DM01 – Amenity; DM02 – Cumulative impact; DM03 – Transport; DM04 – Flood risk; DM05 – Water resources; DM06 – Biodiversity and geodiversity; DM07 – Soil resources; DM08 – Historic environment DM09 – Landscape; MR01 – Restoration, aftercare and facilitating beneficial after-uses.
See link for details: https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/media/2096569/mlp- for-glos-2018-2032-adopted-march-2020.pdf
Cotswold District Local Plan – Adopted 3rd August 2018
The Cotswold District Local Plan (CDLP) also forms part of the development plan and provides local planning policies for development within the district
10
Page 108 until 2031. The following policies of the CDLP are considered relevant to this application:
4.18 Policy EC1 – Employment Development Policy EC2 – Safeguarding Employment Sites Policy EN4 – The Wider Natural and Historic Landscape. Policy EN5 – Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Policy EN14 – Managing Flood Risk Policy EN15 – Pollution and Contaminated Land
Policy INF4 – Highway Safety
See this link for full details of policies: https://www.cotswold.gov.uk/media/k2kjvq3b/cotswold-district-local-plan- 2011-2031-adopted-3-august-2018-web-version.pdf
Neighbourhood Plan
4.19 There is no Neighbourhood Plan agreed or in production for the Parish.
Other County Council Policy
Gloucestershire County Council Climate Change Commitment
4.20 On the 15th May 2019, Gloucestershire County Council endorsed a climate change emergency and committed to help deliver a carbon neutral County by 2050. Councillors agreed at Full Council to work with partners to identify what measures are needed to deliver a stepped target of 80 percent reduction of carbon emissions by 2030. This commitment refers to the inclusion in the Council’s major strategies such as the Local Transport Plan to having clearly identified strategies to reduce carbon emissions.
4.21 On 20th December 2019, Gloucestershire County Council Cabinet met to discuss the Climate Change Strategy for the period 2019/20 to 2024/25. Cabinet members resolved approve the immediate action plan (on climate change) and endorse the Climate Change Strategy.
4.22 While not part of the Development Plan, the Council’s Climate change commitment could be considered a material consideration when determining planning applications. Members have expressed a desire to consider climate change matters in Planning Committee meetings.
Gloucestershire’s Local Transport Plan 2015 – 2031
4.23 Whilst not part of the Development Plan, the adopted Local Transport Plan (LTP) Adopted June 2016 is a material consideration when determining planning applications. The current LTP sets out the long-term transport strategy up to 2031. It aims to influence how and when individuals choose to travel so that individual travel decisions do not cumulatively result in the failure of the transport network, negatively impacting on the desirability of Gloucestershire as a place to live, work and invest. The outcomes from the consultation completed in 2020, the Post Adoption Statement appraisal and
11
Page 109 further scrutiny will feed into the revised Local Transport Plan for adoption by early 2021. The revised LTP was approved at Cabinet on 27th January 2021 and will be considered for adoption at Full Council on 17th March 2021.
Other Material Policy Considerations
Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018 - 2023
4.24 The Cotswolds AONB Management Plan (‘the Management Plan’), whilst not forming part of the Development Plan, it is a statutory plan, which sets out the vision, outcomes and policies for the management of the Cotswolds AONB (‘the AONB’) for the period 2018-2023 and is therefore a material consideration. The Management Plan has two primary purposes:
1. To conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Cotswolds AONB.
2. To increase the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Cotswolds AONB.
4.25 Policy CC7 – Climate Change – Mitigation. Policy CE1 – Landscape. Policy CE3 – Local Distinctiveness. Policy CE4 – Tranquillity. Policy CE6 – Biodiversity Policy CE10 - Development and Transport – Principles Policy CE11 - Major Development Policy CE12 - Development Priorities and Evidence of Need
Full details of the policies can be found via this link: https://www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Management- Plan-2018-23.pdf
Cotswolds AONB Landscape Character Assessment
4.26 Commissioned in 2002 by the Cotswold Conservation Board, the Landscape Character Assessment (CALCA) provides background to and descriptions of the key landscape features located within the Cotswold AONB. The CALCA does not form part of the statutory Development Plan, but is used to provide information relevant to the consideration of character within the Cotswolds AONB and the potential impacts posed by development.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The application was publicised by site notices dated 1st November 2018 and a press notice in the Evesham and Cotswold Journal newspaper also on the 1st November 2018. The expiry date for comments was 3rd December 2018 for both forms of advertisement. The methods of publication are in line with the statutory requirements and the prescribed procedures contained within the adopted Development Management Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) 1st Review (2013) and with reference to the (at the time) emerging SCI 2nd Review (now adopted).
12
Page 110 5.2 Further advertising was carried out under the requirements of Regulation 25 of the EIA Regulations on 17th January 2020 and 16th July 2020 by site notice and 16th January 2020 and 16th July 2020 in the Evesham and Cotswold Journal.
5.3 28 near neighbour notification letters were sent to neighbouring residential properties and local settlements. A total of 12 responses have been recorded, and apart from a couple of local businesses, including the nearby Cotswold Farm Park, the remaining being from residents nearby. 7 responses objected to the proposal, 4 were received in support and one neutral. A summary of issues raised were:
Negative impact upon the locality due to an increase in productivity following the takeover of the quarry by Breedon Aggregates. Negative impact upon the locality due to noise. Negative impact upon amenity due to raised levels of dust. Negative generic impact upon the AONB. Negative impact from HGV traffic associated with this and the other quarries in the locality. Negative impact on tourism from increased road traffic. Negative impact on road safety. Negative impact upon equestrian businesses. Negative impact upon biodiversity. Negative impact upon visual amenity from visible quarry faces. Need for a quarry traffic strategy. Source of local quality stone. Generates secure employment for local businesses which support the quarry operations. Quarry generates on site local jobs Quarry employees contribute to the local economy. Quarry provides opportunities for local employment and training. Biodiversity gains within the quarry and following restoration.
6.0 CONSULTATIONS
Cotswold District Council
6.1 Environmental Health - Air Quality: no objection subject to condition.
The conclusion of the response - “It would therefore be reasonable to seek to formalise suggested mitigation measures within any grant of planning permission. I suggest that the following wording be included in any grant of permission:
"Measures shall be taken to ensure that all operations on the site do not give rise to dust or wind-blown material being carried on to adjacent land and in particular shall include the watering of all haul and access roads, the fitting of dust suppression equipment to crushing and screening plant and the spraying of storage heaps or areas as necessary during dry weather conditions.
13
Page 111 Reason: To control the impact of dust generated by the development and in the interests of local amenity and the environment."
Environmental Health - Noise: no objection subject to condition.
"There is a very thorough noise assessment report with the application. I have made a site visit previously and have no objection in principle subject to conditions which address noise emissions.
- Noise emitted from the site shall not exceed 55 dBLAeq (1 hour) (free field), when measured from any of the neighbouring properties at a point closest to the noise source: This condition shall not apply during the stripping of soils and overburden on the site, the construction of storage mounds for these materials and their respreading during restoration of the site or the construction of landscape or baffle mounds. Noise from any of these activities shall not exceed 70 dBLAeq (1 hour) (free field), as measured from any of the neighbouring properties at a point closest to the noise source. This condition allowing up to 70 dBLAeq (1 hour) (free field), shall apply for not more than 20 days in any one calendar year unless otherwise agreed with the Cotswold Council in writing. In the event of these operations being planned, Cotswold Council ERS Department shall be informed in writing of the dates of planned operations at least two weeks prior to operations commencing."
District Landscape Officer: no adverse comments
“A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), was submitted in 2018 and an addendum was produced in December 2019 that took account of Regulation 25 feedback. Alongside this is a restoration plan highlighting the proposed character of the site post extraction.
Points to consider: • The implementation of a high quality restoration scheme that provides Environmental Net Gain (ENG) upon completion is a key consideration of the proposals. A restoration plan has been submitted and details will need to be provided prior to implementation. Climate change is a consideration when considering species selection in circa 24 years' time and should be considered again nearer the time of implementation. All restorative planting and landscape works would be subject to a 5 year landscape management plan;
• Will the restored land be made accessible to the public?; and • The existing scheme has previously been permitted and is subject to a restoration plan. This application is located within this baseline context.”
Naunton Parish Council
6.2 No Objection.
The following comments are from neighbouring Parish Councils.
Upper Slaughter Parish Council
14
Page 112 6.3 “Upper Slaughter Parish Council continue to object to this application. It does not appear that original concerns/objections submitted have been addressed particularly relating to noise and traffic movements.
There has also not been any data analysis submitted to show traffic movements in relation to this proposal. the Council again request such a traffic survey is completed prior to consent.
The Council also would challenge the applicants statement made in the summary of the Environmental Statement that "Following comprehensive consultation on application 18/0065/CWMAJM, there has been no objection raised to the principle of the southern extension to Naunton Quarry.
This statement is factually incorrect and can be proven on this portal by objections made by a Local Member, The Flood Agency and two Parish councils and several residents to name just a few.”
Temple Guiting Parish Council
6.4 Temple Guiting Parish Council Comments received 30/11/2018.
“Temple Guiting Parish Council's response to consultation: Planning Application 18/0065/CWMAJM Extension of Quarrying Activities at Naunton Quarry
Introduction
TGPC recognizes that the proposed development is in general compliance with the proposed Minerals Plan.
Although the proposed extensions to the quarry and its activities are located in Naunton Parish, they will impact on a far wider area, including Temple Guiting Parish, with particular regard to roads, noise and the visual amenity of this relatively unspoiled part of the Cotswold AONB.
The proposed extension of the workings at Naunton Quarry to 2035 could have a significant, adverse and long term impact on local residents.
While much of the proposed development is based on continuation of existing practices, the experience of local residents of these existing practices and the varying levels of inspection and enforcement of Planning Conditions, indicate that existing practices need to be reviewed and significantly improved in order to reduce the adverse impact of quarrying activities in the area.
Noise
A specific attribute of the AONB is peace and tranquility. The Landscape and Visual Impact statement paragraph 3.53 in the Application states:
15
Page 113 "Tranquility is a special quality that underpins the AONB designation. At the time of survey the study area was observed as largely tranquil with birdsong and wind comprising the main sources of sound.." This is not always the experience of residents in Temple Guiting Parish. Activity at the quarry is frequently heard in Kineton and elsewhere in the Windrush Valley.
This noise is attributed to the 'Hydraulic Breaker with pecker' and the 'reversing' warning sounds on loaders and other vehicles in the quarry. The combination of sound frequency, weather conditions (especially when there is little wind in the early morning) and the shape of the terrain contribute to the distance that this noise is heard from Naunton quarry. This is very much at odds with the statement in paragraph 3.53.
Hours of work
Hours of work are planning conditions that apply to all quarries in this area.
There have been many occasions when the noise nuisance referred to above has been evident before 7.00 am (the official start time to quarry operations).
Loaded trucks, emanating from Naunton Quarry, have been regularly observed on Buckle Street as well as been seen and heard in Ford before 7.00 am.
Current practices need to comply strictly with existing planning conditions regarding working hours and the Planning Authority should instigate routine and regular monitoring. A review of current practices and controls to both meet current conditions and to reduce impact over time is needed
Mud and dust on roads adjacent to the quarry
There have been many and frequent complaints about the extent of mud and dust on the road outside the main entrance to Naunton Quarry (as noted by comments from Cotswold District Council), also on the minor road leading from Guiting Power to Lower Swell.
This is at present a serious and unavoidable nuisance for motorists, both in terms of potential driving hazard and cleanliness of vehicles.
The current situation where the on site wheel washing facility appears to be inadequate under some/normal weather conditions needs to be remedied. The quarry operator needs to be more alert to the constantly changing state of the road outside the quarry and respond by making more frequent use of a road sweeper that is up to the task of removing both mud and dust from the road.
Increase in HGV movements
16
Page 114 This application for extending the works at Naunton Quarry is made on the premise that HGV movements will not be exceed current permitted levels.
There is no guarantee stated or implied that this will be the case in the long term, especially if the other manufacturing activities at Naunton Quarry are extended.
The transportation statement states that traffic movements would not be worse than current permitted HGV movements; however, the key supporting data that has been provided is a traffic split with no date or source of information and a traffic count from only one location south of the B4068.
No survey information for traffic movements along the B4077 and roads to the North has been provided and no reference has been made to projected vehicle movements from other quarries that may be planned or already approved.
Traffic data needs to be collected at other roads used by vehicles associated with this quarry, especially the B4077, and needs to be collated with data concerning road movements from other quarries in the area.
The transport statement, as presented, fails to present the adverse impact that HGV movements currently have on local communities and no proposals have been presented on how the impact would be reduced over time, a prerequisite of approving this application.
The recent installation of "Unsuitable for HGVs" signs on minor roads in the vicinity does not appear to have reduced the occasional (but still highly inappropriate) incursion of HGVs emanating from quarries along minor roads in Temple Guiting Parish.
Measures need to be in place to prevent HGV movements on the way to and from the quarry before 07.00 am including through the village of Ford, as already indicated. A comprehensive review of traffic movements is required in the area, including Buckle Street both towards Bourton and the B4077, the B4068 and the B4077 from Trafalgar Crossroads to Stanway.
Whilst accident statistics, based on 'no fatalities', have been presented to support the application, the nature of the roads to and from the quarry, particularly to the North and the A44, the prevalence of perceived near misses by local residents encountering HGVs using the quarry, often driven at speed, suggest s that the overall impact of HGV movements needs to be more carefully assessed in terms of speeds, and the EIA mitigation plan should look at measures to reduce the potential risk of incidents.
The implementation of driver awareness programmes, for example, might be considered by hauliers using the quarry. The cost need not be high but such programmes could have a beneficial impact on road safety, especially if these led to a reduction in speed and an improved awareness by drivers of local road conditions.
17
Page 115 A concern of local residents is the condition of verges and progressive damage to roads over time. The closure of Buckle Street in 2017 resulted in a significant number of HGV's being diverted onto minor roads which are generally classed as 'unsuitable for HGVs'. This resulted in significant damage to verges, which have still not been reinstated. Local roads will continue to deteriorate through the number of HGV/quarry wagon movements over time.
Any approval needs to recognize the need for improved maintenance of minor roads as well as continuing maintenance of the perceived deterioration of Buckle Street towards Bourton and, more seriously, the B4077 especially on Stanway Hill.
It is understood, from correspondence with the GCC Minerals Team, that "if Highways Department accept the road as being suitable at the time of application nothing can then be done to mitigate the subsequent damage". In recognizing the length of time for the continued quarrying activities the conditions need to address periodic review and maintenance of the surrounding road infrastructure.
A holistic picture showing the cumulative effect of activities associated with other quarries in the area is required of the Highways Authority.
Visual impact
The Landscape and visual impact statement paragraphs 3.37 & 3.10 state:
"Scenic quality in this area is good. The combination of gently undulating landform, strong field pattern and wooded horizons combine to form a simple yet attractive rural scene ... gently undulating plateau area bisected by a network of dry valleys with distinctive convex profile valley sides"
Whilst the straight escarpment proposed for the reinstatement of the southern extent of the excavation ( final reinstatement plan DR 0007) maximizes extraction of stone, softening of this profile would be more in keeping with the character of the area.
Whilst is proposed to keep some rock faces exposed as a feature of geological interest, the benefits of doing this relative to restoring the landscape have not been clearly presented. These could be preserved through a photographic record.
Unless it is planned to provide open access as part of a strategy to increase public access to the area, it may be preferable to reinstate these parts of the workings as part of a more natural looking escarpment.
There is also concern the current proposal does not ensure that the disused workings will be effectively screened from Buckle Street over time. In other words, further work is needed on the reinstatement proposal before the application is permitted.
18
Page 116 Conclusion
While local residents in villages adjacent to this and other quarries in the area acknowledge and support the need for quarrying activities, and by implication this extension to Naunton Quarry, there is an expectation that this needs to be carried out in greater liaison with the local community and in a way that more clearly recognizes the significant environmental impact that quarrying operations have on the area.
There clearly is a need to review existing practices, controls, conditions and enforcement, some of which are not working effectively at present. The proposed extension of quarrying activities should not be simply based on the continuation of existing provisions.
There is a need to understand the impact of the quarry on the local highways network in conjunction with operations from other quarries. A holistic review is needed, and any extension to this and other quarries should be subject to the completion of such a review.
Final reinstatement plans for this extension should be reviewed to provide a more sympathetic profile that is consistent with the surrounding area.”
Temple Guiting Parish Council - comments received 18.12.2020
“Since TGPC commented on the application for a southern extension to Naunton Quarry, the Council has been working on a series of reports which consolidate all currently publicly available data for the quarries. The first report covers traffic, and an early draft is attached. See the attached link for full details of submission: https://ww3.gloucestershire.gov.uk/PROW/PROWWS.asmx/GetFileGCCCont ents?Filename=images%2f18_0065_CWMAJM_TEMPLE_G_PC_COMM18D EC20.PDF
The research for this report shows that there are significant omissions in the submissions for Naunton Quarry's application including:
- the use of estimated traffic data, rather than actual traffic data, and - lack of a cumulative analysis of production and traffic on local roads -failure to comply with the Authority's own recommendations for a Health Impact Assessment. Temple Guiting Parish Council requests that GCC reviews the application urgently in light of these omissions. Further details are provided below and in the draft report”.(see above)
Previous comments received 24/02/2020:
“These comments supplement those previously submitted by TGPC on 3/11/2018 and relate to the recent amendments to the application.
1. Landscape
19
Page 117 We welcome the amendments to the proposed landscaping scheme and measures to mitigate the over production of aggregate outlined in the non technical summary dated September 2018. However, there is no evidence of the need to leave exposed rock faces in a landscape that generally does not include such features where there is also no obvious benefit to the environment or the local community. Reinstating the natural terrain would enable the use of more ‘waste’ materials, reducing the number of vehicle movements needed to remove ‘waste’. Current technology, such as laser scanning and digital photography, would provide adequate information for future reference, although no obvious demand for this is evidenced.
2. Impact on the Local Environment
The revised proposal, as submitted, raises two significant areas of concern.
2.1 Industrialisation
Paragraph 23 of the submission states that works should be at an “appropriate scale” in order to “provide building materials that help maintain and enhance the local distinctiveness of the AONB” However, Para 4.14 contradicts this statement and reveals that works will not be at that ‘appropriate’ scale, as less than 0.5% of the proposed production of 500,000 tonnes p.a. would be Cotswold stone building materials.
The adjacent quarry, Grange Hill, submitted a revised application (18/0074/CWMAJM) recently in which its primary justification for its extension is the importance of the local grey and cream stone, which provides architectural masonry for maintenance of the heritage of buildings in and around the Cotswolds. Naunton quarry will be extracting from the same strata of stone as Grange Hill, yet Naunton quarry does not discuss how it will deal with this valuable stone. There is also no mention of how reserves of this type of stone will be preserved for use over time, or whether there is a need for both quarries to work the same stone at the same time.
Not only is the extraction at an industrial scale, but the activities at Naunton Quarry include industrial cement and concrete production. Yet the application’s response to Policy EN1of the Cotswold District Plan, which emphasizes the Cotswold heritage, rests on the production of Cotswold building stone materials. Similarly, sections 3.13 to 3.35 of the application’s Environmental Statement, refers to the Cotswold AONB Management Plan 2018-2023, which is a material consideration. Paragraph 172 of the plan says “the applicant would need to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances apply and that the development would be in the public interest. Limestone and other minerals ... 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.”
This application does not fulfill that condition, yet it justifies the application on the basis of its contribution to the Cotswold’s unique qualities through its quarrying of Cotswold building stone, when it is only 0.5% of its output.
20
Page 118 2.2 Tranquility
Paragraph 3.24 of the Cotswold AONB Management Plan 2018 – 2023 ”provides that proposals should have regard to the tranquillity of the Cotswolds by seeking to (i) avoid and (ii) minimise noise pollution and other aural and visual disturbance; and that 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.” However, the application lacks any evidence to show how this proposed development would address these specific points. Paragraph 4.7 of the application states that “no significant adverse effects have been raised by the Environment Statement. This is corroborated by the consultation process where no objection has been received on any noise, dust and air quality, landscape or transport ground.” This is in complete disregard to the comments and complaints submitted by this and neighbouring Parishes including:
* Noise of the quarry operations regularly heard in Kineton and the Cotswold Farm Park and noise/vibration/inconsiderate driving of HGVs. * Local residents’ expressions of concern about the number, speed and aggressive driving of HGVs on the narrow roads of Buckle Street and the B4077. TGPC has received complaints from Summerhill residents, Lavender Hill residents, the Cotswold Farm Park, Kineton residents and others. * Residents of Ford and the Cotswold Farm Park have again gain expressed their concerns regarding loss of amenity and, in the case of the Farm Park, of the impact on their business. The Farm Park employs 100 people and is a major driver of the tourist industry in the area –a very significant source of income and employment in the North Cotswolds.
This raises serious questions about the adequacy and robustness of the environmental impact statement already submitted, and the willingness of the applicant to address local concerns.
The noise of Naunton’s quarrying operations can be heard along the Upper Windrush valley and at the Cotswold Farm Park. In addition, the noise of the pecker was specifically identified as the dominant source of noise in the Grange Hill application. The revised proposals for Naunton do not address this issue. Given that the application states that quarrying would be extended from 2026 by another 16 years to 2042, the application should address mitigation of current noise levels and working practices should be reviewed regularly as technology develops improved solutions.
Temple Guiting Parish Council receives regular complaints that Buckle Street is frequently very dirty as a result of mud from quarry lorry wheels. Current and past planning permissions have included a requirement for wheel washing both for quarrying and for concrete batching (Environment Statement Feb 2018). The key aspect is that the “wheels and chassis (must) have been cleaned to prevent material being deposited on the highway.” Yet the wheel wash is appx 115 metres into the site (as per Environment statement Feb 2018). Vehicles then cross the weighbridge and leave via Buckle Street. The current arrangements do not achieve the objective set as a condition of planning permission as the distance between the wheel wash and the exit
21
Page 119 provides significant opportunities for further dirt to accumulate on vehicles’ wheels. Moving the wheel wash to adjacent to the site exit , and checking each vehicle leaving the site, would deliver the requirement to ‘prevent material being deposited on the highway’.
2.3 Cumulative impact, particularly of HGV movements and amenity value
Paragraph 4.19 states that “To satisfy the specific requirements of the emerging policy as assessment of the possible existence of cumulative impacts generated from within Naunton Quarry and from the variety of mineral and non-mineral developments in the surrounding area will be necessary.” The scale of operation proposed in this application, which extends quarrying beyond 2026 to 2035, will dominate the impact of the quarrying sector on local communities in this part of the AONB. In this context the cumulative impact on access routes and operations from other quarries should be taken into account (including Tinkers Barn; Grange Hill, Oathill, Cotswold Hill, Three Gates and Guiting quarries).
TGPC is aware of the significant increase in quarry traffic on local roads, for example, the number of HGVs passing through Ford on the B4077 has doubled in the past 5-7 years if the figures included in recent planning applications are correct. Par 4.20 of the Environmental Statement claims “referencing the submitted Environmental Statement, it is demonstrated (and confirmed by consultation) that there are no cumulative impacts derived from the proposed southern extension”. However, no additional data has been submitted with the revised proposal which specifies the overall number of vehicles entering and exiting Naunton quarry, the routes taken or any analysis of the impact of those movements either in isolation or as part of a study of their cumulative impacts.
From a review of recent applications and Highways data it is clear that the overall impact of quarry traffic in this area has not been fully assessed. For example, no additional data has been presented regarding:
• the cumulative number of HGV movements (including both export and fill materials) • the cumulative impact of HGVs on the transport routes around the quarries, including Buckle Street, Ford and Stanway Hill, in terms of noise, vibration, dust and pollution.
As far as TGPC is aware, there is no strategy to mitigate those impacts. This will require cooperation and openness from all of the operators in the area and illustrates that applications should not be reviewed in isolation.
The transport statement says that ‘Daily movements are clearly accommodated by the existing infrastructure’. It is true that the roads are still there and that traffic continues to flow. However, the roads in poor condition – the surfaces are damaged and the verges are being worn away, removing any amenity value they had in the past. Road users are having to ‘accommodate’ lorries by being driven off the road into verges and pot holes, subjected to tailgating and pressured by speeding quarry vehicles. Cyclists are under even more intense pressure when confronted with quarry vehicles.
22
Page 120 Working on the basis of 500,000 tonnes of material carried in vehicles permitted to carry 20 tonnes, Naunton quarry confirms (Section 2.20, Environmental Statement) that it alone is contributing an average of 18.2 vehicle movements per hour. This does not take into account the fact that individual vehicles do not leave the quarry at regular intervals so this figure will be higher at certain times. The figure also does not include Naunton’s permission to import 24,375 tonnes which (Section 2.22 Environmental Statement), adding a further 12 movements per day. The total number of HGV movements generated by Naunton quarry alone is close to 20 movements per hour.
This is not the total number of quarry vehicles using the roads, especially Buckle Street. The roads are also carrying HGVs from other local quarries including Oathill, Guiting, Tinker’s Barn, Grange Hill, 3 Gates and Cotswold Hill quarries. The cumulative tonnage of materials extracted and imported in the North Cotswold Cluster are likely to be as high as 850,000 tonnes p.a. – equivalent to 85,000 HGV movements p.a. (assuming each load is 20 tonnes and generates an empty backload). Using Naunton’s factors of a 257-day year and an 11 hour day, quarrying in the cluster generates at least 330 movements per day or 30 per hour. Each movement generates around 85Db, which clearly has an impact on anything close to the vehicles.
The vast majority of this traffic carries aggregate and other materials which are not ‘primarily … used for purposes that conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the AONB’ (as per paragraph 172 of the Cotswold AONB Management Plan).
TGPC is not aware of any strategy to mitigate these impacts, either cumulatively across all quarries in the cluster, or for individual quarries.
Until there is a holistic understanding of cumulative HGV movements across the area together with the impacts on the environment (including noise and pollution), and clear plans to mitigate adverse impacts, applications for increases in production or for long term future developments cannot be properly assessed and should not be permitted.
3. MLP
Naunton quarry is a ‘preferred site’ in the emerging Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan. The plan states that the local aggregates assessment (which is based on sales) for Gloucestershire provides a 10 year average crushed rock figure requirement of 480,000 tonnes per annum. The other preferred site in Gloucestershire, Daglingworth in the Forest of Dean (sic), produces 0.25 million tonnes p.a.. This leaves a further requirement for 230,000 tonnes p.a. Naunton quarry already far exceeds this amount. If quarrying were limited to the amount required to fulfil GCC’s plans, the life of the current extent of the quarry would be extended and HGV movements would be significantly reduced.
4. Summary
23
Page 121 Given that Naunton is the dominant contributor to the overall impact on local communities in this area, TGPC requests that the full proposal should be refused pending a detailed assessment and after mitigations have been developed for all the issues outlined above:
* industrialisation of an AONB * absence of ‘primary’ use to produce Cotswold stone building materials * lack of planning for treatment of seam of high value building stone * large number of HGVs producing significant amounts of noise pollution * many examples of poor driving standards by HGV drivers * dust pollution affecting local (equine an and human) residents * noisy quarrying with no plans to mitigate its effects * lack of assessment of cumulative impact and lack of data on which to base that assessment * production in excess of MLP requirements * no justification for leaving exposed rock faces in reinstated areas.”
(Previous comments of TGPC submitted 30/11/2018)
“Temple Guiting Parish Council's response to consultation: Planning Application 18/0065/CWMAJM Extension of Quarrying Activities at Naunton Quarry
Introduction
TGPC recognizes that the proposed development is in general compliance with the proposed Minerals Plan.
Although the proposed extensions to the quarry and its activities are located in Naunton Parish, they will impact on a far wider area, including Temple Guiting Parish, with particular regard to roads, noise and the visual amenity of this relatively unspoiled part of the Cotswold AONB.
The proposed extension of the workings at Naunton Quarry to 2035 could have a significant, adverse and long term impact on local residents.
While much of the proposed development is based on continuation of existing practices, the experience of local residents of these existing practices and the varying levels of inspection and enforcement of Planning Conditions, indicate that existing practices need to be reviewed and significantly improved in order to reduce the adverse impact of quarrying activities in the area.
Noise
A specific attribute of the AONB is peace and tranquility. The Landscape and Visual Impact statement paragraph 3.53 in the Application states:
"Tranquility is a special quality that underpins the AONB designation. At the time of survey the study area was observed as largely tranquil with birdsong and wind comprising the main sources of sound.."
24
Page 122 This is not always the experience of residents in Temple Guiting Parish. Activity at the quarry is frequently heard in Kineton and elsewhere in the Windrush Valley.
This noise is attributed to the 'Hydraulic Breaker with pecker' and the 'reversing' warning sounds on loaders and other vehicles in the quarry. The combination of sound frequency, weather conditions (especially when there is little wind in the early morning) and the shape of the terrain contribute to the distance that this noise is heard from Naunton quarry. This is very much at odds with the statement in paragraph 3.53.
Hours of work
Hours of work are planning conditions that apply to all quarries in this area.
There have been many occasions when the noise nuisance referred to above has been evident before 7.00 am (the official start time to quarry operations).
Loaded trucks, emanating from Naunton Quarry, have been regularly observed on Buckle Street as well as been seen and heard in Ford before 7.00 am.
Current practices need to comply strictly with existing planning conditions regarding working hours and the Planning Authority should instigate routine and regular monitoring. A review of current practices and controls to both meet current conditions and to reduce impact over time is needed
Mud and dust on roads adjacent to the quarry
There have been many and frequent complaints about the extent of mud and dust on the road outside the main entrance to Naunton Quarry (as noted by comments from Cotswold District Council), also on the minor road leading from Guiting Power to Lower Swell.
This is at present a serious and unavoidable nuisance for motorists, both in terms of potential driving hazard and cleanliness of vehicles.
The current situation where the on site wheel washing facility appears to be inadequate under some/normal weather conditions needs to be remedied. The quarry operator needs to be more alert to the constantly changing state of the road outside the quarry and respond by making more frequent use of a road sweeper that is up to the task of removing both mud and dust from the road.
Increase in HGV movements
This application for extending the works at Naunton Quarry is made on the premise that HGV movements will not be exceed current permitted levels.
25
Page 123 There is no guarantee stated or implied that this will be the case in the long term, especially if the other manufacturing activities at Naunton Quarry are extended.
The transportation statement states that traffic movements would not be worse than current permitted HGV movements; however, the key supporting data that has been provided is a traffic split with no date or source of information and a traffic count from only one location south of the B4068.
No survey information for traffic movements along the B4077 and roads to the North has been provided and no reference has been made to projected vehicle movements from other quarries that may be planned or already approved.
Traffic data needs to be collected at other roads used by vehicles associated with this quarry, especially the B4077, and needs to be collated with data concerning road movements from other quarries in the area.
The transport statement, as presented, fails to present the adverse impact that HGV movements currently have on local communities and no proposals have been presented on how the impact would be reduced over time, a prerequisite of approving this application.
The recent installation of "Unsuitable for HGVs" signs on minor roads in the vicinity does not appear to have reduced the occasional (but still highly inappropriate) incursion of HGVs emanating from quarries along minor roads in Temple Guiting Parish.
Measures need to be in place to prevent HGV movements on the way to and from the quarry before 07.00 am including through the village of Ford, as already indicated. A comprehensive review of traffic movements is required in the area, including Buckle Street both towards Bourton and the B4077, the B4068 and the B4077 from Trafalgar Crossroads to Stanway.
Whilst accident statistics, based on 'no fatalities', have been presented to support the application, the nature of the roads to and from the quarry, particularly to the North and the A44, the prevalence of perceived near misses by local residents encountering HGVs using the quarry, often driven at speed, suggest s that the overall impact of HGV movements needs to be more carefully assessed in terms of speeds, and the EIA mitigation plan should look at measures to reduce the potential risk of incidents.
The implementation of driver awareness programmes, for example, might be considered by hauliers using the quarry. The cost need not be high but such programmes could have a beneficial impact on road safety, especially if these led to a reduction in speed and an improved awareness by drivers of local road conditions.
A concern of local residents is the condition of verges and progressive damage to roads over time. The closure of Buckle Street in 2017 resulted in a significant number of HGV's being diverted onto minor roads which are
26
Page 124 generally classed as 'unsuitable for HGVs'. This resulted in significant damage to verges, which have still not been reinstated. Local roads will continue to deteriorate through the number of HGV/quarry wagon movements over time.
Any approval needs to recognize the need for improved maintenance of minor roads as well as continuing maintenance of the perceived deterioration of Buckle Street towards Bourton and, more seriously, the B4077 especially on Stanway Hill.
It is understood, from correspondence with the GCC Minerals Team, that "if Highways Department accept the road as being suitable at the time of application nothing can then be done to mitigate the subsequent damage". In recognizing the length of time for the continued quarrying activities the conditions need to address periodic review and maintenance of the surrounding road infrastructure.
A holistic picture showing the cumulative effect of activities associated with other quarries in the area is required of the Highways Authority.
Visual impact
The Landscape and visual impact statement paragraphs 3.37 & 3.10 state:
"Scenic quality in this area is good. The combination of gently undulating landform, strong field pattern and wooded horizons combine to form a simple yet attractive rural scene ... gently undulating plateau area bisected by a network of dry valleys with distinctive convex profile valley sides"
Whilst the straight escarpment proposed for the reinstatement of the southern extent of the excavation ( final reinstatement plan DR 0007) maximizes extraction of stone, softening of this profile would be more in keeping with the character of the area.
Whilst is proposed to keep some rock faces exposed as a feature of geological interest, the benefits of doing this relative to restoring the landscape have not been clearly presented. These could be preserved through a photographic record.
Unless it is planned to provide open access as part of a strategy to increase public access to the area, it may be preferable to reinstate these parts of the workings as part of a more natural looking escarpment.
There is also concern the current proposal does not ensure that the disused workings will be effectively screened from Buckle Street over time. In other words, further work is needed on the reinstatement proposal before the application is permitted.
Conclusion
27
Page 125 While local residents in villages adjacent to this and other quarries in the area acknowledge and support the need for quarrying activities, and by implication this extension to Naunton Quarry, there is an expectation that this needs to be carried out in greater liaison with the local community and in a way that more clearly recognizes the significant environmental impact that quarrying operations have on the area.
There clearly is a need to review existing practices, controls, conditions and enforcement, some of which are not working effectively at present. The proposed extension of quarrying activities should not be simply based on the continuation of existing provisions.
There is a need to understand the impact of the quarry on the local highways network in conjunction with operations from other quarries. A holistic review is needed, and any extension to this and other quarries should be subject to the completion of such a review.
Final reinstatement plans for this extension should be reviewed to provide a more sympathetic profile that is consistent with the surrounding area.”
Guiting Power Parish Council
6.5 There is no comment on this application by Guiting Power Parish Council.
Environment Agency
6.6 Previously objecting, following the submission of further information (submitted under Regulation 25 – in July 2020), the Environment Agency commented on 10th August 2020 as follows:
Objection withdrawn “We have reviewed the additional documents submitted, which were submitted in response to our previous objection (see our letter dated 14 December 2018, our reference SV/2018/110056/01-L01).
We are satisfied that the applicant has provided an updated water feature survey and sufficient information on impacts to local water receptors.
In light of this new information, we have no in principal objections to the proposed development.”
Comments received 10/0/2020.
“Thank you for consulting us on the above Reg 25 consultation which was received on 9 July 2020.
We have reviewed the applicant's response to the questions raised by Atkins on 14/02/2020. The answers appear to be sufficient and we do not have any further comments to make at this time. We would remind you that the Environment Agency no longer leads on ground or surface water flooding and that the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) should be the lead on any
28
Page 126 comments relating to these matters (e.g. Atkins, acting as the Council's consultant carrying out the LLFA role).
In addition to the above, we have also been notified of this application by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) under the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH Regs) . I have consulted our COMAH Officer and he has advised that he is not aware of any implications for the proposed development under the COMAH Regs as there are no nearby COMAH sites or pipelines for many miles. Accordingly we have no comments to make under the COMAH Regs.
I trust the above will assist in your determination of the application. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. A copy of the subsequent decision notice would be appreciated.”
Public Health England
6.7 Comments received 23/09/2020
“Dear xxxx(sic),
Thank you for your e-mail. We would expect the site activities to be regulated through an Environmental Permit. The conditions of the permit should ensure that off-site emissions are kept to a minimum. We would refer to Defra's Process Guidance Note 3/08(12) Statutory guidance for quarry processes (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/574861/quarry-processes-process-guidance-note-3- 08_12_.pdf). This states that 'Fugitive dust emissions should be prevented whenever practicable. When this is not practicable arrestment should be used, or emissions should be controlled at source by measures agreed between the regulator and the operator, for example, avoidance of spillage and maintenance of high standards of internal and external housekeeping.'
Comment Date: Mon 27 Jul 2020 Comments received 24/07/2020.
“Thank you for informing Public Health England (PHE) of the above planning application. Our comments are based on information provided within the Environmental Statement (ES).
Proposal This application seeks permission to extend the area approved for mineral extraction of limestone at Naunton Quarry and a restoration scheme on completion of the mineral working. The additional area, located to the south of the existing extraction, covers 16.5 ha. The mineral is extracted using hydraulic excavators and is transported by dump truck to the plant for processing.
Site Location The site is in a predominantly rural location. The nearest settlements are Naunton, approximately 1.9km to the south-west, Guiting Power,
29
Page 127 approximately 2.4 km to the west and Kineton, approximately 1.5km to the north-west. There are several farms located within 400 m of the site, but there are no receptors within 100 m of the proposed extension.
Air Quality The emission of dust has the potential to cause nuisance and present a health risk from the inhalation of particulate matter. Whilst nuisance can be a source of complaint and distress, the assessment of dust as a potential statutory nuisance is a matter for the local authority and, consequently, PHE will restrict its comments to respirable dusts (PM10 and smaller). Particulate matter, PM10 (particles less than 10$lm in diameter) is associated with a range of health effects including effects on respiratory and cardiovascular systems, asthma and mortality
We note that baseline PM10 concentrations have been based on Defra background data as no air quality monitoring has been undertaken at the site, in accordance with the 2016 IAQM document 'Guidance on the Assessment of Mineral Dust Impacts for Planning' . The background concentrations of PM10 are low in the area around the site and are below the screening criteria at which an assessment of the process contribution is necessary. In addition, the proposed extension is not expected to increase HGV movements, and cumulative impacts associate with Grange Hill Quarry to the south of the site are expected to be minimal. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that local background concentrations would change significantly to have a significant impact on local air quality.
We would expect the planning conditions will ensure that there is an appropriate level of monitoring to demonstrate site activities are not having an adverse off-site impact. We note that a Dust Management Plan (DMP), with appropriate dust mitigation measures, will be adopted as part of any planning consent. We recommend that the planning authority liaise with the local council to ensure that the control measures proposed are reasonable, proportional and, if necessary, enforceable. PHE would expect that any complaints of dust emissions from the site will be recorded appropriately and investigated promptly.
PHE recommends that the regulatory authority ensures that any site activities regulated through the pollution prevention and control regime will operate to Best Available Techniques (BAT), and that emissions are not emitted beyond the site boundary”.
Comments received 28/11/2018.
“I am writing in response to planning application 18/0065/CWMAJM. My response is made in consideration of my role as Director of Public Health to promote the health of the population of Gloucestershire. I have consulted the relevant assessments which have been appended to the planning application in formulating my position.
The key concern associated with this application surrounds the proposed extraction site, and the associated operational activities, which have the
30
Page 128 potential to negatively impact the health of the public through air pollution and noise pollution.
The dust and air quality assessment by DustScan AQ dated February 2018 details the potential impact of the proposed extension through nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and dust exposure. As the extraction activity is not due to exceed current annual levels of activity it is assumed that there will not be a significant change in nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter emissions from transport and Non-Road Mobile Machinery. While there is an impact on the health of the public from any level of contamination of air, it does not appear that the planning application will lead to a reduction in air quality from particulate matter or nitrogen dioxide. Additionally, baseline assessments for dust exposure report that risk to nearby sensitive receptors is negligible given the implementation of mitigating actions set out in the dust management plan (section 6 of the dust and air quality assessment). Therefore based on these assessments, and the planned mitigation actions, we have not identified a risk to the health of the public above that from current operations.
The second area of concern is noise pollution. The Noise Impact Assessment report for this installation dated January 2018 concludes that noise levels will meet relevant planning guidance, given the implementation of best practice techniques. However, it is important that noise pollution arising from the site extension is monitored and any further remedial actions to reduce exposure to sensitive receptors considered in response to risks identified.
On the basis of the information provided, and considering the implementation of appropriate mitigating actions, the proposed installation does not suggest a significant risk to the public's health.”
Health and Safety Executive
6.8 Comments received 10/07/2020.
“Thank you for your email of 9/7/2020, seeking HSE's observations on planning application 18/0065/CWMAJM for Southern extension including revision to the consented working arrangements with restoration to a combination of agricultural, nature conservation & geological interest at Naunton Quarry, Naunton, Gloucestershire, GL54 3BA.
HSE is a statutory consultee for certain developments within the consultation distance (CD) of major hazard sites and major accident hazard pipelines, and has provided planning authorities with access to HSEs Planning Advice WebApp https://pa.hsl.gov.uk.
I should therefore be grateful if you would arrange for HSEs Planning Advice WebApp to be used to consult HSE for advice on this application, to see if it lies within the CD of a Major Hazard Site or Pipeline.”
Historic England
6.9 “Thank you for your letter of 15 January 2020 regarding further information on the above application for planning permission. We welcome the changes
31
Page 129 made in light of our previous comments and on the basis of this information, we do not wish to offer any further comments. We suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as relevant.
It is not necessary for us to be consulted on this application again, unless there are material changes to the proposals. However, if you would like detailed advice from us, please contact us to explain your request.”
Natural England
6.10 Comments received 11/08/2020.
SUMMARY OF NATURAL ENGLAND'S ADVICE
NO OBJECTION - DESIGNATED SITES
“Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on designated sites and has no objection.
PROTECTED LANDSCAPES - AONB Natural England's further advice on landscapes and advice on other natural environment issues is set out below.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
Natural England previously responded to this application in December 2018. Our advice regarding designated sites, soils and protected landscapes has not changed and should still be applied to this consultation.
Huntsman Quarry Site of Special Scientific Interest Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the sites have been notified and has no objection.
It is noted the changes to the working scheme and restoration, as detailed in the Part 1 Regulation 25 Addendum. It is also noted that the comments from GCC principal ecologist include certain conditions regarding biodiversity and restoration. These should be taken into consideration.
Protected Landscapes – Cotswold AONB The Local Authority should also be aware that the proposal site is located within the Cotswold AONB and the following advice is provided;
The proposed development is for a site within or close to a nationally designated landscape namely Cotswold AONB. Natural England advises that the planning authority uses national and local policies, together with local landscape expertise and information to determine the proposal. The policy and statutory framework to guide your decision and the role of local advice are explained below.
32
Page 130 Your decision should be guided by paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework which gives the highest status of protection for the ‘landscape and scenic beauty’ of AONBs and National Parks. For major development proposals paragraph 172 sets out criteria to determine whether the development should exceptionally be permitted within the designated landscape.
Alongside national policy you should also apply landscape policies set out in your development plan, or appropriate saved policies.
We also advise that you consult the relevant AONB Partnership or Conservation Board. Their knowledge of the site and its wider landscape setting, together with the aims and objectives of the AONB’s statutory management plan, will be a valuable contribution to the planning decision. Where available, a local Landscape Character Assessment can also be a helpful guide to the landscape’s sensitivity to this type of development and its capacity to accommodate the proposed development.
The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty. You should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to ‘have regard’ for that statutory purpose in carrying out their functions (S85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000). The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this duty also applies to proposals outside the designated area but impacting on its natural beauty.
Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified and has no objection.
Further general advice on the consideration of protected species and other natural environment issues is provided at Annex A. Should the proposal change, please consult us again.”
Local County Councillor
6.11 Latest comments received 11/12/2020.
“I respond as the local county councillor for the Stow division which includes Naunton. I support the comments of the GCC Minerals & Waste Policy Team posted on the 10th December 2020, particularly of the need to consider cumulative impact. I have recently commissioned traffic surveys at a number of locations in the hinterland of this site which I have shared with Temple Guiting Parish Council. I anticipate them posting further comments shortly dealing with cumulative impact, particularly in respect of traffic issues.”
County Archaeologist
6.12 “I advise that I have checked the proposed development area against the County Historic Environment Record. The land in question is within a locality known to contain widespread sites of prehistoric, Roman and medieval date.
33
Page 131 These include a number which are designated Scheduled Monuments in recognition of the national importance of the remains; viz;
- Summerhill Prehistoric site - Bemborough Farm round barrow cemetery - Bowl barrow 180m WNW of Nosehill Farm - Deserted medieval farmstead NW of Chalkhill Farm
In view of the proximity of the above Scheduled Monuments to the application site this development proposal may have adverse impacts on the settings of those monuments. Therefore, before this planning application is determined I recommend that you should consult Historic England for their views on that issue. I note that this planning application is supported by an Environmental Statement (David Jarvis Associates, September 2018) in which the archaeological impact is considered, supported by the following reports:
- An Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment (September 2013) - Report on a Geophysical Survey (January 2016, updated February 2018) - Archaeological Evaluation Trenching (April 2015) - An Assessment of the Setting of Heritage Assets (February 2018)
I advise that in my view these reports provide sufficient information to provide an understanding of the impacts of the development on archaeological remains. The results of the programme of assessment and evaluation can be summarised as follows. The archaeological evaluation comprised the investigation of 47 trial-trenches measuring 50m long by 2m wide, which were placed to investigate ground anomalies previously found by geophysical survey, and also placed to test areas where no ground anomalies were identified.
A focus of archaeological activity was found in the south-eastern portion of the proposed development area. A large boundary ditch investigated in Trenches 40 and 42, and a second ditch observed in Trench 44, produced no dateable finds but may relate to nearby later prehistoric activity. Trench 42 also contained two pits which are perhaps contemporary with the nearby ditches.
Deposits of colluvial soil were found to be widespread across the site, and investigation of such soil in Trench 19 yielded a sherd of probable Early Bronze Age pottery, which may provide an approximate date for the accumulation of the material. There is some potential for early archaeological remains to be present below the colluvial soils.
Elsewhere, there was little to suggest the presence of widespread archaeological remains. A large pit investigated in Trench 12 and a ditch found in Trench 28 are thought to represent features of modern origin, and if correctly interpreted these features would be of limited archaeological interest.
This planning application is supported by a Written Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Mitigation (Archaeological Research Services Ltd, February 2018). The document proposes detailed archaeological investigation in the
34
Page 132 southern-eastern portion of the proposed development area, and monitoring of the development elsewhere so that any archaeological remains affected by the development can be identified and recorded.
I advise that in my view the Written Scheme of Investigation provides for an appropriate programme of archaeological mitigation for this scheme. Therefore, I confirm that I have no objection to the proposed development.
To secure the proposed archaeological mitigation I recommend the attachment of the following condition to any planning permission which may be granted for this scheme:” The development shall be the subject of a programme of archaeological mitigation, as proposed in the Written Scheme of Investigation for that work submitted in support of the planning application (Archaeological Research Services Ltd, February 2018).
Reason: To make provision for the investigation and recording of any archaeological remains that may be destroyed by ground works required for the development. The archaeological programme will advance understanding of any heritage assets which will be lost, in accordance with paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
County Ecologist
6.13 “Compared to the December 2017 drawings the restoration scheme provides less species-rich grassland and seemingly no wet woodland. However there is a longer length of species-rich hedgerow and a larger area of drier woodland in the revised restoration proposals of late 2019. The new drawing DR-0008 still demonstrates significant biodiversity enhancement overall would accrue.
Recommended Action The following items should be addressed to be able to consent this development.
Pre-determination: 1. Item – Consultation: The Gloucestershire Geology Trust and Natural England may need to be re-consulted on the changed details if you think this appropriate?
Determination: As part of a consent that may be granted items such as the following below should be attached:”
1. Condition – No development shall take place until a detailed Biodiversity Mitigation Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The Scheme shall be based on sections 6.2 to 6.4 of the Ecological Impact Assessment by Malford Consulting dated January 2018 and be compiled by a suitably qualified ecologist. The Scheme should include details of measures for pre- works surveys, protection, creation or enhancement of habitats and features, aftercare management, monitoring,
35
Page 133 and contingency measures. The Scheme shall include appropriate measures for:
(x) reptiles; (x) nesting birds in hedgerows, trees and shrubs and ground nesting birds; (x) badgers and other mammals such as brown hare, fox and hedgehog; (x) any other legally protected or priority species that might be encountered; (x) buffer or stand-off zones for all retained hedgerows, trees, (x) the establishment, enhancement and after-care of land and the objectives of management; (x) a work schedule of mitigation tasks including a timetable throughout the working stages and into final restoration; (x) monitoring and remedial or contingency measures; (x) those responsible for implementation of the scheme.
The scheme shall be implemented as approved by the Mineral Planning Authority. Any significant modifications to the approved details for example as a result of a protected species license being required must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that important biodiversity is conserved and in accordance with Minerals Local Plan Policy X, ODPM Circular 06/2005 plus National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 170 and 175.
2. Condition – Not later than six months after the date of the commencement of extraction operations a detailed Restoration and Aftercare Management Scheme for the each working stage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The detailed scheme shall be based on Drawings No. DR-0003, DR-0004, DR-0005, DR-0006 and DR-0008 all dated November 2019 and including the Ecological Impact Assessment by Malford Consulting dated January 2018. The scheme shall provide for the following:
(i) A summary of all restoration and aftercare processes planned, in progress or completed across the whole quarry site; (ii) Ecological trends and any identified or new constraints on site that might influence management; (iii) Selection of appropriate measures including establishment, enhancement and after-care; (iv) Description of opportunities to retain or expose geological heritage features; (v) Details for ground forming, soil, substrate, mineral, rock preparation and habitat and species establishment; (vi) Sources of soil forming materials, plant stock and other species introductions; (vii) Provisions for any public access and interpretation; (viii) Extent and location of proposed works shown on appropriate scale plans; (ix) Prescriptions and programme for initial aftercare of 5 years and long term management of a further 5 or more years; (x) The organisation, body or personnel responsible for the work;
36
Page 134 (xi) Timing of the restoration operations in relation to phased working of the mineral site overall; (xii) Proposals for monitoring the success of all restoration 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 as approved by the Mineral Planning Authority. Any significant modifications to the approved details for example as a result of unforeseen circumstances must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: To conserve and enhance the environmental value and amenity of the land and in accordance with Minerals Local Plan Policy X, ODPM Circular 06/2005 plus National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 8, 170 and 175. This is also in accordance with Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which confers a general biodiversity duty upon Local Authorities.
3. Condition – No new external lighting shall be installed on this site without the prior approval, in writing, from the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect local amenity and to ensure that bats are not discouraged at this location, in accordance with Local Plan Policy X, ODPM Circular 06/2005 plus National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 170, 175 and 180.
4. Advice Note –If a protected species (such as any bat, great crested newt, dormouse, badger, reptile, barn owl or any nesting bird) is discovered using a feature on site that would be affected by the development or related works all activity which might affect the species at the locality should cease. If the discovery can be dealt with satisfactorily by the implementation of biodiversity mitigation measures that have already been drawn up by your ecological advisor and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority then these should be implemented. Otherwise a suitably experienced ecologist should be contacted and the situation assessed before works can proceed. This action is necessary to avoid possible prosecution and ensure compliance with the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. This advice note should be passed on to any persons or contractors carrying out the development/works.
5. Advice Note - In relation to the County Council’s Service Level Agreement with the Local Biological Records Centre and to assist in the strategic conservation of countywide biodiversity, all species and habitat records from the ecological work commissioned by the applicant should be copied [if not already] to the Gloucestershire Centre for Environmental Records (GCER).
“It is my view that the above advice is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, ODPM Circular 06/2005, Natural England’s Standing Advice, and with Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural
37
Page 135 Communities Act 2006 which confers a general biodiversity duty upon Local Authorities whilst exercising their functions.”
Highways Authority
6.14 Further Clarification received 29th September 2020 that the Highways Authority has no highway objection to the proposal.
Comments received 4th April 2019
“The highways authority recommends no highway objection to be raised subject to a repeat of conditions 4, 16 and 17 from planning consent 06/0038/CWFUL and 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of 13/0032/CWMAJM being attached to define the scope of the development and ensure that there is no detrimental impact on highway safety.”
The Highways Authority has been asked to comment on the subject of the Section 106 planning agreement and those comments are still outstanding.
County Landscape Advisor
6.15 Comments received 01/02/2020.
“Thank you for your email and letter regarding the Reg 25 additional information submitted by the applicant in respect of the extension to Naunton Quarry. I have reviewed the additional documentation and plans and would comment as follows:
My reading of paragraph 2.8 of the David Jarvis addendum to the environmental statement (DJA ref 2201-4-4-2-S-T2-S5-P2 dated December 2019) is that all site-won waste material from the quarry will now be used in the restoration i.e. that no material will now be moved to Nosehill Farm. If that is the case then I assume the application for Nosehill (16/0049) will be revised to regularise the material already tipped there and to reprofile the working face of that to, as discussed, feather into the existing restoration landscape.
Clearly, since our meeting last year with the applicant and their agents, considerable work has gone into revising the proposed phasing and restoration landscape. The proposed final form and landscape shown on drawing 2201-4-4-2-DR-0008 is a significant improvement on that previously submitted in achieving a restoration landscape far more in keeping with that of the surrounding AONB. As such, I believe the majority of my previous concerns have been adequately addressed. In order to minimise the number of outstanding items to be conditioned, should you be minded to recommend approval, could I ask you to request the following matters of clarification from the applicant: (Officer Note: the Submission of further information in July 2020 is intended to address this question).
1. A programme of restoration timescales against the four phases of restoration shown on the submitted plans. This to provide a baseline against which progress can be monitored.
38
Page 136 2. Confirmation of details of planting and seeding mixes/densities/sizes/hedgerow spacings etc. 3. Illustration/detail of proposed dry stone walling, fencing and gates 4. Details of arable farmland restoration (I am conscious that on an adjoining site the authority had considerable difficulty in ensuring a farmland restoration that was acceptable to the intended tenant farmer). Linked to this it would be helpful if the applicant could clarify final access arrangements? It would appear the access would be from Buckle Street but it is not clear if this is a new at grade access opposite the works entrance or if the current road underbridge is retained? 5. Given the scale and extent of the application, I believe a framework setting out the principles of a landscape management plan and outlining management/ beating up of early phases of restoration together with post restoration ecological monitoring would be helpful at this stage. 6. Linked to the above, it would be helpful to have a statement on the restoration goals of the land not returned to agriculture and an indication of any intent to allow public access to that land? 7. It would be helpful to have an indication of the heights of the retained rock outcrops and any safety fencing etc proposed 8. For clarity, it would be helpful for future monitoring of the site if the final restoration contours could be submitted as a separate drawing? They are on the final restoration plan but are difficult to 'read' with the photorealistic representation of the landscape restoration.”
Minerals and Waste Policy
6.16 Minerals and Waste Policy officer comments “All of the details set out within this section are made by officers on behalf of Gloucestershire County Council in its capacity as the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority (MWPA): -
The following paragraphs represent a local policy review of planning application reference: 18/0065/CWMAJM as of October 2020. It builds upon mineral policy comments already provided in March 2019 and again February 2020. The content should support the case officer in arriving at well- considered and balanced planning judgements and to inform an overall recommendation for decision-makers.
The proposal The planning application was originally submitted in autumn 2018. It is understood that one set of main revisions has been made since this time and they were received at the end of 2019. The proposal as presented by the applicant’s agent is for a southern extension to the existing Naunton Quarry to facilitate the working of approximately 5.8 million tonnes of limestone. Proposed uses for the worked mineral include: - as a crushed aggregate; as a form of agricultural lime; and as a natural building stone including roofing slates, walling and paving stones. The applicant’s agent also advises that a combination of continued working of existing permitted reserves with those contained within the proposed extension area will extend the life of Naunton Quarry by a further 16 years (this is based on the reserve assessment that was made with the original submission at the end of 2018).
39
Page 137 Development Plan In March 2020 the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire (2018 – 2032) was adopted by Gloucestershire County Council. It is the local development plan for all minerals-related land use matters within the county and is of prime importance in the future determination of the proposed extension at Naunton Quarry. Policies contained in the adopted plan deemed relevant are listed as follows: - MW01 – Aggregate provision; MW02 – Natural building Stone; MA01 – Aggregate working within allocations; DM01 – Amenity; DM02 – Cumulative impact; DM03 – Transport; DM04 – Flood risk; DM05 – Water resources; DM06 – Biodiversity and geodiversity; DM07 – Soil resources; DM08 – Historic environment DM09 – Landscape; MR01 – Restoration, aftercare and facilitating beneficial after-uses.
MW01 – Aggregate provision There are two parts to policy MW01 that are applicable to the proposal. The first is whether it will contribute towards maintaining the county’s crushed rock aggregate landbank and the second is whether it will meet the requirements of policy MA01(Aggregate working within allocations).
Policy MW01 seeks to ensure that the crushed rock aggregate landbank for Gloucestershire is maintained at a level of at least 10-years worth of working throughout the adopted plan’s time horizon. It also states that the landbank should be calculated applying the annual crushed rock aggregate supply rate sourced from the most recently published Local Aggregate Assessment (LAA). This annual supply rate is known as the ‘LAA rate’. For Gloucestershire the LAA rate presently represents a projection of the average annual crushed rock aggregate supply from the county over the previous 10 years. The most recently published LAA is for the period 01/01/2017 to 31/12/2017. The LAA rate is equal to 1.423 million tonnes per annum. The total remaining reserves within the county as at 31/12/2017 was 20.69 million tonnes. Consequently the crushed rock aggregate landbank for Gloucestershire at 31/12/2017 is 14.54 years (20.69 / 1.423). The adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire has a time horizon up to the end of 2032. Based upon the most recently published LAA, the remaining permitted reserves in Gloucestershire are not sufficient to maintain a landbank of at least 10 years throughout the plan’s full time horizon, which includes at its end date (31/12/2032). Only ½ a year’s worth of supply would remain from permitted reserves at the end of plan if no further reserves were granted planning permission. To maintain at least a 10-year landbank at the end of 3032, a further 9 ½ year’s worth of working would need to be permitted during the plan’s lifetime. The Naunton Quarry proposal has an estimated yield of approximately 5.8 million tonnes. Based on the current LAA rate, this would theoretically add 4.08 years to the crushed rock aggregate landbank for Gloucestershire. This would be a positive contribution to the county’s crushed
40
Page 138 rock aggregate landbank and would reduce a potential deficit in permitted reserves envisaged at the end of 2032. In conclusion, the proposal looks to meet the requirements of part one of policy MW01. The second part of policy MW01is concerned with demonstrating the requirements of policy MA01 have been met. This matter is dealt with later in the review.
MW02 – Natural building stone The proposal includes the working of natural building stone alongside crushed rock aggregate and agricultural lime. This means consideration must be given to policy MW02. It is acknowledged that the working of natural building stone is not the most significant element of the proposal, but it remains a key mineral planning issue that must be taken account of. All mineral working proposals involving natural building stone need to be assessed against policy MW02 requirements with evidence provided with the application to cover all parts of the policy in order to achieve full compliance. Policy officers have advised previously of the need to prepare such evidence. This includes: - how building stone sourced from the extension to Naunton Quarry will be able to meet current unmet demand for the stone and / or will meet demand in a more sustainable manner than would be the case if worked elsewhere; how the building stone sourced from the extension to Naunton Quarry will positively contribute towards maintaining historic built assets and local distinctiveness in the built environment; how this type of mineral working may support the local economy and cultural heritage of the Cotswolds (e.g. how it might support traditional natural building stone working skills); and how it will fit within the wider mineral working programme for the extension to Naunton Quarry in the context of the approach towards the phasing and timescales for delivering restoration and aftercare. The latest submission made by the applicant’s agent was in January 2020. It attempts to address the policy concern that has been raised. However, as advised by policy officers back in February 2020, it lacks the level of detail needed to demonstrate policy compliance. The case officer is reminded of the supporting text within the adopted MLP (see pages 51 to 53), which clearly outlines the expectation for supporting evidence. A thorough Building Stone Assessment is strongly encouraged.
MA01 – Aggregate working within allocations The future aggregate provision requirements and local land-use planning strategy set out in the adopted plan lay the foundation for policy MA01. It makes it clear that the principle of aggregate mineral working has been accepted at a number of allocations identified in the plan. The Naunton Quarry proposal lies within one such allocation – No. 05: Land south and west of Naunton Quarry. However, the case officer must still be comfortable in their assessment of the current circumstances surrounding the level of permitted reserves and landbank levels (see the advice given previously under policy MW01 – this should help confirm matters) and that the proposal is been accompanied by sufficient evidence to satisfactorily demonstrate each of the detailed development requirements for Allocation No.5 (see appendix 4, page 175 to 180) will be met.
In respect of the first part of policy MA01, the evidence suggests the proposal is policy compliant as it will make a positive contribution to maintaining the county’s crushed rock landbank, which at present is not supported by
41
Page 139 sufficient permitted reserves for the entire lifespan of the adopted plan. For the second part of policy MA01 a conclusion cannot yet be drawn until a systematic review has been completed of all of the relevant supporting information incorporating the technical advice received by other consultees and revisions made to resolve any initial concern that has arisen.
DM01 – Amenity It is not clear from a review of the technical responses to the original application or proposed revisions whether all relevant amenity impacts have been appropriately considered and that all matters relating to them have been satisfactorily resolved. Previous policy officers comments from February 2020 highlighted a few areas that the case officer may wish to explore further, particularly around the sort of evidence that has been prepared and its relationship to the detailed development requirements for Allocation No.5.
DM02 – Cumulative impact The cumulative effect of mineral developments can give rise to challenging and adverse impacts. Albeit individual activities might give rise to impacts that are deemed acceptable in planning terms, collectively they could prove to be unacceptable. Cumulative adverse impacts can result from multiple activities taking place on a single site and / or as a result of a combination of activities across several mineral development sites. It may also arise from intensified development generally across a locality. Naunton Quarry is within an area containing a number of mineral workings and therefore the issue of cumulative impact is a valid one that needs to be sufficiently explored. Following an assessment it may prove to be the case that no materially significant adverse cumulative impacts are identified. However, as previously advised back in February 2020, the current body of evidence does not demonstrate that this issue has been sufficiently handled. Reference to the accompanying Environmental Statement is acknowledged and may contribute to the overall consideration of cumulative impact matters. Although no specific cumulative assessments / analysis has been completed to prove the case.
Whilst there is no definitive standard approach as to what should or shouldn’t be included in a cumulative impact assessment case law and associated good practice indicates that plans and projects that are ‘reasonable foreseeable’ should be included alongside existing activities. Examples of this could involve submitted but not yet determined planning applications as well permitted developments that are not yet implemented.
DM03 – Transport It is understood that GCC Highways Development Management raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions in their correspondence of April 2019. This is materially significant in determining compliance with policy DM03. However, it is strongly advised that the case officer seeks clarification on the basis of the response received from GCC Highways Development Management. This is to ensure it has appropriately incorporated a view on highly relatable matters such as cumulative impact. Policy officers reiterate that whilst individual impacts associated with the proposal may be wholly acceptable in planning terms, has the highway recommendation taken account of both current and also foreseen highway activities with other development activities from within the locality?
42
Page 140 DM04 – Flood risk It is understood that technical expertise has been sought in respect of assessing flood risk matters. Various correspondences have been exchanged with the case officer, appointed assessors and the applicant’s agent. At this time (Oct 2020) it remains unclear whether all technical matters have now been satisfactorily resolved. Furthermore, as previously advised by policy officers back in February 2020 the case officer will need to be satisfied that the ‘right’ evidence has been provided and the ‘appropriate’ solutions have been reached in order to meet the specific requirements of policy DM04. It is strongly encouraged that the case officer works closely with technical consultees and appointed technical support when arriving at their own conclusion to ensure that there will be alignment between satisfying specific technical matters and the clear, spelt-out issues contained in adopted local policy.
DM05 – Water resources It is understood that the Environment Agency objected to the proposal back in December 2018. A response to the EA conclusion was prepared by the applicant’s agent and published in December 2019. The additional evidence seeks to overcome the concern raised. At this time (Oct 2020) it is not clear whether the Environment Agency is now accepting of the additional work that has been completed. As previously advised in February 2020 the case officer must be satisfied that the ‘right’ evidence has been provided and the ‘appropriate’ solutions have been reached in order to meet the specific requirements of policy DM05. It is strongly encouraged that the case officer works closely with technical consultees and appointed technical support when arriving at their own conclusion to ensure that there will be alignment between satisfying specific technical matters and the clear, spelt-out issues contained in adopted local policy.
DM06 – Biodiversity and geodiversity It is understood that the GCC Ecologist has reviewed the latest revisions to the proposal (December 2019) and has made a full and detailed submission to the case officer. The recommendation is one of no objection subject to a suite of conditions being imposed and confirmation of a non-contradictory view from Natural England and the Gloucestershire Geology Trust in respect of possible impacts upon nearby SSSI designations. At this time (Oct 2020) it is not clear whether the unresolved matter about the existence or otherwise of materially significant impacts on nearby SSSI designations has been satisfied. If resolved, it is strongly encouraged that the case officer works closely with all relevant technical consultees when arriving at their own conclusion to ensure that there will be alignment between satisfying specific technical matters and the clear, spelt-out issues contained in adopted local policy.
DM07 – Soil resources It is understood that the Environmental Health Manager at Cotswold District Council has engaged with the issue of soils management and that this has led to additional information being submitted in December 2019. At this time (Oct 2020) it is not clear whether the additional information is sufficient to resolve the concern that has arisen.
43
Page 141 DM08 – Historic environment It is understood that the GCC Archaeologist has reviewed the original submission back in November 2018. A recommendation has been made that the proposal raises no objection subject to a condition being imposed and confirmation that Historic England also raises no concern over potential impacts upon the setting of Scheduled Monuments within the sphere of influence of the proposal. At this time (Oct 2020) it is not clear whether Historic England has provided a response. Furthermore, it is also unclear whether the revisions brought forward at the end 2019 will have an influence the previous recommendation made by the GCC Archaeologist?
DM09 – Landscape The basic requirement of all mineral proposals in the county is that they are informed by, are sympathetic to, and wherever practicable, will support the enhancement of the character, features and qualities of the landscape character areas or types identified across Gloucestershire. For the Naunton Quarry proposal additional assessment requirements apply (part b of policy DM09). These relate to the proposal’s location within the designated Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Evidence of the following must be sought and carefully considered: - How the proposal will not prejudice the conservation of the character, features and qualities of the landscapes and scenic beauty of the Cotswolds AONB and that account will have been given to the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage; How any adverse impacts on the special qualities of the Cotswolds AONB as defined by the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan (2018 - 2023) (specifically concerning the environment, landscape and recreational opportunities) will be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated; and How opportunities will be taken to support the enhancement of the character, features and qualities of the landscapes and scenic beauty of the Cotswolds AONB as promoted through the relevant AONB Management Plan (2018 – 2023).
Furthermore, consideration must also be given to three specific criteria that make up a ‘public interest’ test (a 2nd element to part b of policy DM09). This is due the scale of development being proposed within the Cotswolds AONB designation. The additional assessment is applicable to all ‘major’ development proposals within or that affect the setting of an AONB designation.
At this time (Oct 2020) it is not clear what the overall landscape view is of the proposal from GCC’s appointed technical consultants on landscape matters? However, it does appear that notable dialogue and exchanges have occurred with the applicant’s agent culminating in the revisions put forward at the end of 2019. These seem to be heavily focused on the achievement of an acceptable post-working restoration solution.
Whilst there is no doubt that any judgment on policy DM09 will require all technical landscape matters to be satisfactorily resolved, a favourable conclusion drawn with the wider public interest test must also be achieved. This test goes beyond environmental quality and landscaping matters and will require the case officer to incorporate other conclusions about the proposal.
44
Page 142 Policy officers can advise that the outcome of assessing policies MW01, MW02 and MA01 will be highly applicable to the test. It is not obvious at this time (Oct 2020) that all of the necessary evidence has been provided and that it is acceptable to derive a robust conclusion on public interest grounds. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suggest that the positive contribution to the county’s crushed rock aggregate landbank and consequential support for maintaining steady and adequate supplies of aggregates will be very influential in deciding upon the assessment of overriding need and national considerations.
MR01 – Restoration, aftercare and facilitating beneficial after-uses. It is clear from the submitted evidence and documents from technical consultees and the applicant’s agent that the issue of post-working restoration has been a highly significant issue with the proposed extension to Naunton Quarry. Going forward the case officer is strongly encouraged to work collaboratively with all of the technical experts with an interest in post-working restoration matters, to ensure the final outcome will meet both specific thematic issues and the overall policy achievements earmarked for mineral restoration These are as follows: - delivery of high environment standards; the avoidance of generate unacceptable adverse impacts through delivering restoration; and facilitating beneficial after-uses that will contribute to the delivery of sustainable development.
Cotswolds Conservation Board response of 10th August 2020 In response to a request from the case officer, brief policy comments have been prepared covering some of the key matters raised by Cotswold Conservation Board (CCB) in their response to the proposal of 10th August 2020. Relevant extracts from CCB response are in grey and italic below: -
‘The Board considers that the proposed development would constitute major development, in the context of paragraph 172 and footnote 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), by reason of its nature, scale, setting and potential to have significant adverse impacts on the purpose of AONB designation.
For example, the proposed development is a Schedule 1 development under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations and, as such, is automatically considered to be likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts. Also, in an AONB, quarrying for the primary purpose of aggregate production is not compatible with national and local level policies, such as the National Planning Policy Framework and the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-2023, respectively.
The starting point for such major development is a presumption against granting planning permission. For such development to be approved, it would need to be demonstrated that that exceptional circumstances apply and that the development would be in the public interest. However, the Board does not consider that these thresholds have been met.’
The CCB response fails to acknowledge the existence and significance of the relevant local development plan for minerals in the county – the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire (2018 – 2032). This was adopted in March
45
Page 143 2020 and is of prime importance with the future determination of mineral planning applications throughout Gloucestershire. It provides the local framework for dealing with mineral working proposals within the Gloucestershire parts of the Cotswolds AONB. It also responds to matters relating to major mineral developments in these designated localities. As acknowledged in the CCB response, national policy affords some circumstances albeit exceptional, where major development could be allowed. The decision should be heavily founded upon demonstrating public interest. Local plan policy DM09 presents a robust and national policy compliant public interest test for mineral working proposal. If it can be demonstrated that the public interest test can be past, then a presumption against granting planning permission for extending Naunton Quarry because it is a major development in an AONB designation, will not exist.
‘For example, with regards to the need for the development and potential alternative options, the Board’s analysis has identified that the County’s requirement for the additional provision of aggregate to 2032 could potentially be met three times over by the other aggregate site allocations in the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire, all of which would be extensions to existing quarries, without having to permit the proposed extension at Naunton Quarry.’
The approach outlined in the CCB response does not represent an appropriate way of determining how proposals brought forward on allocations in the adopted plan should be considered. Policy MA01 is clear that for all allocations the principle of development has been accepted. There is no hierarchy of preference between the allocations. However, it is noted that in order to attain full policy compliance, applications will still need to show how they:- will contribute to maintaining appropriate aggregate landbank levels; or may contribute to forecast changes in aggregate demand; or contribute towards resolving any arising productive capacity constraints on existing permitted reserves.
‘This analysis also demonstrates that, even if the expansion of Naunton Quarry is permitted, it does not necessarily require the extraction of 5.8 million tonnes (mt) at a rate of 500,000mt per annum over a period of 11+ years.’
There is no local policy in place that as point of principle establishes a ceiling or limit on how much mineral working should be contained in individual aggregate working proposals. The Mineral Planning Authority will consider all aspects of a proposal put together by an applicant when arriving at a determination. This includes the physical implications, practicalities and the wider consequences on such matters as supply, resulting from the size and scale of working proposed. Any ‘perceived’ excessive working in terms of land-take, longevity and output from consultees should all contribute to the debate and afforded the appropriate amount of weight in determining the planning balance of a specific proposal.
‘With regards to adverse impacts on the purpose of AONB designation, the Board’s primary concern is the significant adverse impact on the tranquillity of the AONB, which is one of the AONB’s special qualities. This impact primarily relates to the HGV movements that would be associated with the proposed development. The Board acknowledges that the number of HGV movements
46
Page 144 to / from Naunton Quarry would remain the same as in the current baseline. However, this does not necessarily make it acceptable to maintain the status quo. In fact, the Board considers that the current baseline is already having a significant adverse impact on the tranquillity of the AONB and on the amenity of local residents.
Naunton Quarry is the largest of the eight quarries that form a cluster within the vicinity of Buckle Street and the B4077. As the largest quarry in this cluster, Naunton Quarry also makes the biggest contribution to the cumulative, adverse impact of HGV movements across this cluster. In addition, it is important to compare the proposed development with a scenario in which planning permission is not granted. The proposed development would potentially double the number of HGV movements on local roads, compared to this scenario (i.e. a 100% increase). This is significantly higher than the 10% ‘rule of thumb’ threshold identified in the Board’s Tranquillity Position Statement.’
Local plan policy DM09 part b, points ii and iii highlight the importance given to the special qualities of designated AONBs and the need to avoid or satisfactorily mitigate any adverse impacts that may result from mineral proposals. It also affords specific policy support for any opportunities that will contribute towards enhancing the character, features and qualities of the landscapes and scenic beauty. It may prove advantageous for the case officer to clarify with the CCB their interpretation of the Cotswolds AONB’s special qualities and whether it is just the matter of tranquillity and the impact of associated HGV movements that represents their concern? In regard to this specific matter, the views of the CCB will need to be taken into account when assessing the conclusion drawn by technical advice from the local highway authority.
‘The Board is also concerned about the potential destruction of a valuable building stone resource that could occur as a result of the primary use of the limestone for aggregate. This could have significant implications for the local distinctiveness of the built environment of the AONB.’
It is understood the application includes the working of limestone for the production of natural building stone products.
‘In addition, the Board considers that the proposed development would also have adverse impacts on landscape character and the historic environment, albeit not to a significant degree. We also consider that the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has potentially significantly underplayed the visual impacts of the proposed development. This is particularly the case with regards to the potential impacts of the proposed screening bunds on the characteristic, expansive, long distance views across the High Wold Plateau.’
This is a matter that the case officer may wish to take up with the appointed technical advice on potential landscape impact issues. It will not doubt be applicable to the consideration of local plan policy DM09.
County Hydrogeological Adviser
47
Page 145 6.17 Comments received 11/08/2020 as follows:
“Further to your request on 9th July 2020, we have reviewed GWP's response of 1st May 2020 to Atkins' previous hydrogeological comments (dated 14th February 2020) in relation to the southern extension of Naunton Quarry.
Atkins are satisfied that the responses provided by GWP addresses all outstanding matters fully.
Atkins would recommend that a condition for ongoing groundwater monitoring is included within any granting of planning permission. Atkins trusts that the above meets your requirements. However, should you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.”
Gloucestershire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority
6.18 Comments received 20/07/2020.
The LLFA has no further comments. (No Objection)
Comments received 05/02/2020.
“I refer to the notice received by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) requesting comments on the above proposal. The LLFA is a statutory consultee for surface water flood risk and management and has made the following observations and recommendation on new information.
On 19 November 2018 the LLFA recommended objection as the applicant had not demonstrated, using the latest surface water drainage and flood risk criteria that the development would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Through Appendix 1 of the Environmental Statement Regulation 25 Addendum (December 2019), a letter from GWP consultants, drawing NAUNEXT1911C-10, drawing NAUNEXT1911C-11 and Appendix 4, MicroDrainage calculations, the applicant has demonstrated that there will be sufficient volume to store surface water in the 1 in 100 year rainfall event plus 40% for climate change.
All surface water will infiltrate into soakaways in the quarry void so there will be no runoff leaving the site. There should therefore be no increase in flood risk elsewhere as a result of the development and I remove my objection.”
Gloucestershire County Council Public Rights of Way (PROW)
6.19 Comments received 28/01/2020.
“This development does not appear to affect any public right of way, however if there is any suggestion that it will, whether through a need for a temporary closure or permanent diversion then contact should be made with the PROW team at the earliest opportunity.”
48
Page 146 7.0 Planning Considerations
7.1 The main considerations material to the determination of this planning application to excavate a southern extension including revision to the consented working arrangements with restoration to a combination of agricultural, nature conservation & geological interest are: the principle of the development and the extent to which this development complies with national planning policies and the policies of the Development Plan for Gloucestershire; impact of the development on the special qualities of the Cotswold AONB impact of the associated HGV traffic the degree of cumulative impact arsing from these proposals impact of the development on local residential amenity. other issues (e,g, hydrogeology, flood, biodiversity, archaeology)
The principle of the development.
7.2 A significant proportion of the representations on this planning application have commented that the proposed extension to the extraction area is not in the correct location, i.e. within the Cotswold AONB and that the proposal is not supported by national planning policy.
7.3 It is acknowledged that both the existing quarry and the proposed extension are located within the Cotswold AONB. National planning policy and the Development Plan both place a high level of protection upon such designations and planning applications and proposals must be scrutinised in detail and only permitted in exceptional circumstances.
7.4 The starting point in the consideration of this matter is the Development Plan. The adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire (2018-2032) [hereafter MLP] is the Development Plan for minerals applications in Gloucestershire.
7.5 Policy MA01 of the MLP Policy MA01 (page 71 MLP) presents allocations with the potential for aggregate working in Gloucestershire. It incorporates a total of seven allocations – two for the working of sand and gravel and five for crushed rock limestone. Collectively, these allocations represent the most realistic and achievable solution for ensuring sufficient additional provision will be available throughout the duration of the Plan.
7.6 Acknowledging that ‘the principle of mineral working’ has been accepted within MA01 of the MLP, in order to comply with the policy, the proposal must first lie within an allocation. The proposed extension is allocated within the MLP as Allocation 5: Land to the south and west of Naunton Quarry. The proposal does not, however represent the entire allocation. A further, discrete parcel of land to the north west of the current extractive area is also identified and allocated in the MLP. The decision to grant planning permission is then dependant upon the proposal fulfilling the detailed development requirements for the allocation.
49
Page 147 7.7 According to Policy MW01, Gloucestershire has to provide at least a 10 year landbank of crushed aggregate throughout the life of the current Plan. According to currently permitted reserves, at the end of the Plan term in 2032, only ½ a year of supply would be provided. According to the response of the Minerals and Waste Policy Team, this proposal would secure in the region of 4.08 years additional provision to existing reserves. This is therefore a hugely significant contribution towards the crushed aggregate requirements for the Plan period. As a result, the proposal complies with the first part of Policy MW01. The secondary requirements of MW01 (i.e. the requirements of MA01) are considered later in this section.
7.8 Comments have been received during the course of the application that other sites in the locality have begun to produce crushed aggregate and could erode the significance of the contribution that the proposal makes towards the landbank and reserve. Of utmost importance, it must be noted that the proposal is located within a strategic allocation. The allocation is a fundamental element of the MLP’s function of providing for the aggregate needs of the county over the Plan period. The aggregate that this proposal will provide is a proven resource from an established location and due to long term established supply patterns will be potentially less likely affected by market forces generally.
7.9 Policy MA01 provides for allocations to be permitted, provided that a number of site specific material considerations are satisfactorily addressed. As previously stated, the proposal lies within an allocation and therefore the first part of MA01 is complied with. The detailed considerations for each allocation will be addressed in the following paragraphs of this section.
The extent to which this development complies with national planning policies and the policies of the Development Plan for Gloucestershire.
7.10 Under Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The main parts of the Development Plan relevant to this planning application will be the MLP and where applicable, the Cotswold District Council Local Plan (adopted 2018). The NPPF is also a material consideration for mineral planning applications.
NPPF and MLP
7.11 At the national planning policy level, the NPPF contains a number of paragraphs relevant to this application some of which relate directly to mineral planning proposals. The following paragraphs are considered to be relevant to the proposal.
7.12 Paragraph 172 requires that great weight be given to AONBs when considering development proposals. Consideration of the public interest of permitting major development in exceptional circumstances must include an assessment of the impact on the local economy, meeting the need in some other way and any detrimental effects on environment, landscape and
50
Page 148 recreation and possible mitigation. The allocation within the MLP accounts for the location.
7.13 The MLP has previously been found NPPF compliant and has undergone sustainability assessment en route to adoption. As noted by Paragraph 203, minerals can only be worked where they are found. Paragraph 205 also identifies that ‘where practical’ the maintenance of a landbank should avoid the AONB. The MLP plan-making process has considered these divergent national policy issues within the identified policy framework and strategic allocations. The MLP identifies that broadly around 30% of crushed rock is provided from the Cotswold resource. Virtually all of that resource is sourced from with in the AONB. The two strategic allocations contained in the MLP are a means of rationalising significant mineral working for aggregates to those locations with in the Cotswold AONB. . Cotswold Limestone is a valuable and much sought after mineral product. Maintenance of the supply of this reserve requires that some working extraction must continue within the AONB, in order to maintain a landbank in line with the MLP and the NPPF policy. .
7.14 The proposal makes a significant contribution to the aggregate supply for MLP period to 2032 and maintains a 10-year landbank of crushed rock through the Plan period, ensuring that the county maintains sufficient provision in terms of reserves, whilst complying with Paragraph 207. The proposal is predicted to yield 5.8 million tonnes of limestone aggregate, extending the life of the quarry for a further 16 years, providing continued highly valued construction products and local employment.
7.15 As previously stated, the MLP forms the most relevant element of the Development Plan. The MLP is intended to be used for the determination of mineral planning applications. All decisions must accord with the development plan, unless material considerations dictate to the contrary.
7.16 The proposal will also yield a proportion of building stone from the extension area, which in terms of the overall quantities in comparison to the yield in crushed rock is minimal, in real terms, will still provide a significant amount of building stone reserve. This reserve will be stockpiled for ancillary use. Whilst the purpose of Policy MW02 is for the consideration of the winning and working of building stone, the policy is relevant as a small contribution to local building stone reserves will be made by the proposal. In line with comments from the Minerals & Waste Policy Officer clarification has been sought on this issue. This is discussed further in the report at 7.32 -7.34 below.
MLP Policy MW01 Aggregate provision 7.17 The GCC Minerals and Waste Policy Team commented that the policy “seeks to ensure that the crushed rock aggregate landbank for Gloucestershire is maintained at a level of at least 10-years worth of working throughout the adopted plan’s time horizon. It also states that the landbank should be calculated applying the annual crushed rock aggregate supply rate sourced from the most recently published Local Aggregate Assessment (LAA).
7.18 Based upon the most recently published LAA, the remaining permitted reserves in Gloucestershire are not sufficient to maintain a landbank of at
51
Page 149 least 10 years throughout the plan’s full time horizon, which includes at its end date (31/12/2032). Only ½ a year’s worth of supply would remain from permitted reserves at the end of plan if no further reserves were granted planning permission. To maintain at least a 10-year landbank at the end of 3032, a further 9 ½ year’s worth of working would need to be permitted during the plan’s lifetime. The Naunton Quarry proposal has an estimated yield of approximately 5.8 million tonnes. Based on the current LAA rate, this would theoretically add 4.08 years to the crushed rock aggregate landbank for Gloucestershire.
7.19 This would be a positive contribution to the county’s crushed rock aggregate landbank and would reduce a potential deficit in permitted reserves envisaged at the end of 2032. In conclusion, the proposal looks to meet the requirements of part one of policy MW01.
7.20 The second part of policy MW01is concerned with demonstrating the requirements of policy MA01 have been met. This matter is dealt with later in the review.”
7.21 It is clear that by proposing extraction within an allocation of the MLP, the application complies with the first part of Policy MW01. As noted above, to be completely compliant the entirety of the policy, the proposal must also satisfy the requirements of the second part of the policy.
MLP Policy MA01 Aggregate working within allocations (detailed considerations) 7.22 Local Communities Annex 4 of the MLP contains site specific criteria for determining the compliance of development proposals within allocations with Policy MW01. Public Health England were consulted on the proposal and considered that there would be no significant risk to the public health. Further consideration is given to the impact upon local amenity later in this report.
7.23 Economic Development The applicant has submitted information relating to the provision of local employment, both directly and indirectly. The company employs and progresses the opportunities for apprentices at the quarry. Outside the boundaries of the quarry, local support businesses are provided with employment and income by the continuing operations. No evidence has been submitted that conclusively shows the quarry has a negative impact financially on neighbouring businesses or operations.
7.24 Operational Matters/ Site Infrastructure The operations are currently limited to a total combined mineral output of 500,000 tonnes per annum. Control of this limit will be retained by the imposition of a condition. No new site infrastructure is proposed or required from the submission.
7.25 Highways
52
Page 150 GCC Highways has raised no objection to the proposal in terms of highway capacity or safety. Amendments to the existing Section 106 Legal Agreement may be required. The response from Highways is awaited on this matter.
7.26 Flood Risk The LLFA has no objection to the proposals. The LLFA initially objected to the proposal, but following amendments to the scheme which reflected the comments of the LLFA during the early phases of consultation, the proposal incorporated sufficient details and design to demonstrate that there would be no increase in flood risk elsewhere as a result. The LLFA therefore withdrew their objection.
7.27 Water Resources Following submission of further details on 1st May 2020, the applicant was able to demonstrate that the proposal would not cause a risk to local water resources. The May 2020 submission successfully addressed the earlier outstanding matters on site.
7.28 Natural Environment The County Ecologist (CE) has no objection to the proposal. The latest assessment and comments recognises that the proposal will demonstrate significant biodiversity enhancement. The CE has recommended a number of conditions which will be imposed upon the grant of planning permission.
7.29 Geodiversity The proposed extension is not located in close proximity to the existing Huntsman’s Quarry Regionally Important Geological (RIG)s site. Therefore, there is no potential for significant or less than significant harm to this feature.
7.30 Soil Resources The stripped soils will be retained on the land and used for restoration purposes following the phased extraction of mineral. Stripping, retention and storage of soils will follow the processes outlined within the submission and will be controlled by the imposition of standard soil handling conditions.
7.31 Archaeology, restoration and landscape matters are considered elsewhere under their own separate headings within this report. Suffice to say that there are no enduring objections on these matters. A condition will be imposed upon the grant of permission to require further restoration and aftercare details to be submitted by the applicant, in order to ensure a sympathetic and species rich restoration, with appropriate aftercare. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with MLP Policy MA01.
MLP Policy MW02– Natural building stone
7.32 In a clarification response from the applicant, in December 2020, the applicant, has stated the following:
“As stated in previously submitted documents (notably the Regulation 25 Addendum), the extraction and processing of natural building stone at Naunton Quarry is highly ancillary to the supply of aggregate. Horizons of viable natural building stone are encountered in pursuit of aggregate-bearing
53
Page 151 material, which is the dominant export product. Encountering (and making best use) of natural building stone is therefore an enabler to ensuring sufficient quantities of aggregate are produced within the Cotswold region and via a central hub (i.e. Naunton Quarry). This approach differs from characteristic building stone quarries which may supply a degree of aggregate-based product encountered in the pursuit of blockstone.
Nonetheless, the applicant would continue to ensure that all viable blockstone encountered is safeguarded and used to create premium natural building stone product wherever feasible. It is estimated that the southern extension could yield between 90,000 – 180,000 tonnes of viable natural building stone product across the life of the development (c.16 years). It is not in the interests of any mineral operator to disregard a premium natural building stone product for a lower-grade aggregate. The known fault within the extension site is not expected to impact upon the quality of the limestone resource.
In recent years, Naunton Quarry has supplied building stone for the development of two care homes in Stow on the Wold and walling stone to works in Upper Rissington, Old Sodbury and Northleach. These examples demonstrate the positive contribution made by Naunton Quarry to development in the Cotswolds and its role in sustaining the cultural and characteristic heritage of the region. However, viable blockstone has all but been exhausted since 2018.
The fundamental role of the southern extension proposal is to ensure continuity of aggregate supply from the Cotswold region and address an identified aggregate shortfall (and site allocation) as promoted by the MLP. In doing so, viable blockstone will be encountered, worked and processed as natural building stone product. While an ancillary operation to the principle role of Naunton Quarry, this ensures that best use is made of a finite mineral reserve. To this end, the southern extension proposal is considered entirely compliant with national and local policy.”
7.33 It is accepted that the proposal is primarily concerned with the winning and working of aggregate for crushing from an area allocated within the MLP. Building stone will also be encountered within that allocation and will represent a minority constituent of the mineral won.
7.34 The applicant notes that the building stone will have a monetary value to their operation and as such will be regarded as product, rather than waste. Indeed, the site has already provided large quantities of building stone to the local market over many years. Whilst not forming the principal form of mineral to be extracted, building stone will be separated, processed and sold on an ongoing basis by the applicant, making the best use of a finite resource. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with MLP Policy MW02.
MLP Policy DM02 – Cumulative impact 7.35 The comments of the Minerals and Waste Policy Officer in relation to MLP Policy DM02 are as follows: “The cumulative effect of mineral developments can give rise to challenging and adverse impacts. Albeit individual activities might give rise to impacts that are deemed acceptable in planning terms,
54
Page 152 collectively they could prove to be unacceptable. Cumulative adverse impacts can result from multiple activities taking place on a single site and / or as a result of a combination of activities across several mineral development sites. It may also arise from intensified development generally across a locality. Naunton Quarry is within an area containing a number of mineral workings and therefore the issue of cumulative impact is a valid one that needs to be sufficiently explored. Following an assessment it may prove to be the case that no materially significant adverse cumulative impacts are identified.”
7.36 This is an important matter to recognise and address. It is also important to identify how the cumulative impact manifests itself as a quantifiable negative impact upon the AONB, locally and as a whole homogenous landscape.
7.37 Naunton Quarry is an existing mineral extraction operation. The proposal includes a working scheme which progressively restores worked areas. Therefore, the surface area of exposed land should not increase to any great extent. As land is stripped and the mineral below extracted, areas previously worked will be restored and regain their natural form, albeit at a lower level than previously. As extraction progresses, the operational areas should naturally decrease and the restored areas should increase. Therefore, it should be concluded that a cumulative impact upon landscape should not arise from permitting the proposal. By requiring progressive restoration, the exposed area will not contribute significantly to any landscape cumulative impact It is therefore considered that the proposal will not contribute to a cumulative negative impact on the local landscape.
7.38 The proposal will create noise from the operations, both the extraction of mineral and the processing. The proposal, however, does not create any additional or louder noise from these operations above those currently occurring. The proposal will extend the amount of years that the noise created by the operations will be experienced, but they will not increase in volume or regularity. Subsequently discussed under the separate heading of noise, as an individual impact, it is anticipated that conditions will control the impact of noise from the operations. It is therefore considered that the noise from the operations will not significantly contribute to a cumulative effect on the AONB.
7.39 The potential for cumulative impact to tranquillity from HGV movements is recognised. One of the AONB special features is tranquillity. The potential for impact can vary from both the mineral operations and HGV movements associated with the quarry. The consideration of HGV movements is considered below in this report.
7.40 In terms of impacts to tranquillity from the operations, the operations will continue in the same manner as they have for decades. No change to the extractive or processing operations is proposed and the negative impact to tranquillity will be confined to the new working areas and local in effect. The quarrying of limestone is an established use and is an accepted feature of the AONB, in the same way that other traditional activities take place, such as agriculture and tourism. Mineral extraction has provided building and walling materials that have helped shaped the character of the AONB over the decades and is considered an integral part of the areas culture. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with MLP Policy DM02
55
Page 153 MLP Policy DM09 – Landscape
7.41 The comments of the Minerals and Waste Policy Team recommended that- Evidence of the following must be sought and carefully considered: -
How the proposal will not prejudice the conservation of the character, features and qualities of the landscapes and scenic beauty of the Cotswolds AONB and that account will have been given to the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage;
How any adverse impacts on the special qualities of the Cotswolds AONB as defined by the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan (2018 - 2023) (specifically concerning the environment, landscape and recreational opportunities) will be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated; and
How opportunities will be taken to support the enhancement of the character, features and qualities of the landscapes and scenic beauty of the Cotswolds AONB as promoted through the relevant AONB Management Plan (2018 – 2023).
7.42 Furthermore, consideration must also be given to three specific criteria that make up a ‘public interest’ test (a 2nd element to part b of policy DM09). This is due the scale of development being proposed within the Cotswolds AONB designation. The additional assessment is applicable to all ‘major’ development proposals within or that affect the setting of an AONB designation. The response from the Minerals & Waste Policy team continued, noting that it did not appear to be clear how the restoration of the proposal would achieve an acceptable landform which answers the queries raised by the County landscape advisor (CLA).
7.43 Cotswold stone is a valuable and finite resource which helps create jobs, vitality and wealth within the AONB and has helped to raise the stock of the designation with a much sought after product. Naunton Quarry has made a significant contribution to that value over the years and the proposal seeks to maintain that productivity and permit the available resource to be realised, especially where it is allocated in the development plan. The extraction of mineral, causing a limited period of disturbance over a contained locality, in terms of the entire AONB weighs heavily in the favour of public interest .
7.44 Further information was submitted by the applicant and advertised under Regulation 25 EIA in July 2020 in order to address the comments of the CLA. The new information included a revised final restoration plan, which took into account the comments made. In addition, a condition will be imposed upon the grant of permission which ensures that details are submitted to cover the details of the restoration and long term aftercare of the land, in a manner which enhances the character of the Cotswold AONB.
The Minerals and Waste Policy response continues that “Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suggest that the positive contribution to the county’s crushed rock aggregate landbank and consequential support for maintaining steady
56
Page 154 and adequate supplies of aggregates will be very influential in deciding upon the assessment of overriding need and national considerations.”
7.45 The mineral won from the site forms a reserve to supply a national need for this type of mineral. Naunton Quarry is the only source of this quality aggregate within the Cotswolds. As such, it is a locally and nationally important source of crushed aggregate. By granting consent for the proposal, the supply of this proven and realisable resource will continue the viability of both the product and the operation, enhancing the local economy and securing local employment.
7.46 As stated above, Naunton Quarry is the sole location for this quality crushed Cotswold stone aggregate. There are no alternative sources for this material. The mineral must be extracted where it exists. By definition, an alternative, non AONB source for this material does not exist.
7.47 It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the justification of the development and by complying with the development plan policies of the MLP and the guidance contained in the NPPF that relates to those issues. The relationship of other material issues and relevant policies follows below in the rest of the report. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with MLP Policy DM09.
Cotswold District Council Local Plan
7.48 Whilst not having any policies which are directly related to Mineral Planning applications, the Local Plan is still part of the Development Plan so its policies need to be considered as far as they are relevant to the proposals being considered. :
7.49 Policy EN5 – Relates to major development in the AONB. The exception test set out in National Policy must be met, according to the policy. These matters are considered elsewhere in the report.
7.50 Cotswold District Council has not objected to the proposal, and has not identified any conflicts between the CDC Local Plan and the proposal. Identifying that the Local Plan contains policies which are generic and not specific to mineral planning applications, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the Local Plan and any more specific topics are covered by the MLP policies as the more relevant Development Plan document.
Impact of the Associated HGV traffic.
7.51 In regards to transport implications, under Policies DM01, DM02 and DC03 of the MLP, the HDM Team Leader has confirmed that he has no objection in terms of highway network capacity and safety. However numerous comments have been received from local stake holders stating that the proposal will cause congestion on the strategic and local highway network, and HGVs will exceed the posted speed limits and encroach into the path of other vehicles using the public highway, causing a safety issue.
57
Page 155 7.52 The existing quarry has been operating with an annual limit on production of 500,000 tonnes per year since 2006. Before that there was no limit to production. Significant scale quarrying operations at this location stretch back to 1970s and before that to the 1950s.Therefore to provide some context including under its previous guise of Huntsman Quarry, there has been extraction at a rate of the current 500,000 tonnes per year for many years. The condition of 500,000 tpa was imposed in 2006 to reflect the operational nature of the site at that time and then provide a mechanism of planning control to the permission. The MPA would acknowledge that by allowing 5.8 million tonne of reserves would mean that the operations and therefore the movement of minerals on the transport network would potentially last for at least a further 11.6 years.
7.53 From the contents of the Transport Assessment produced by the Hurlestone Partnership and submitted with the application, the proposal does not include any amendments to the working scheme, or any acceleration in production. Therefore, the actual HGV number will not increase as a result of this proposal. It is also anticipated that the HGV stock will remain similar throughout the period of extraction, with no increase in vehicular size as a result of the proposal. With no increase in HGV movements associated with the proposal, beyond a level experienced under the current operations, and given no objection is made by the HA subject to the imposition of conditions such as the 500,000 tpa production limit, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the number of HGV movements.
7.54 The proposal does not seek to amend the existing access. The current access will be retained, with the associated visibility splays. Likewise, it is not anticipated that the proposal will cause transport routes to change. The HGVs will therefore use the same highway routes as those currently used. The proposal therefore does not represent an increased risk to the safety of highway users as a result of its use of the existing access.
7.55 Comments have been made in relation to HGVs associated with quarry traffic forcing other vehicles off the carriageway or to take evasive action. The H A has not raised any concerns in respect of the physical size of HGVs exceeding the physical dimensions of the carriageways on the strategic and local highway network. It is accepted that in terms of physical HGV dimensions, the strategic and local highway network can safely accommodate HGV traffic generated by the proposal and other quarry operations in the locality.
7.56 Allegations that HGV traffic associated with quarry operations exceed the posted speed limits on the strategic and local highway network have been received. It is a point of fact that the planning system cannot control the speed of vehicles on the public highway. It is beyond the remit of the planning system to control this type of incident. Excess speed on the public highway network is a matter for the local road policing unit and should be reported to Gloucestershire Constabulary.
7.57 Concerns have been raised in relation to the capacity of the strategic and local highway network for the quantities of HGV traffic associated with the current quarry, the proposal and neighbouring operations. HGV traffic is
58
Page 156 potentially the most notable cumulative impact of mineral extraction operations in the locality.
7.58 The quantities of HGV traffic on the strategic and local highway network has been brought to the attention of the MPA for a number of years. Some of the local Parish Councils and residents have commented that there is an apprehension that HGV traffic is above the capacity of the highway network.
7.59 Upon being consulted on HGV traffic and traffic in general, the HDM Team Leader has maintained that the local highway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the HGV traffic arising from the proposal. There is therefore no objection to the proposal in terms of capacity by the Highway Authority. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable by the MPA in terms of highway capacity.
7.60 Acknowledging the absence of objection from the Highway Authority and no proposed changes or increases to the level of traffic or means of access onto the highway at point of access, it is considered that in terms of impacts upon the strategic and local highway network, the proposal is acceptable and complies with the guidance in the NPPF, Policies DM01, DM02 and DM03 of the MLP and Policy INF4 of the CDC Local Plan.
Section 106 Agreement 7.61 Planning application CD/1615/1G was approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement relating to highways improvements and the construction (and eventual removal) of an underpass beneath Buckle Street.
7.62 The on-road highways improvements included the provision of widened sections and phased payments relating to production trigger points, addressing the potential for the traffic associated with the operations to cause wear to the bound surface of the highway.
7.63 Additionally, an underpass was constructed between the (then) new extraction area to the west of Buckle Street and the established processing area to the west of Buckle Street. Ongoing maintenance and removal of the underpass are covered by the Section 106 agreement.
7.64 The Highway Authority have been given the opportunity to revisit the existing Section 106 agreement and identify what, if any, steps are required to amend that agreement in the light of the current proposals. It is important that the costs of the development are not unduly placed upon the HA, but instead are borne by the developer.
7.65 The extent to which amendments to the Section 106 Agreement are yet to be established. The Highway Authority response will remain consistent because (i) there was no requirement for any ancillary highways improvements as a result of the ongoing consultation and (ii) the Highway Authority raised no concerns in respect of highway safety or capacity in respect of the current provisions.
7.66 The recommendation is therefore made with the provision that dependant upon the comments of the Highway Authority, an amendment may be
59
Page 157 required to the Section 106 Agreement, prior to the proposal being commenced. If anything further arises this will be report to members at Planning Committee.
Impact of the development on the special qualities of the Cotswold AONB
7.67 The proposal has the potential to negatively impact the special qualities of the Cotswold AONB. The particular policy framework issues to consider for proposals within the AONB have been discussed earlier in the report. Noteworthy issues in the consideration of proposals within the AONB are the qualities of tranquillity and landscape. The Cotswold Conservation Board consider these to be the key factors to in the assessment of the potential impacts of proposals upon the AONB. Whilst individual proposals are judged on their own merits, where there maybe multiple mineral operations together the cumulative impact within a locality must also be considered. The policy framework issues of cumulative impact has been discussed earlier in the report. However they are further explored below in the context of the AONB
7.68 Furthermore, any noise issues which affect tranquillity can be controlled by the imposition of conditions. Visual tranquillity will be achieved by the use of screening bunding and planting. The local topography also dictates that any views into the working area are glimpses, rather than continual views.
7.69 HGV traffic associated with the operations has the potential to create negative impacts upon tranquillity with in the AONB. The expected impact however is a continual impact, occurring at the same level as present. The movements of HGVs are controlled by production limits for the extractive operations. The proposal does not introduce any increase in vehicles, nor any further change to access from the quarry, therefore if it is acceptable for the current operation to operate with the associated level of HGV traffic, then it is reasonable to conclude that a continuance of that level of movement is also acceptable and does not make a significant contribution to a loss of tranquillity. It is also important to note that the judgment can only be made on the proposal before the MPA. If the current level of HGV movements is acceptable, then a proposal which does not alter that level of activity must also be considered to be acceptable.
7.70 It must also be borne in mind that the matter does not concern a continual flow of HGV traffic from this nor any other quarry operations. Traffic surveys recently commissioned by the HA in the local area show that overall HGV traffic accounts for less than 10% of all vehicular journeys. This includes HGV traffic not associated with quarries and those HGVs merely passing through the area.
7.71 It is therefore considered that the proposal will not give rise to an unacceptable cumulative impact which negatively affects the AONB. The HGV traffic associated with the proposal does not represent an increase in movements above current levels, nor does it represent a level which exceeds the capacity of the strategic and local highway network. The limited areas of open extractive areas – active areas prior to restoration will not have a
60
Page 158 significant cumulative negative effect on the landscape of the AONB in a cumulative sense and will only be for a temporary period.
7.72 The proposal is acceptable and is considered to comply with the guidance in the NPPF, Policy DM01, DM02, DM03 and DM09 of the MLP and Policy INF4 of the CDC Local Plan.
Impact upon Landscape
7.73 Comments have been received that the extractive area and subsequent restored landform will cause a negative impact upon the landscape of the AONB. The Cotswold AONB is a designated landscape, therefore any development proposals must be carefully considered and in particular any proposals satisfy the requirements of Policy DM09.
7.74 The principle of the development within the AONB has long been established and therefore, what is key is the detailed landscaping and screening to enable the proposal to be permitted without causing an unacceptable impact upon the valued landscape.
7.75 Further information submitted according to Regulation 25 in December 2019 satisfied the requirements of the County Landscape Advisor (CLA) to such an extent that only a small number of questions remained in February 2020. The information submitted also received positive comments from the Cotswold District Council Landscape Officer.
7.76 Further submission of details is required in accordance with the comments of the CLA to inform the detail of the restoration and aftercare. Whilst these details were initially outstanding, the baseline of the current restoration provides a useful starting point from which to expand the restoration into the extension area to provide a homogenous restoration landform which compliments the surrounding character. Further details will be required by the imposition of a condition requiring future submissions.
7.77 In terms of visual impact stone quarries are an existing source of providing local stone and construction materials to support the heritage of the landscape and therefore contribute towards the area’s unique character. Regardless, the working scheme incorporates a screening bund, in order to mitigate views into the extraction area. Furthermore, the topography is key to providing natural screening from immediate, lengthy views. The majority of available views into the extractive area will come from Buckle Street, which at this location is convoluted and does not give rise readily to panoramas, being set in a small valley with sharp corners and some heavy roadside vegetation. The bridleway adjacent to the proposed extraction area benefits from a reverse slope position and therefore does not readily provide views into the quarry.
7.78 Once extraction has been completed, the site must be restored according to the proposed plan 2201-4-4-2-DR-0008, which was submitted under Regulation 25 in December 2019. This plan was produced as a result of the initial comments provided by the CLA. This updated plan has sought to address the issues raised and upon reading the latest comments from the
61
Page 159 CLA the previous issues have been successfully addressed. There did initially remain questions regarding the restoration and aftercare, but it is considered that these questions can be answered via the submission of details required by condition upon the grant of planning permission. All topsoil and overburden removed in order to work the minerals will be retained within the site and used to create the restoration landform, conserving indigenous soil quality and reserves. Therefore the proposals are not in conflict with Policy DM07.
7.79 Additionally, the proposed restoration will seek to provide a final landform which echoes natural landscapes in the locality, with rolling agricultural land and selected tree planting. This proposal will only have a temporary rather than an enduring impact during the extraction phase, and will be confined to a localised area of the AONB, one which does not afford a wide range of views, especially those over long distances. It is anticipated that the County Ecologist will have significant review input to any submitted details. Once restored, the final landform is considered not to have a negative impact upon the special features of the AONB. With the proposed design, it is anticipated that the final restoration can replicate and complement those special features, with the potential for additional ecological diversity.
7.80 Therefore, without any statutory objections to the revised restoration details for the proposal, it is considered that the proposal will not have a negative cumulative effect on the landscape of the AONB. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and to comply with the guidance in the NPPF, Policies MW01, MA01, DM02, DM07, DM09 and MR01 of the MLP and Policies EN4 and EN5 of the CDC Local Plan.
Impact of the development on local residential amenity.
7.81 Comments received from local residents in relation to the planning application highlight two further issues related specifically with residential amenity, which have not previously been outlined and considered in the report. These are:
Noise, Public Health, and Dust
Impact of noise upon residential amenity 7.82 The locality, due to its status, benefits from limited residential occupation. This fact limits the number of residential properties likely to be affected. The closest residential properties are Summerhill Farm, James Barn Farm and Hunstman’s House. The closest of these properties lies approximately 280 metres from the screening bund at Phase 2.
7.83 Within these proposals there are no changes to the processing of the minerals, nor to the access from the extraction areas or onto the highway. There will be changes to the extraction, in that the quarry will move into new faces, which has the potential to cause amenity issues. The noise emanating from the extraction process is currently controlled by conditions limiting noise. The Environmental Health Officer (Noise) from Cotswold District Council has been consulted on the proposal. Their latest response is dated 5th March 2020. 62
Page 160 7.84 The Environmental Health Officer (Noise) has commented that the Noise Assessment Report which was submitted with the application was very thorough. They have no objection to the application and due to the rural nature of the location, with limited residential properties located within 400 metres of the quarry, conclude that the recommended noise condition will mitigate any negative impacts from noise associated with the proposal.
7.85 It is considered that in terms of noise, there will be no significant adverse impacts upon residential amenity which cannot be mitigated and therefore the proposal is considered to be acceptable, and to comply with the guidance in the NPPF and Policy DM01 of the MLP.
Public Health
7.86 Concerns have been raised regarding the health of local residents in relation to particles arising from the operations. Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive were consulted on the proposal.
7.87 The Health and Safety Executive did not wish to comment specifically on the proposal.
7.88 Public Health England commented on the application on 24th July 2020, with all relevant information at their disposal. They note the location of the quarry and the nearest sensitive receptors. Public Health England is confident that pollution prevention and control measures provided by the regulatory authorities are sufficient to mitigate any potential for a negative impact on public health.
7.89 Of note is the fugitive emission of dusts and its control. The emission of dust can give rise to both nuisance and a risk to public health. Public Health England state they are confident that with the implementation of a strict method of dust control, these risks can be successfully controlled, with the option of the regulatory bodies taking positive action in case those primary control measures prove to be ineffective.
7.90 Therefore, it is considered that with the implementation of credible methods of dust control, practical monitoring and control, that public health can be protected during the course of the development. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and to comply with the guidance in the NPPF, Policy DM01 of the MLP and Policy EN15 of the CDC Local Plan.
Dust 7.91 As stated in the section above, dust has the potential to cause a nuisance to residential amenity if emitted by the proposal. It is therefore important to impose and maintain a robust set of conditions to control such emissions. It is acknowledged that whilst the current operations are subject to a Dust Management Scheme, this scheme is dated, having been submitted a number of years ago. Therefore, in order to bring the control of dust emissions in line with current practices, it will be necessary to impose a condition requiring the submission of a modern and effective Dust Management Scheme.
63
Page 161 7.92 The CDC Environmental Health Officer (Air Quality) has commented that a condition should be imposed to ensure dust control measures are implemented to prevent dust emissions. As outlined in the section above, it is the intention that any grant of planning permission will include a condition requiring the submission of a robust and updated Dust Management Scheme.
7.93 With such a scheme in place, and the ability to monitor and address any issues with dust, it is considered that the proposal will not represent an unacceptable negative impact upon residential amenity. The proposal is considered to comply with the guidance in the NPPF, Policy DM01 of the MLP and Policy EN15 of the CDC Local Plan.
7.94 In overall terms, the potential for negative impacts to residential amenity from dust, noise or to public health from the proposal can be successfully controlled or mitigated to the effect that they do not represent a reason to refuse the planning application. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with the guidance in the NPPF, Policy DM01 of the MLP and Policy EN15 of the CDC Local Plan.
Other issues:
7.95 Comments have also been sought from the Environment Agency, the (LLFA) and the County Ecologist. The extractive operations have the potential to affect groundwater quality and flows and the final restoration may provide a positive impact upon flood mitigation.
7.96 On the matter of groundwater, details supplied to support the application have satisfied all queries raised by the County Hydrogeological Advisor, in their latest response dated 11th August 2020. The advice is to impose a condition requiring ongoing groundwater monitoring and this will be imposed upon the grant of permission.
7.97 The County Ecologist has noted in summary that the proposal should not negatively impact any notable species or habitats. There is scope for biodiversity gain to be included in the restoration and aftercare of the quarry area and this will be positively sought by the MPA.
7.98 The County Ecologist has responded that there are no objections to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions. Biodiversity schemes, restoration details which support biodiversity and a control on artificial lighting are specifically requested to be imposed as conditions. These conditions will be imposed upon the grant of condition in order to secure operations and restoration which are in compliance with the Law and planning policy on biodiversity.
7.99 Comments were received on 5th February 2020 stated that the LLFA was now satisfied that the proposal will not give rise to an increase in potential for the risk of flooding. Previously, the LLFA had concerns regarding the potential for the proposal to increase flooding. Having viewed the details submitted under Regulation 25 in December 2019, the LLFA is content that the proposal will have capacity to deal with 1 in 100 year flood events and will not represent a risk of increased flooding.
64
Page 162 7.100 The location within the Cotswold AONB has the potential to give rise to negative impacts to the historic environment. Historic England was consulted on the proposal and did not make any objection. Their response indicated that the advice of the County Archaeologist should be sought. Natural England were also consulted on this application. The response included comment on Paragraph 172 of the NPPF. The guidance of this paragraph has been considered previously in the report.
7.101 Following careful consideration of the submitted details including the Written Scheme of Investigation, the County Archaeologist is satisfied that there would be no significant risk to heritage assets and that mitigation against any potential risks can be secured by the imposition of a condition upon the consent. There is therefore no objection on heritage or archaeology grounds to the proposal.
7.102 Therefore, in conclusion these other issues detailed above do not represent a significant negative impact in themselves, or in combination. In fact, the proposed final restoration landform may provide ongoing mitigation for potential flood events and have a beneficial impact on the locality.
7.103 The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of these other matters. The proposal is considered to comply with the guidance in the NPPF, Policy MA01, DM01, DM04, DM05, DM06, DM09 and MR01 of the MLP and Policy EN4, EN5 and EN14 of the CDC Local Plan.
Human Rights
7.104 From 2nd October 2000, the Human Rights Act 1998 has the effect of enshrining much of the European Convention on Human Rights in UK law. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees a right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 of the First Protocol guarantees the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Article 8 also provides that there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the freedom of others.
7.105 For the reasons set out in the Planning Considerations above it is not considered that there would be any breach of the Convention rights. Even if there was to be an interference with Convention rights then, in this case, it is considered that the interference would be justified in the interests of economic well-being and proportionate. Accordingly, it would not be unlawful to grant planning permission for this proposal.
Summary Reasons for the Grant of Planning Permission
7.106 The proposal in this planning application is to extend the area approved for mineral extraction of limestone at Naunton Quarry and a restoration scheme on completion of the mineral working. The proposal also retains the continuation of existing process plant, internal haul routes and the existing access route to the local highway.
65
Page 163 7.107 Some of the neighbouring Parish Councils have objected to the proposal. Their concerns centre around the location of the site within the AONB, the potential increase in HGV movements and the impact upon highway safety. No other statutory consultees have objected to the proposals. However the CCB object on similar grounds to the Parish Councils and that the proposals are not consistent with the NPPF.
7.108 Paragraphs 7.1 to 7.105 of this report discuss the main issues arising in the consideration of this application and the degree with which they comply with policy. These paragraphs also discuss the degree to which any issues which have arisen in the consideration of proposals can potentially be addressed with the imposition of appropriate conditions or other controls.
7.109 It is considered that the proposals comply with the Development Plan, National Planning Policy and any other relevant policies or Guidance and where there is a conflict with any Policy, those conflicts are considered to either not be significant enough to recommend refusal or alternatively they are capable of mitigation. The proposal is located within a Minerals Local Plan Allocation for Mineral Working.
7.110 There is considered to be no significant negative impact upon the special qualities of the Cotswolds AONB. Conditions will be imposed upon the grant of permission to mitigate any potential impacts. There are considered to be no significant impacts to the highway network in terms of capacity and safety and conditions will be imposed upon the grant of condition to ensure that remains true. It is considered that the cumulative impacts generated by the proposal do not result in significant harm and that the impact upon residential amenity will not be significant, both topics being addressed by the imposition of conditions upon the grant of planning permission.
7.111 The proposal is considered to be consistent in context with the County Council’s Climate Emergency Declaration. The proposal is considered to comply with the guidance in the NPPF, particularly Paragraph 8, 80, 82, 83, 102, 109, 111, 170, 172, 193, 203, 205 and 207, Policy of the Gloucestershire Mineral Local Plan and Policy EN4, EN5 and INF4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan.
7.112 In determining this application, the Minerals Planning Authority has worked with the Applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application by liaising with consultees, respondents and the Applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION
66
Page 164 8.1 It is recommended that planning permission is GRANTED for the reasons summarised in paragraphs 7.106 to 7.111, subject to any prior amendment or variation to the existing Section 106 Planning Agreement and subject to the following conditions.:
Commencement of Development
1. The development hereby approved shall begin not later than 3 years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Prior Notification
2. The developer shall ensure that at least 14 days prior notification of the date of commencement of the development detailed in this application shall be given in writing to the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the Mineral Planning Authority to monitor the operations and to ensure compliance with this permission.
Superseded Permissions
3. From the date of commencement of development as required by condition 2 of this permission, the planning conditions applied to previously approved planning application 06/0038/CWFUL (CD.0165/1/X) dated 21st April 2006 and CD/165/1/G dated 14th March 1994 shall no longer apply.
Reason: This planning permission replaces the two existing substantive extant permissions relating to the land on the West side of Buckle Street that fall within the line edged red on Site Location Plan drawing No. 2201-4-4-1- DR-0001 S4-P2 (dated Dec 2017) and should be read instead of, and not in addition to, the conditions attached to permissions 06/0038/CWFUL (CD.0165/1/X) dated 21st April 2006 and CD/165/1/G dated 14th March 1994.
Duration
4. The winning and working of minerals shall cease not later than the 31st December 2037 and the restoration of the site shall be completed in accordance with Proposed Restoration drawing No. 2201-4-4-2-DR-0008 S4- P1 (dated Nov 2019) by the 31st December 2038.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of section 72(5) and section 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, along with policy MA01 and MR01 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032.
Scope of the Permission
67
Page 165 5. The development hereby approved shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the particulars of the development, plans, specifications, working programmes or other details contained in the application except as modified by conditions attached to this permission. The approved plans and documentation comprise:
• Application Form dated 8th October 2018 • Site Location Plan – Drawing No. 2201-4-4-1-DR-0001 S4-P2 dated Dec 2017 • Existing Conditions – Drawing No. 2201-4-4-1-DR-0002 S4-P2 dated Dec 2017 • Stage 1 Workings - Drawing No. 2201-4-4-2-DR-0003 S4-P1 dated Nov 2019 • Stage 2 Workings - Drawing No. 2201-4-4-2-DR-0004 S4-P1 dated Nov 2019 • Stage 3 Workings - Drawing No. 2201-4-4-2-DR-0005 S4-P1 dated Nov 2019 • Stage 4 Workings - Drawing No. 2201-4-4-2-DR-0006 S4-P1 dated Nov 2019 • Proposed Restoration - Drawing No. 2201-4-4-2-DR-0008 S4-P1 dated Nov 2019 • Environmental Statement dated September 2018 • Supporting Statement dated September 2018 • Non-Technical Summary dated September 2018 • Environmental Statement Regulation 25 Addendum dated December 2019
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to the nature of the development permitted and to ensure development is carried out in accordance with the approved application details and the aims and objectives of development plan policies MW01, MW02, MA01, DM01, DM02, DM03, DM04, DM05, DM06, DM07, DM08; DM09 and MR01of the adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, along with policies EC1, EC2, EN4, EN5, EN14, EN15 and INF4 of the adopted Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031, policies CC7, CE1, CE3, CE4, CE6, CE10, CE11 and CE12 of the Cotswold AONB Management Plan 2018-2023 and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote in respect of minerals related developments.
6. To help define the scope of the development hereby approved and for the avoidance of doubt, those planning conditions applied to previous extant planning permissions granted for development related to buildings, plant equipment, machinery and other mineral processing infrastructure on the East side of Buckle Street that fall within the line edged red on Site Location Plan drawing No. 2201-4-4-1-DR-0001 S4-P2 (dated Dec 2017) of application 18/0065/CWMAJM shall remain unaffected, unless otherwise stated by the requirements of the planning conditions attached to this permission.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to the nature of the development permitted and to ensure development is carried out in accordance with the approved application details and the aims and objectives of development plan policies MW01, MW02, MA01, DM01, DM02, DM03, DM04, DM05, DM06,
68
Page 166 DM07, DM08; DM09 and MR01 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, along with policies EC1, EC2, EN4, EN5, EN14, EN15 and INF4 of the adopted Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031, policies CC7, CE1, CE3, CE4, CE6, CE10, CE11 and CE12 of the Cotswold AONB Management Plan 2018-2023 and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote in respect of minerals related developments.
7. For the avoidance of doubt, the section 106 legal agreement (signed and dated 30th Sept 1996) that accompanies planning application CD/165/1/G (dated 30th Sept 1996) remains extant by virtue of the land to which the s.106 relates falling within the line edged red on Site Location Plan drawing No. 2201-4-4-1-DR-0001 S4-P2 (dated Dec 2017) of this permission. The section 106 legal agreement (signed and dated 30th Sept 1996) shall remain extant until such time as all the developer’s obligations have been carried out or met.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to the status and relevance of the section 106 legal agreement that accompanied planning application CD/165/1/G dated 14.03.1994 and to ensure that Reinstatement Works are carried out by the Developer for the removal of the underbridge to Buckle Street and the reinstatement of the Highway.
Hours of Working
8. Except in an emergency (which shall be notified to the Mineral Planning Authority in writing as soon as practicable), the operational activities hereby permitted (including deliveries to and from the site; the manoeuvring, loading or unloading of vehicles; the servicing, maintenance and testing of plant; carrying, processing and / or any primary or ancillary activity associated with the winning and working of minerals including crushing) on the land shown edged red on Site Location Plan drawing No. 2201-4-4-1-DR-0001 S4- P2 (dated Dec 2017) shall take place only between the hours of:
a. Monday to Friday 0700 to 1800 hours b. Saturday 0700 to 1300 hours c. There shall be no operations on Sundays, Public and Bank Holidays, unless otherwise agreed in advance and in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and to accord with policy DM01 an MA01 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, policy EN4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and policy CE4 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-2023.
Output Limit
9. The combined overall output of all primary and recycled aggregates, lime, soils, building and walling stone and concrete exported from the overall Naunton Quarry site, as outlined red and blue on Site Location Plan drawing No. 2201-4-4-1-DR-0001 S4-P2 (dated Dec 2017) shall not exceed 500,000 tonnes within any 12 month period.
69
Page 167 Reason: In the interests of highway safety, the amenity of the area and to accord with policy DM01, DM02, DM03 and MA01 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, along with policy EN15 and INF4 of the adopted Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031, policy CE4 and CE10 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-2023 and paragraph 108 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Ecology
10. Within 3 months from the date of this planning permission, a detailed Biodiversity Mitigation Scheme must be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for approval. The Scheme shall be based on sections 6.2 to 6.4 of the Ecological Impact Assessment by Malford Consulting dated January 2018 and be compiled by a suitably qualified ecologist. The Scheme should include details of measures for pre-works surveys, protection, creation or enhancement of habitats and features, aftercare management, monitoring, and contingency measures. The Scheme shall include appropriate measures for:
(i) reptiles; (ii) nesting birds in hedgerows, trees and shrubs and ground nesting birds; (iii) badgers and other mammals such as brown hare, fox and hedgehog; (iv) any other legally protected or priority species that might be encountered; (v) buffer or stand-off zones for all retained hedgerows, trees, (vi) the establishment, enhancement and after-care of land and the objectives of management; (vii) a work schedule of mitigation tasks including a timetable throughout the working stages and into final restoration; (viii) monitoring and remedial or contingency measures; (ix) those responsible for implementation of the scheme.
The scheme shall be implemented as approved by the Mineral Planning Authority. Any significant modifications to the approved details for example as a result of a protected species licence being required must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that important biodiversity is conserved and enhanced in accordance with policy DM06, MA01 and MR01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, policy EN1, EN7, EN8, EN9 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031, policy CE7 and CE9 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-2023, ODPM Circular 06/2005 plus National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 170 and 175 and in addition Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which confers a general biodiversity duty upon Local Authorities.
External Lighting
11. Within the line edged red on Site Location Plan drawing No. 2201-4-4-1-DR- 0001 S4-P2, no new external lighting shall be installed on the site East of Buckle Street.
70
Page 168 Reason: To protect local amenity and to ensure that bats are not discouraged at this location, in accordance with policy DM01, DM06 and MA01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, ODPM Circular 06/2005 plus National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 170, 175 and 180.
12. Within the line edged red on the Site Location Plan drawing No. 2201-4-4-1- DR-0001 S4-P2, no floodlighting or other illumination shall be used.
Reason: To protect local amenity and to ensure that bats are not discouraged at this location, in accordance with policy DM01, DM06 and MA01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, ODPM Circular 06/2005 plus National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 170, 175 and 180.
Archaeology
13. The development shall be the subject of the programme of archaeological mitigation, as proposed in the Written Scheme of Investigation for that work submitted in support of the planning application (Archaeological Research Services Ltd, February 2018).
Reason: To make provision for the investigation and recording of any archaeological remains that may be destroyed by ground works required for the development. The archaeological programme will advance understanding of any heritage assets which will be lost, in accordance with DM08 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032 and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Restoration of Site
14. Not later than six months after the date of the commencement of extraction operations a detailed Restoration and Aftercare Management Scheme for the each working stage shall be submitted in writing to the Mineral Planning Authority for approval. The detailed scheme shall be based on Drawings No. DR-0003, DR-0004, DR-0005, DR-0006 and DR-0007 and including the Ecological Impact Assessment by Malford Consulting dated January 2018. The scheme shall provide for the following:
(i) A summary of all restoration and aftercare processes planned, in progress or completed across the whole quarry site; (ii) Ecological trends and any identified or new constraints on site that might influence management; (iii) Selection of appropriate measures including establishment, enhancement and after-care; (iv) Description of opportunities to retain or expose geological heritage features; (v) Details for ground forming, soil, substrate, mineral, rock preparation and habitat and species establishment; (vi) List of types and sources of soil forming materials, plant stock and other species introductions, including details of planting and seeding mixes/densities/sizes and hedgerow spacings; (vii) Provisions for any public access and interpretation;
71
Page 169 (viii) Extent and location of proposed works shown on appropriate scale plans; (ix) Prescriptions and programme for initial aftercare of 5 years and long term management of a further 5 or more years; (x) The organisation, body or personnel responsible for the work; (xi) Timing of the restoration operations in relation to phased working of the mineral site overall; (xii) Proposals for monitoring the success of all restoration works; (xiii) Detail of proposed dry stone walling, fencing and gates.
The Restoration and Aftercare Management Scheme shall also include details of final access arrangements, along with any ownership, tenancy, legal and funding mechanisms by which the long-term management will be secured. The scheme shall be implemented as approved by the Mineral Planning Authority. Any significant modifications to the approved details for example as a result of unforeseen circumstances must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: To conserve and enhance the environmental value and amenity of the land and in accordance with policy MA01 and MR01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, ODPM Circular 06/2005 plus National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 8, 170 and 175. This is also in accordance with Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which confers a general biodiversity duty upon Local Authorities.
Restoration Material
15. All mineral waste, topsoils and subsoils shall be permanently retained on site and used in the restoration of the site.
Reason: To protect the soil resource and ensure that sufficient material is available for the restoration in accordance with policy DM07, MA01 and MR01 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032.
16. No restoration or other material, including top soils or subsoils, shall be imported to the site as part of the restoration scheme.
Reason: To enable the Mineral Planning Authority to maintain control over the importation of material for the restoration of the quarry and to accord with policy DM07, DM09, MA01 and MR01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032.
17. The movement of topsoil or subsoil shall only occur when they are in a dry and friable condition.
Reason: To protect the soil resource and ensure that sufficient material is available for the restoration in accordance with policy DM07, MA01 and MR01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032.
18. No part of the site shall be excavated or traversed by heavy vehicles or machinery (except as necessary to strip that part of topsoil or subsoil) or used
72
Page 170 for a road or for the stationing of plant or storage of subsoil or overburden or waste or mineral deposits, until all available topsoil and subsoil has been stripped from that part of the site. The exception is that topsoils may be stored on like topsoils and subsoils may be stored on like subsoils.
Reason: To safeguard against the loss or damage of soil needed for restoration and to accord with policy DM07, MA01 and MR01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032.
19. No materials other than clean, uncontaminated soils and subsoil's and other materials excavated from the site shall be used for the restoration of the site.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory restoration and to accord with policy DM07, DM09, MA01 and MR01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018- 2032.
Records
20. From the date of this permission and throughout the course of the development hereby approved, the operators shall submit to the Minerals Planning Authority monthly records of all mineral products from the site, including production of aggregates, recycled aggregates, building stone, soils, lime and concrete exported from the overall site.
All records shall be kept by the operators for at least 24 months from the date of their creation.
Reason: To enable the Mineral Planning Authority to monitor output from the site and to accord with policy MW01, MW02, MA01, DM01, DM02 and DM03 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032.
Stockpiled Material
21. The height of any stockpiled material shall not exceed 5 metres in height.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and to accord with policy DM01, MA01 and DM09 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, policy EN4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and policy CE4 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-2023.
Pollution Control
22. Any oil, fuel, lubricant and other potential pollutants shall be handled on the site in such a manner as to prevent pollution of any watercourse or aquifer. For any liquids other than water, this shall include storage in suitable tanks and containers which shall be housed in an area surrounded by bund walls of sufficient height and construction so as to contain 110% of the total contents of all containers and associated pipework. The floor and walls of the bunded areas shall be impervious to both water and oil. The pipes should vent downwards into the bund.
73
Page 171 Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to accord with policy DM05 and MA01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018- 2032 and policy EN15 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031.
23. No sewage or trade effluent, including cooling water containing chemical additives should be discharged to the surface water system. Vehicle washdown water shall be discharged into a totally sealed tank.
Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to accord with policy DM05 and MA01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018- 2032 and policy EN15 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031.
No Dewatering
24. No dewatering of the site shall be carried out.
Reason: To protect controlled waters in accordance with policy DM05 and MA01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032 and policy EN15 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031.
Groundwater Monitoring
25. Within 3 months from the date of this permission a Scheme of Water Monitoring for the extension area as shown in Stage 1 Workings drawing 2201-4-4-2 DR-0003 S4-P1 (dated Nov 2019) shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for approval. The scheme will include, but not be restricted to:
• frequency and location of monitoring boreholes; • method and nature of sampling; • methods on how any deterioration of groundwater level and surface water flows and quality will be evaluated; • risks and mitigation; and • monitoring failures of any remediation works carried out.
Once approved, the Monitoring scheme shall be implemented in full as approved for the duration of the development.
Reason: To ensure a water monitoring scheme is maintained in accordance with Policy DM05, MA01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018– 2032.
26. If monitoring results from the approved water monitoring scheme provide evidence of any adverse risk of deterioration to groundwater or surface water flows or quality, extraction of mineral on site shall cease until the cause is remediated to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: To maintain the water levels and geochemistry of waterbodies and to accord with policy DM05 and MA01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018–2032.
Depth of Working
74
Page 172 27. Within the permitted area of mineral extraction, mineral workings shall not take place at a depth exceeding those contour lines shown on drawings:
• 2201-4-4-2 DR-0003 S4-P1; • 2201-4-4-2 DR-0004 S4-P1; • 2201-4-4-2 DR-0005 S4-P1; and • 2201-4-4-2 DR-0006 S4-P1.
Reason: To prevent pollution of groundwater and to accord with policy DM05, DM09 and MA01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032 and policy EN15 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031.
Air Quality
28. Measures shall be taken to ensure that all operations on the site do not give rise to dust or wind-blown material being carried on to adjacent land and in particular shall include the watering of all haul and access roads; the fitting of dust suppression equipment to crushing and screening plant; screening or seeding exposed faces; reducing vehicle speeds on Site; minimising the drop heights involved in the movement of soils and mineral and the spraying of storage heaps or areas as necessary during periods of prolonged dry weather.
Reason: To protect the amenities of the local environment and the interests of the Cotswolds AONB in accordance policy DM01, DM02, DM07, MA01 and DM09 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, along with policy EN15 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and paragraphs 170, 172, 180 and 205 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
29. Dust monitoring at the Site will be undertaken on a daily basis using visual methods. In the event that dust is at any time generated that is likely to travel outside of the Site and towards dust sensitive properties, or otherwise represent a potential source of nuisance or annoyance, the relevant dust generating activity shall be temporarily suspended until appropriate mitigation measures have been taken. Dust monitoring shall continue until all extraction and restoration operations have been completed.
Reason: To protect the amenities of the local environment and the interests of the Cotswolds AONB in accordance policy DM01, DM02 and MA01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, along with policy EN15 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and paragraphs 170, 172, 180 and 205 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Noise
30. Except for temporary operations (that shall be agreed in advance and approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority), total noise from the site edged red on Site Location Plan drawing No. 2201-4-4-1-DR-0001 S4-P2 shall not exceed 55 dBLAeq (1 hour) (free field) as measured from any of the neighbouring properties at a point closest to the noise source with the microphone at a height of 1.2 metres above ground level. Noise generating
75
Page 173 activities within the site as shown edged red on Site Location Plan drawing No. 2201-4-4-1-DR-0001 S4-P2 shall only take place within the operational hours specified by condition 8 of this permission.
Reason: To protect the amenities of the local environment and the interests of the Cotswolds AONB in accordance with policies DM01, DM02, DM06, DM09 and MA01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, policy EN15 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and paragraphs 170, 172, 180 and 205 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
31. For temporary operations (that shall include the nature and duration of works and be agreed in advance and approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority) such as site preparation, stripping of soils and overburden, bund formation and removal and final restoration, noise from the site shall not exceed 70 dBLAeq (1 hour) (free field) as measured from any of the neighbouring properties at a point closest to the noise source with the microphone at a height of 1.2 metres above ground level. Temporary operations shall not exceed a total of eight weeks duration at any noise sensitive properties in any twelve month period. In the event of these operations being planned, Cotswold District Council’s Environmental Regulatory Services Department shall be informed in writing of the dates of planned operations at least two weeks prior to operations commencing.
Reason: To protect the amenities of the local environment and the interests of the Cotswolds AONB in accordance with policies DM01, DM02, DM06, DM09 and MA01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, policy EN15 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and paragraphs 172, 180 and 205 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
No Blasting
32. No blasting shall be carried out on site at any time.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and safeguarding of the natural building stone to accord with policy DM01, DM02, DM09 and MA01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, policy EN4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and policy CE4 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-2023.
Highways
33. No access other than the underpass/tunnel under Buckle Street shall be used in connection with the movement of mineral, vehicles and plant equipment between the existing quarry on the East side of Buckle Street and the processing plant area on the West side of Buckle Street.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, the amenity of the area and to accord with policy DM01, DM02, DM03, DM09 and MA01 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, policy EN4 and INF4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and policy CE4 and CE10 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-2023.
76
Page 174 34. There shall be no access onto Buckle Street other than the existing vehicular access that links the processing and plant area on the East side of the Site to Buckle Street.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, the amenity of the area and to accord with policy DM01, DM02, DM03, DM09 and MA01 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, policy EN4 and INF4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and policy CE4 and CE10 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-2023.
35. No vehicles exiting the quarry site shall enter the public highway unless the wheels and chassis of those vehicles have been cleaned, so as to prevent the deposition of materials on the public highway.
Reason: To ensure that safe and suitable access to the site is maintained in accordance with policy DM01, DM02, DM03, DM09 and MA01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, along with policy INF4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031, policy CE10 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-2023 and paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
36. No loaded vehicles shall enter or leave the site unsheeted, except those carrying inert material in excess of 500mm in any dimension.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety in accordance with policy DM01, DM02, DM03, DM09 and MA01 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, along with policy INF4 of the adopted Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and policy CE10 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-2023 and paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
37. All vehicles and / or machinery shall have and use, when operational and on site, effective silencers.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and to accord with policy DM01, DM02, DM03, DM09 and MA01 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, policy EN4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and policy CE4 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018- 2023.
38. No direct public sales operation shall be carried out from the site in association with the development hereby permitted.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, the amenity of the area and to accord with policy DM01, DM02, DM03, DM09 and MA01 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, policy EN4 and INF4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and policy CE4 and CE10 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-2023.
Vehicle Fumes
77
Page 175 39. All vehicles used for the movement of any material including soil, overburden or minerals shall have exhausts directed away from the ground.
Reason: To protect the amenities of the local environment and the interests of the Cotswolds AONB in accordance with policies DM01, DM02, DM05, DM09 and MA01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, policy EN15 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and paragraph 170, 172, 180 and 205 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Permitted Development
40. Notwithstanding the provisions of part 17 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order amending, replacing or re-enacting that Order), no fixed plant or machinery, buildings or structures shall be erected, extended, installed or replaced on any part of the site hereby permitted.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and to accord with policy DM01, DM02, DM09 and MA01 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, policy EN4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and policy CE4 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-2023.
41. Within two months of written notification from the Minerals Planning Authority that any plant, machinery or buildings remaining on the site are no longer required for the purpose for which they were installed or erected, all plant, machinery or buildings to which such determination relates shall be removed from the site.
Reason: In the interests of amenity, the appearance of the proposed development and to accord with policy DM01, DM02, DM09 and MA01 of the adopted Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, policy EN4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 and policy CE4 of the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan 2018-2023.
Cessation Prior to Completion
42. In the event of the cessation of winning and working of minerals prior to the completion of the approved working, restoration and aftercare schemes, which in the opinion of the Mineral Planning Authority constitutes a permanent cessation within the terms of paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), a revised scheme, to include details of restoration and aftercare, shall be submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority within 6 months of the cessation of winning and working. In the event that the Minerals Planning Authority approves the submitted details, the revised scheme shall be fully implemented within 1 year of the date that such details were approved.
Reason: To enable the Mineral Planning Authority to adequately control the development and to ensure that the land is restored to a condition of beneficial use and to accord with policy DM09, MA01 and MR01 of the Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire 2018-2032, along with paragraph 205(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework.
78
Page 176 ADVICE NOTES
Ecology
Advice Note 1. - If a protected species (such as any bat, great crested newt, dormouse, badger, reptile, barn owl or any nesting bird) is discovered using a feature on site that would be affected by the development or related works all activity which might affect the species at the locality should cease. If the discovery can be dealt with satisfactorily by the implementation of biodiversity mitigation measures that have already been drawn up by your ecological advisor and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority then these should be implemented. Otherwise a suitably experienced ecologist should be contacted and the situation assessed before works can proceed. This action is necessary to avoid possible prosecution and ensure compliance with the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. This advice note should be passed on to any persons or contractors carrying out the development/works.
Advice Note 2. - In relation to the County Council’s Service Level Agreement with the Local Biological Records Centre and to assist in the strategic conservation of countywide biodiversity, all species and habitat records from the ecological work commissioned by the applicant should be copied [if not already] to the Gloucestershire Centre for Environmental Records (GCER).
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
Planning Application file 18/0065/CWMAJM containing the planning application, supporting statement, drawings, consultation responses and representations may be viewed by appointment with the case officer below or on the Council’s Public Access website www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/planning by a search with the application reference.
CONTACT OFFICER: Case Officer: Nick Bainton. Telephone: 01452 425771 Email: [email protected]
79
Page 177 This page is intentionally left blank