EEC/09/121/HQ Development Control Committee 13 May 2009
County Matter - Minerals Mid Devon: Extension to Existing Sand and Gravel Working and Restoration to Agriculture, Woodland and Wetland at Town Farm Quarry Burlescombe Application no. 09/00141/DCC Date Application received by County Council - 20 January 2009
Report of the Executive Director of Environment, Economy and Culture
Please note that the following recommendations are subject to consideration and determination by the Committee before taking effect.
Recommendation: It is recommended that: (a) subject to the Applicant entering into a Legal Agreement relating to the provision of a sampling and testing service for private water supplies at Higher Eastbrook Farm and Eastbrook House and the provision of alternative water supplies at no cost to the owners in the event of a derogation of the water supply, planning permission be granted subject to conditions including: standard commencement, development completed within 10 years' of commencement, hours of operation, phased development, phased restoration, noise limits, dust control, provision of new wheel cleaning facility, soil stripping and storage, biodiversity mitigation, no tree felling during bird nesting season, removal of permitted development rights, hours of operation, no importation of waste material, advanced landscaping, maintenance of highway visibility splays, restriction on hours of vehicles leaving the site, additional advanced planting, landscaping aftercare and prior cessation; (b) the Applicant be asked to establish and support a Quarry Liaison Group.
1. Summary
1.1 This report relates to the Members' Site Visit and meeting held on Wednesday 22 April 2009 and provides updates and commentary on the issues relating to the determination of the planning application.
1.2 The material planning considerations relevant to the determination of this proposal are considered to be:
• Minerals Local Plan Policy - including the strategy for aggregate mineral supply in the County, the status of the site in the Plan, and all other relevant Plan Policies; • Visual impacts - including the loss of existing hedgerows, and an oak tree; • Operational impacts - including noise, dust, mud on road, re-routeing of an electricity line, flooding in Eastbrook Lane, and Environmental Management; • Traffic implications - including safety and the adverse impact of the amenity of residents of Gypsy Lane; • Possible derogation and water supplies; • Impacts on nature conservation and biodiversity interests, archaeological interests, and on soils and agriculture. 2. Background
2.1 At the meeting on 15 April 2009, Members considered Report EEC/09/107/HQ (attached as Appendix I to this Report) and resolved that determination of the Application be deferred to enable Members to visit the site and have regard to issues raised in the Report.
2.2 The Site Visit was conducted by Councillors Cox (Chairman), Button, Nicholson, Giles, Wragg, Clatworthy and Radford, together with officers representing the Executive Director of Environment, Economy and Culture.
2.3 Following the Site Visit a Site Meeting was held at the Burlescombe Community Hall and the meeting was attended by the site visiting Committee Members, representatives for the Applicant, invited consultees, local representatives and interested Members of the public.
3. The Site Visit
3.1 Members congregated at the existing Town Farm Quarry entrance on the C102 road to Burlescombe. Representatives of the Applicant quarry company were onsite for health and safety reasons and in order to answer any questions Members may have had. Members entered the quarry and viewed the existing quarry workings, noting the restored areas (including new pond), the completed but un-restored working area and the final phase of working currently being undertaken.
3.2 From the vantage point within the quarry Members were able to view the proposed extension area. The extent of the Application area was pointed out to Members and Members noted that the proposal would result in a loss of existing agricultural land, loss of existing hedges and loss of specimen trees, particularly a solitary oak which is prominent in the landscape.
3.3 Features outside of the quarry, including the properties Higher Eastbrook Farm, Eastbrook House and Little Eastbrook Farm, former restored mineral working areas at Redhill, Eastbrook and Whiteball and the position of the railway line were pointed out to Members. Members also noted the existing wheel wash facility which is in the form of a wheel bath designed to allow vehicles to drive through it.
3.4 Members then boarded the bus and were driven from the Town Farm Quarry to the Whiteball Processing Plant along the route quarry lorries would take. This involved a right turn onto the C102 from the quarry entrance with Members noting this access was formed as part of the Town Farm permission and it met required standards and would continue to be used should planning permission be granted for the quarry extension. Whilst being drive along the C102, Members' attention was drawn to the planning application boundary and the limited views into the site from the road.
3.5 At the C102 junction with the A38 the bus turned left and travelled in a northerly direction towards the Whiteball Processing Plant. The bus pulled in onto Gypsy Lane at Whiteball Gate which is in Somerset, stopping to allow officers to brief Members on the highway situation here. It was pointed out to Members that Gypsy Lane was the route used by the Applicant quarry vehicles and it was noted that this lane was relatively narrow, was one way allowing vehicles to travel north only. The proximity of this road to residential properties was noted by Members.
3.6 Officers explained that there was a routeing agreement with a different quarry company which required its lorries to avoid the use of Gypsy Lane by using the right turn into Greenham Road which is situated to the north of the Gypsy Lane junction. Members were then driven along Gypsy Lane, turned left onto Greenham Road and then left into the Whiteball Processing area.
3.7 The bus turned around in the processing plant site and then turned right on leaving the plant going back along Greenham Road to its junction with the A38. This is the route lorries leaving the processing plant take either turning right or left onto the A38 with process sand, or right in the case of empty vehicles returning back to Town Farm. At this junction the difficulties that heavy goods vehicles have in turning left from the A38 into Greenham Road was explained to Members. At this junction the A38 is a dual carriageway and heavy goods vehicles turning left into Greenham Road swing into the outside land in order to make the left turn manoeuvre. Lorries at this point are slow moving because they are both travelling up hill and slowing in order to turn left and this results in the potential for collisions with faster moving vehicles travelling in either of the dual carriageway lanes.
3.8 The bus then turned right at the junction and travelled south on the A38 before turning right onto the minor road which leads to Higher Eastbrook Farm, Eastbrook House and Little Eastbrook Farm in order that Members could assess the impacts of the development from these properties. The bus stopped at a point between Higher Eastbrook Farm and Eastbrook House and the existing quarry and the application site were pointed out to Members.
3.9 The bus then travelled along the minor road to Burlescombe and then north to the Grand Western Canal car park, which provided a longer distance view into the location site. From here Members were able to judge the potential visual impact of the proposed development, and in particular which hedgerows and trees would be lost as a result of the proposal, and where the proposed new compensatory planting would be provided.
4. Site Meeting
4.1 Following the Site Visit Members congregated at the Burlescombe Community Hall where the Site Meeting took place. Invitations to the meeting had been sent to the Applicant, Mid Devon District Council, Somerset County Council, Environment Agency, Natural England, Burlescombe Parish Council, and Wellington with that Parish Council. Invitations have also been sent to the interested parties which in this case were Burlescombe Environmental Lobby, Mr. Bussell of Higher Eastbrook Farm , Mr. and Mrs. Dixon of Eastbrook House and Mr. Gillespie of Whiteball Gate .
4.2 The Chairman opened the meeting and Site Visiting Members and officers representing the Executive Director of Environment, Economy and Culture introduced themselves. Mr. Redding, County Development Manager, described to the meeting the earlier Site Visit explaining the format of the visit and the various stopping points and issues and viewpoints described to Members.
4.3 Mr. Deaton, Development Management Officer, informed the meeting of apologies received. These were from Mid Devon District Council's Environmental Health Officer who confirmed he had no further comments to make over those made in his original consultation response. Apologies were also received from Natural England and it was confirmed that they had no objection to the proposal provided Nature Conservation mitigation measures which were set out in the Environmental Statement were carried out in full.
4.4 The Chairman then invited the Applicant and his agent to address the meeting. They confirmed that they did not wish to make a presentation at this meeting but were happy to answer any questions that might arise. Councillor Giles at this stage requested information on previous production figures at Town Farm and the Applicant confirmed that the production figures had been 270,000 tonnes in 2005, 190,000 tonnes in 2006, 205,000 tonnes in 2007 and 210,000 tonnes in 2008. It was noted that these are production figures, i.e. before processing the result of which results in a sales' figure of about 20% lower in tonnage.
4.5 Somerset County Council as Mineral Planning Authority had not provided a representative. However, Somerset County Council as Highway Authority, represented by Mr. Copp, confirmed they had no objection to the proposal.
4.6 Mid Devon District Council as Planning Authority had not provided a representative and apologies have been received from Mid Devon District Council as Environmental Health Authority.
4.7 Mr. Beard (Chairman of Burlescombe Parish Council) representative, Mr. Beard was asked to address the meeting. Mr. Beard had a prepared statement which was given to the assembly and is attached as Appendix II to this Report. Briefly, the Parish Council's concerns as set out by Mr. Beard are:
• Visual impacts. • Loss of ancient hedgerows and loss of an oak tree. • The re-routeing of the existing electricity line. • The phase 1 working is outside of the Minerals Local Plan boundary. • The phase 4 workings will have a particularly damaging visual impacts due to the depth of the extraction and the amount of time required for compensatory vegetation to be established. • A better wheel wash ought to be provided. • Seeks information of surface water drainage disposal. • As there are no offices at the site how will the quarry be managed on a day to day basis?
Councillor Wragg questioned why there was a Tree Preservation Order on the oak tree. In response a Mr. Hammond , also representing Burlescombe Parish Council explained his area of expertise in woodland management and felt strongly that the oak tree was of such importance that it should be subject of a Tree Preservation Order. Mid Devon District Council's advice was that in its view the trees did not have a wider amenity value to justify a Tree Preservation Order and this was reported to the meeting. It was agreed that officers would revisit this issue with Mid Devon District Council.
4.8 Councillor Giles referring to the highways' flooding issue commented that as the quarry would be a larger area, there are potentially more problems with the run-off. Brian Hensley, Development Manager (Highways) commented that it was an offence to discharge surface water onto the highway and there would be a requirement to prevent this happening. The Chairman explained to the Applicant that the Committee would have to be assured that there would be no surface water discharge onto the highway and the Applicant's agent, Mr. Nicoll considered this could be secured by a planning condition. 4.9 Stewart Redding, asked the company for information about the diversion of the electricity line. In response Mr. John Bowen representing the Applicant explained that these were wood and wire poles rather than large pylons so it was relatively straight forward to reroute them. He confirmed that the weigh leaves with the landowner have a "lift and shift" clause should planning permission be granted. It was likely that these would be removed temporarily and were back in the original positions when the land is restored. Stewart Redding also requested the Applicant provide information on the point made by Burlescombe Parish Council concerning there had been no officers on the site. The Applicant responded that the day to day management was the responsibility of the Quarry Manager who was based at Whiteball. In terms of the site restoration the site was subject of a Biodiversity Action Plan which would be increased to cover the extension if planning permission were granted.
4.10 Mr. Curtis, (representing Wellington without Parish Council), applauded the work that the Applicant company had carried out in Somerset and had no objection in principle to the Application. He was, however, representing his parishioners' views and commented that there were four houses on Gypsy Lane, and that Gypsy Lane was inadequate in width to cater for lorry traffic and the continued use gives rise to danger to other road users, particularly children, with the school bus stopping at the top of the lane. He considered that lorries could use the A38/Greenham Road junction and that if necessary the main road could be improved.
4.11 John Wardle (Environment Agency) commented that the Agency had no issues to report. This concluded the presentation from consultees.
4.12 The Chairman requested information from officers as to whether or not a routeing agreement could be put in place, given that Gypsy Lane was in Somerset. Stewart Redding commented that there was already a routeing agreement in respect of vehicles accessing Westleigh Quarry which requires the use of the A38/Greenham Road junction. However, Mr. Copp from Somerset County Council said such an arrangement would be of concern to them as Highway Authority. He considered that the left turn from the A38 onto Greenham Road is a potentially dangerous manoeuvre and the tyre tracks seen near the junction show evidence of vehicles attempting to undertake left turning quarry vehicles and having to brake suddenly. It was the view of Somerset County Council as Highway Authority that the proposal would not increase the level of traffic and that the current level of traffic Gypsy Lane was adequate to cater for the numbers of lorries given that it is one-way has adequate visibility and is of adequate width.
4.13 Councillor Radford professed to know the junction well and commented that larger vehicles did indeed need to go to the off-side lane to manoeuvre into Greenham Road. Given this Councillor Radford asked if the junction could be improved in such a way to make this manoeuvre safe. Mr. Copp commented that the only improvement which would seem to satisfy this would be a deceleration lane but he considered this could not be justified in the context of the current application.
4.14 The Chairman then invited interested parties to address the meeting and Mr. Lockyer spoke on behalf of Burlescombe Environmental Lobby. Mr. Lockyer endorsed Burlescombe Parish Council's comments and in particular was concerned about the adequacy of the wheel wash and the loss of the specimen oak tree which, he felt could not be adequately replaced. This oak tree is located on the boundary between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed quarry and Councillor Clatworthy asked what the mineral reserve in Phase 1 was and it was confirmed that this is about one quarter of the total mineral available.
4.15 Mr. Bussell , owner of Higher Eastbrook Farm, said that his concerns were the potential pollution of his water supply. He commented that during the Red Hill Quarry excavation period the quarry company had provided him with a borehole and this was his sole supply. Mr. Bussell was also concerned about dust impacts and commented that he had experienced problems at times during the current quarry operations. The Applicant responded that dust would be controlled by an automatic system with a fixed water supply. Mr. Bussell commented that the surface water drainage issue was important and he considered that a replacement hedge would prevent water discharging onto the highway.
4.16 In commenting on the water supply concerns the Applicant's agent, Mr. Nicoll, recognised these as legitimate concerns. However, he explained that there would be no water extraction with the exception of the pond area, being done above the water table. To ensure this the actual extraction levels were based on groundwater monitoring data. Mr. Nicoll explained that the geology of the area was sound with a clay layer underneath with the sand at the quarry being isolated from the sand below Higher Eastbrook Farm and Eastbrook House. Given this the applicant considers there would be no derogation of the water supply and the applicant company is happy to monitor the private wells for water levels and contaminants and provide a main supply should this be necessary.
4.17 Mrs. Dixon, owner of Eastbrook House , - read from a prepared statement which is attached as Appendix III to this Report. In summary Mr. and Mrs Dixon have reservations about noise, dust and a real concern about potential groundwater pollution and loss of their private water supply, which is the sole source of water for the property and fields. They have little confidence in the hydrological risk assessment and ask that an alternative permanent source of water be provided via a borehole within the curtilage of their property. Councillor Giles asked for confirmation that Mrs. Dixon was not wanting a pipe supply at this stage and she confirmed that this was the case.
4.18 Mr. Gillespie, owner of Whiteball Gate, sent apologies via Mr. Curtis of Wellington without Parish Council.
4.19 The Chairman requested any further comments from Members and Councillor Giles asked whether Network Rail had been consulted. It was confirmed that they had not yet been consulted, but the Applicant commented that there was a required distance from the railway where extraction could not take place. Officers undertook to consult Railtrack prior to the next meeting.
4.20 Councillor Nicholson asked whether or not there was any history of groundwater pollution and Mr. Bussell commented that the water in the street was occasionally discoloured but he had not experienced any pollution in his well.
4.21 The Chairman thanked all attendees and confirmed that the Application would be determined by the Development Control Committee at its next meeting on 13 May 2009.
5. Advertisement/Representations
5.1 In the previous report the representations made by Burlescombe Environmental Lobby (BEL) were not reported. BEL raised concerns about the inadequacy of the existing wheel wash resulting in mud being deposited onto the road and verges and this is both unsightly and leads to conditions of highway danger. BEL are also concerned about the removal of the oak tree and seek reassurance that landscaping would be restored and quality tree planting undertaken.
6. Consultation Responses
6.1 The consultation responses from Mid Devon District Council (Planning and Environmental Health), Burlescombe Parish Council, Wellington without Parish Council, and the Environment Agency are contained in Section 3 of Report EEC/09/107/HQ attached as Appendix I to this Report. Consultation responses received subsequent to that report are as follows.
6.2 Somerset County Council as Highway Authority comments on the key findings of the Transport Assessment of the impact of vehicle trips associated with the development are expected to be negligible and the accident history on the delivery routes does not raise any concerns as the development is not expected to increase accident rates. Somerset County Council comment on the use of Gypsy Lane as a delivery route noting it is a single carriageway, one-way highway, subject to the national speed limit. The width is about 7.7 metres, there is no street lighting and the junction of Gypsy Lane with the A38 is a priority controlled T Junction. The Somerset County Council consider that the existing delivery operation along Gypsy Lane and its junction with the A38 and Greenham Quarry Road is considered to operate safely with the accident investigation, indicating that no collisions involving heavy goods vehicles have been recorded along the road during the previous five year period.
With respect to the development proposals the Somerset County Council notes that the production rate at this site will continue at the level of the existing operations and delivery vehicles routeing from Town Farm Quarry to Whiteball processing plant is to remain identical to that of the existing operation. The development proposal is expected to continue to deliver approximately 200,000 tonnes per annum to the Whiteball processing plant using existing constant operation procedures. Therefore the site is expected to continue to generate 37 trips per day and 9 delivery movements per hour, which is the same as the existing and therefore is expected to have no change in impact on the highway network. Taking the above point into consideration, Somerset County Council as Highway Authority considers it unreasonable to raise a highway objection to the proposal. The Somerset County Council confirms it is aware of concerns raised by Wellington without Parish Council and one of the occupiers of property on Gypsy Lane. It is the County Council's understanding that the size of the vehicles are such that utilising the main junction with Greenham Quarry Road is hazardous due to undertaking of other vehicles. Therefore Gypsy Lane is preferred and safer routes. The County Council also comment that whilst a weight restriction on narrowing of the carriageway to restrict HGVs could be an option for Gypsy Lane, it would need to be ensured that the alternative route is safe, as if it is not, this could lead to an increase in personal injury accidents in this location. Somerset County Council also considers it would be unreasonable to expect the developer to fund such a scheme if there was to be no increase in traffic as a result of the development.
6.3 Natural England - has no objections subject to the development being progressed in accordance with the proposed mitigation and restoration plans and comments that this should be secured by planning condition.
6.4 Network Rail - consulted on 24 April 2009, and any views received will be reported further into Committee.
7. Planning Policy Considerations
7.1 The Planning Policies relevant to the determination of this application are provided in Appendix I to Report EEC/09/107/HQ which is attached as Appendix I to this Report.
8. Comment/Issues
8.1 The issues raised in Section 6 of the previous report on this application, EEC/09/107/HQ (Appendix I to this report) and issues raised during the Site Visit and Site Meeting on 15 April are material to the determination of this application. The material issues are considered to be:
• Minerals Policy Local Plan - including the Strategy for aggregate mineral supply and status of the site in the Minerals Local Plan. • Visual impacts - including loss of existing hedges and an oak tree. • Operational impacts, including noise, dust, mud on road, re-routeing of an electricity line, flooding in Eastbrook Lane and Environmental Management. • Traffic implications including safety and the adverse impact on the amenity of residents of Gypsy Lane. • Potential derogation of water supplies; • Impact on nature conservation and biodiversity interests. • Impact on archaeological interests. • Impact on soils and agriculture.
Mineral Policies
8.2 Sections 6.2 to 6.8 of Report EEC/09/107/HQ examined the proposal against Mineral Policy in the Adopted Devon County Minerals Local Plan. The status of the application site in the Minerals Local Plan was raised by Burlescombe Parish Council who correctly state that Phase 1 is outside of the area identified as an area of mineral resource in the Local Plan. However, it should be stated that the areas of mineral resources have no particular status in the Minerals Local Plan other than being the presumed extent of an economic deposit of mineral within a mineral consultation area. Policy MP13 of the Minerals Local Plan aims to protect such areas from development that may sterilise mineral resources. The Minerals Local Plan makes it quite clear that there is no commitment to granting planning permission for winning and working of minerals in mineral consultation areas, nor is there a presumption that working is likely to be approved.
8.3 Report EEC/09/107/HQ examined the issues relating to the maintenance of a land bank of sand and gravel and how Mineral Local Plan Policy MP20 provides for the maintenance of a landbank of at least 7 years of the average annual production of the preceding 5 years. The 5 year average annual production during 2003 and 2007 was 796,513 tonnes giving a 7 year landbank figure of 5.58 million tonnes. The previous report also explains how the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) works out the landbank on annual apportionment figures and this would give a landbank of less than 7 years. Given that the RSS is a more recent and higher level policy, this may override Mineral Local Plan Policy MP20.
8.4 It is likely that sand and gravel production in 2008 will be below the 5 year average but the level of permitted reserves has also been reduced through the lapsing of planning permission at Hayes Farm, near Broadclyst. It is also relevant that the nearest alternative supply to the application site is at Hill Head Quarry and this is not currently operating. It is estimated that the extent of permitted preserves at the end of 2008 was 10.75 million tonnes, giving a landbank of 15 years using the MP20 approach or 7.9 years using the sub-regional apportionment figure.
8. 5 Minerals Local Plan Policy MP23 provides for the extension of an existing mineral site where the proposal would contribute to the maintenance of the landbank. Whilst Devon has a landbank is excess of 7 years (as required by Policy MP20), the application site resource would contribute to the longer term need that will be required in the emerging Minerals Core Strategy (which will extend the life of the Plan until at least 2026). Given that the permitted reserve at Town Farm is expected to run out this year, it is considered that the continuation of working with this proposed extension is preferable to the reopening of the site in a few years time, (not least because the operator's network of concrete and asphalt plans require a continuous supply of aggregates).
8.6 Whilst the land is not identified for mineral working in the Minerals Local Plan, given the information above, it is considered that the approval of the application would not significantly compromise the Development Plan, and there is therefore no requirement to refer the application to the Secretary State as a departure.
Visual Impacts
8.7 In the previous report it was noted that the Applicant's Landscape and Visual Assessments concluded that the overall impacts on the landscape character were "low adverse" during the works and "low beneficial" at the 15 year post-restoration period.
8.8 During the Site Visit Members viewed the site from a number view points both within and outside the quarry. Members noted that the proposal would result in the loss of hedgerows and specimen mature trees including an oak. Members also viewed the restored quarries at Redhill and Eastbrook which had now been integrated the landscape.
8.9 In terms of the setting of the site in the landscape, it is clear that there would be an impact. However, it is considered that this impact is limited by the availability of views into the site and the fact that the landscape of the site is relatively common in this part of Devon.
8.10 The Applicant proposes a suitable landscape restoration scheme, but it is considered that this could be further enhanced by additional advanced planting in the south east part of the site, between the application boundary and limit of extraction. This could be secured by a planning condition in the event of permission being granted. In order to help minimise the visual impact, it is also considered that it would be prudent to require restoration aftercare on a phase by phase basis, and to time limit for the life of quarry operations.
Operational Impacts
8.11 At the site meeting issues of concern relating to dust and noise were raised. These issues were considered in the previous report and it is considered that in the event planning permission were to be granted, appropriate conditions would be imposed relating to dust control, noise limits and hours of operation.
8.12 At the Site visit viewed the wheel wash facility, which is in the form of a wheel bath rather than a spray type. At the Site Meeting Members heard concerns which had been raised about mud on the roads and both as a potential danger and as a visual impact. Given this it is considered it would be appropriate to require a new wheel cleaning facility which would deal with the problem more effectively.
8.13 At the meeting concerns were also raised by Burlescombe Parish Council about the re-routeing of electricity poles. The Applicant's response is given in 4.9 of this report and it is considered this adequately addresses the issue.
8.14 The existing issues of flooding of Eastbrook Lane is being examined by the Area Engineer and the applicant and any comments will be verbally reported to Committee. Notwithstanding this it is considered appropriate that the quarry operations, if permitted, should not exacerbate any current problems and it is therefore considered appropriate that a planning condition would need to imposed to require the control and management of surface water drainage from the site.
8.15 At the Site Meeting the Burlescombe Parish Council raised the issue of day to day management of the site, and the Applicant confirmed this is the responsibility of the Quarry Manager. Whilst there had been no reported environmental issues during the operation of the existing quarry, either to Devon County Council or Mid Devon District Council as Environmental Health Authority, this may be due to under-reporting. For instance there had been no reports of mud on the road which has been highlighted as an issue with this application. In line with other quarry operations in Devon it is considered that it would be useful to have a more effective reporting and problem resolving regime by the setting up of a Local Liaison Group.
Traffic Implications
8.16 During the Site Visit Members were driven along the lorry route between Town Farm Quarry and the Whiteball Processing Plant. The Site Meeting Members heard concerns about the potential and ongoing impacts on property owners adjacent to Gypsy Lane, the one-way lorry routes at Whiteball from the A38. At the meeting the Committee also heard from Somerset County Council Highways that the right turn onto Greenham Road was a potentially dangerous manoeuvre and that any restriction of the use of Gypsy Lane for heavy goods vehicles would not be supported without improvements to the A38/Greenham Road turning. Furthermore, Somerset County Council considered it would be unreasonable to expect the developers to fund such a scheme if there was to be no increase of traffic as a result of the development.
8.17 The formal consultation response of Somerset County Council as Highway Authority is given in this report in paragraph 6.2 and it is noted that it considers the existing arrangements allow for safe operation. During the operations, it is noted that there would be around 37 trips a day (74 movements) which would mean there would be 37 heavy goods vehicles travelling along Gypsy Lane on the one way system during quarry operations. Whilst Somerset County Council is satisfied there is no safety issues relating to the use of Gypsy Lane, there does remain amenity issues for the owners of the properties along the lane and it is considered it would be appropriate to limit the impact by imposing a planning condition limiting the times when vehicles laden with sand from Town Farm could leave.
Potential Impact on Water Supplies
8.18 At the Site Meeting the Members heard concerns of potential impacts on loss and impact on potable water supplies at Higher Eastbrook Farm and Eastbrook House. The owners of Eastbrook House request that a new borehole be provided within the curtilage of Eastbrook House. The applicant at the meeting provided comments that the application site and these properties were not hydrologically linked and the excavations would not be worked below the water table and given these factors there is unlikely to be any impact on the private water supply for these properties. Taken this into account it is considered it would be unreasonable for the planning authority to require a new borehole for Eastbrook House at this stage. However, the applicant has agreed that they will undertake a sampling and testing service and this can be secured by a Legal Agreement together with a requirement that an alternative supply be provided in the event of any impact on water supplies resulting from quarry activities.
8.19 The Environment Agency in its consultation response raised no objections to the proposal in relation to hydrological and hydro geological impacts but have been re- consulted with a request to comment further on the concerns raised by the owner of Eastbrook House and Little Eastbrook Farm. Any further views received will be reported verbally to the Committee.
Impact on Nature Conservation Biodiversity
8.20 Impacts on these interests are considered in paragraphs 6.19, 6.20 and 6.21 of Report EEC/09/107/HQ (Appendix I to this Report). Since that report was considered the views of Natural England have been received and are reported in Section 6.3 of this report and it is noted that Natural England had no object subject to the mitigation and restoration plans being carried out in full. It is considered that in the event planning permission is granted it would be appropriate to impose planning conditions requiring mitigation, restoration and aftercare.
Impact on Archaeological Interests
8.21 These issues are previously considered in paragraph 6.22 of Report EEC/09/107/HQ (Appendix I to this Report) and no further issues have been raised.
Impact on Soils and Agriculture
8.22 These issues were previously considered in paragraph 6.23 of Report EEC/09/107/HQ (Appendix I to this Report), and there are no further issues to be considered. However, it is noted that the views of DEFRA have not been received.
9. Reasons for Recommendation/Alternatives Considered
9.1 Having had the benefit of the Site Visit and consideration of the issues raised during the Site Meeting, it is considered that Members have the relevant information in which to make a determination of this application.
9.2 It is considered that whilst there is no overriding need for this development it is, on balance, preferable to extend the existing quarry at this stage rather than completing the restoration and reopening at some later stage. It is considered that the suggested conditions will adequately mitigate against the impacts and therefore planning permission will be granted in accordance with the recommendation of this report.
9.3 Furthermore, in order to assist in monitoring impacts associated with the development, it recommended that the Applicant be asked to establish and support a Quarry Liaison Group. Edward Chorlton Electoral Division: Willand and Uffculme
Local Government Act 1972
List of Background Papers
Contact for enquiries: M. Deaton
Room No: ABG, Lucombe House
Tel No: 01392 382130
Background Paper Date File Ref.
Casework file January 2009 09/00141/
md240409dca sc/town farm quarry 3 060509
Appendix I To EEC/09/121/HQ
EEC/09/107/HQ
Development Control Committee 15 April 2009
County Matter - Minerals Mid Devon: Extension to Existing Sand and Gravel Works and Restoration to Agriculture, Woodland and Wetland at Town Farm Quarry, Burlescombe, Devon Application no. 09/00141/DCC Date application received - 20 January 2009
Report of the Executive Director of Environment, Economy and Culture
Please note that the following recommendation is subject to consideration and determination by the Committee before taking effect.
Recommendation: It is recommended that determination of this application be deferred to enable Members to visit the site and have regard to the issues raised in this report.
1. Summary
1.1 This application relates to an extension to an existing sand and gravel quarry, which would provide an estimated mineral reserve of 2 million tonnes.
1.2 It is considered that the main issues in the determination of this planning application are the status of the application site in the Minerals Local Plan and need for the development in terms of mineral policy; the potential impact on the amenity of the local area in terms of visual intrusion, noise and dust; impact on nature conservation biodiversity interests, the potential impact on private water supplies; potential for flooding; traffic impact and impacts on archaeological interests.
2. Background/Proposal
2.1 Town Farm Quarry is located approximately 1 kilometre to the east of the Village of Burlescombe in Mid Devon, close to the Devon/Somerset border. Vehicular access to the quarry is directly from the classified County highway [C102] linking Burlescombe to the A38. The A38 itself lies to the east of the site entrance approximately 500 metres away.
2.2 Town Farm Quarry forms part of the Whiteball Mineral Consultation Area. The geology of the area is Triassic age sandstones, and the extracted mineral is a source of aggregate used in concreting sand, asphalting sand, and concreting aggregate. The extraction and processing works cover both Devon and Somerset Mineral Planning Authority areas. In Devon, mineral extraction currently takes place at Town Farm where it is quarried using hydraulic excavators. The mineral is then transported to the Whiteball processing plant, located in Somerset, where the material is washed, screened and crushed. The resulting silt is disposed of in a former mineral void at Redhill Quarry, immediately to the south of the Whiteball processing area, within Devon.
2.3 Within Somerset there is an extant mineral planning permission with reserves of about 400,000 tonnes, although it is understood this is not currently worked. There are also significant mineral reserves in Somerset opposite the Whiteball area that are identified in the Somerset Minerals Local Plan as Preferred Areas and Areas of Search, (although these areas do not have the benefit of a planning permission). Also in Somerset is a disused large silt lagoon which is currently undergoing restoration.
2.4 Planning permission for mineral extraction at Town Farm was initially granted by Devon County Council in April 1998 for a temporary 10 year period. This permission was subsequently renewed in March 2008 for a further two years and the permission now expires in March 2010. The site is in its final phase of working and is partially restored in accordance with the agreed restoration, which is mainly to agriculture with a small pond at the lower part of the site.
2.5 The application proposed is an easterly extension to the existing quarry, and includes that part of the site which is currently being worked and this gives a new operational area of some 17.5 hectares with a new excavation area of 12.2 hectares.
2.6 The application site is currently farmland with intersecting hedgerows which slopes to the north away from the County highway (which provides access to the site). The applicant estimates that the site contains about 2 million tonnes of sand and would have a predicted operational life of around ten years. The site would be worked in accordance with a series of phases with a following phased restoration. The site would be restored to a sloping profile with levels being achieved using overburden and soils stored on the site. The Applicant proposes that no material would be imported into the site for restoration purposes. The proposed after-use and aftercare envisages a mixed use, including pasture, a pond wildlife habitat, and woodland.
2.7 As with the current operations, the sand would be quarried by hydraulic excavator and transported by lorry to Whiteball for processing. The existing site access onto the County highway would continue to be used.
2.8 The application is subject of the Environmental Impact Regulations and is accompanied and supported by an Environmental Statement.
3. Consultations
3.1 Somerset County Council, (Mineral Planning Authority) - no views received.
3.2 Somerset County Council, (Highways Authority) - no views received.
3.3 Mid Devon District Council (Planning) - considers there are a number of points within the application that require clarification, including reference to the tonnage of mineral reserve, reference to Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, status of the site in the Minerals Local Plan and detailed consideration given to the effects of dust, noise and disturbance on the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The Council has no objection in principle to the application subject to clarification of the above matters and the imposition of planning conditions relating to:
• Phasing, including limit on length of consent for extraction. • Hours of operation. • The implementation and maintenance of restoration scheme. • Maximum noise levels. • Dampening of dust. • Provision and use of wheel washing facility. • Construction of soil, screen, bunds along boundary with Little East brook. • Lorry routeing (via a Section 106 Agreement).
The District Council has also had regard to the Parish Council comments about trees on the site, and does not consider they have a wider amenity value to justify a Tree Preservation Order in this instance.
3.4 Mid Devon District Council (Environmental Health) - comments that the qualitative air quality assessment within the supporting Environmental Statement is noted and the Environmental Health Officer concurs with the assessment findings. In reference to dust use the Environmental Health Officer notes there is no history of nuisance/complaints in connection with dust arising from the existing quarry site. He comments that this would appear to indicate that existing best practice mitigation measures are working and would continue to work at the extension site. Nonetheless, the Environmental Health Officer considers that consideration should be given to require a submission, approval and maintenance of nuisance management procedures by an inclusion of a suitably worded condition in any grant of permission.
3.5 Burlescombe Parish Council - has provided a detailed response to this application following an accompanied visit to the site. The Parish Council's letter is attached as Appendix II to this report and in brief the concerns relate to:
• The status of the site in the Minerals Local Plan. • Inadequacy/lack of use of existing wheel wash. • Errors in non-technical summary relating to quantity of mineral. • Impact on nature conservation interests. • Loss of historic trees and hedgerows. • Visual impact of the proposal. • Hydrological impacts/flooding. • Impact on private water supplies.
3.6 Wellington without Parish Council - is concerned about the impact of heavy goods' traffic on highways within Somerset, in particular impacts on residents living on Gypsy Lane.
3.7 Environment Agency - no objections to the proposal but comments:
• Local minor watercourses should not be disturbed and advise a 7 metre wide undeveloped buffer. • Support the restoration strategy that would result in less surface water flowing off the site. • Pollution control measures should be used to protect the water environment. • Welcome restoration plans which will include a net increase in wood, scrub, hedges and creation of wetland feature. • Strongly supports the wildlife mitigation proposals set out in the Environmental Assessment.
The Environment Agency also requests that informative notes are included in the Decision Notice relating to protected species, installation of bat and bird boxes, and details of pond to be agreed.
3.8 Natural England - views awaited.
3.9 Health and Safety Executive - views awaited.
3.10 DEFRA - views awaited.
4. Advertisement/Representations
4.1 The Application has been advertised in accordance with the statutory publicity requirements and as a result of these procedures three letters of objection have been received. Two of the letters of objection are from the nearest residential properties, Eastbrook House and Higher Eastbrook Farm located to the north of the application site. The objections raised relate to:
• Existing Noise Impact and adequacy of the Noise Assessment. • Impact and air quality in relation to dust generation. • Impact on private water supplies (both objectors' properties have private water supplies). Lack of mitigation for potential impact on water supplies. • Groundwater pollution issues not fully examined. • Surface water impacts on the grounds that there are existing flooding problems on local roads which may be exacerbated.
4.2 The third letter of objection comes from the owner of a property at Whiteball Gate in Somerset which is close to the Whiteball processing area. The occupier of the property strongly objects to the use of Gypsy Lane by quarry lorries particularly as there is an alternative route available. The objector comments on the inadequacy of Gypsy Lane in terms of its width and lack of footpaths or passing places and the use of it by quarry lorries leads to conditions of danger for other road users including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.
5. Planning Policy Considerations
5.1 In considering this application the County Council as Mineral Planning Authority is required to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan insofar as they are material to the application, and to any other material considerations. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that where regard is to be had to the Development Plan, the determination shall be in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the Development Plan policies are summarised in Appendix I to this report and the most relevant are referred to in more detail in Section 6 below.
6. Comments/Issues
6.1 It is considered that the material issues in the consideration of this application are:
• Mineral Policy, specifically in relation to the Strategy for Aggregate Minerals. • Visual impacts of the proposal. • Operational impacts on residential properties particularly in relation to noise and dust. • Traffic implications of the proposal. • Potential impact on private water supplies. • Impacts on nature conservation and biodiversity interests. • Impact on archaeological interests. • Impacts on soil and agriculture.
Mineral Local Plan Policy
6.2 The existing Town Farm Quarry Site is identified as a planing permission area with part of the adjacent application site being identified as an Area of Mineral Resource. Areas of Mineral Resource do not have any particular status in the Local Plan and are intended to simply to indicate the presumed extent of economic mineral based on available survey information. Such designation does not imply that planning permission should be granted and given this the application is considered to be a departure from the Devon County Minerals Local Plan.
6.3 Notwithstanding the above comment, the Mineral Local Plan's strategy for maintaining supply of aggregate minerals has two key elements which are relevant to the determination of this application. These are firstly a commitment to maintain a supply of aggregates contributing to Devon's Sub-Regional apportionment through the maintenance of a land bank of permitted reserves (as required in Policies MP19 and MP20 of the Minerals Local Plan); secondly, the Plan includes criteria for the identification of new resources, favouring continued extraction at Mineral Working Areas, then extensions to mineral working areas, followed by extensions to other existing sites, and finally by the development of new sites.
6.4 In terms of the existing land bank, Devon has an estimated permitted reserve of over 10 million tonnes. This gives a land bank of a 15 year supply based on average annual production. On the face of it there is therefore no overriding need for this development, but it is recognised that emerging policy in the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy bases land bank figures on annual South West apportionment rather than actual production. If this method of land bank calculations used the land bank figure would be below the minimum requirement of 7 years.
6.5 It should also be noted that the Devon County Minerals Local Plan period runs until 2011, and in developing the Minerals Core Strategy there will be a requirement to identify new resources for the plan period which will run until 2026.
6.6 On the basis that additional sand and gravel resources need to be identified to maintain the land bank then Policy MP22 provides for the extension of Mineral Working Areas, while Policy MP23 provides for the extension of other existing mineral sites. Policy MP23 includes additional criteria relating to the need for a consolidating application, and the reduction of the distance that aggregates are transported, but does not require that potential extensions to a Mineral Working Area are given a higher priority. Policy MP25 requires that new aggregate mineral sites will not be permitted if extensions to Mineral Working Areas or other existing sites are feasible. Given this it is considered that the extension of Town Farm would meet the criteria (ii) of Policy MP20.
6.7 Policy MP23 provides for the extension of an existing mineral site such as this application, where the proposal would contribute to the maintenance of the land bank. While Devon currently has a land bank of sand and gravel in excess of the 7 years under the terms of Policy MP20, the resource within the application site would contribute to the longer term need that will be addressed in the Minerals Core Strategy. Given that the existing permitted reserve at Town Farm is expected to run out this year, it is considered that the continuation of working through the proposed extension is preferable to the reopening of the site in a few years time, not least because the operator's network of concrete and asphalt plants require a continuing supply of aggregates.
6.8 Burlescombe Parish Council correctly points out that the northern part of the application site is outside of the area of mineral resource shown in the Devon County Minerals Local Plan. The reason for this is that the Plan was in fact based on inaccurate interpretation of geological information and the applicant confirms that there is workable mineral within the application site.
Visual Impacts
6.9 The Environmental Statement accompanying the application uses a standard methodology for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. It recognises that there will be visual impact but for the most part would be similar to the impacts currently experienced due to the existing quarry. By way of mitigation the Environmental Statement proposes a phased restoration of the site using available restoration materials to substantially replicate the natural landform, advanced planting of hedgerows, the final restoration would replicate existing landscape elements and additional habitat would be created.
6.10 The assessment concludes that the overall impacts on the landscape character are a "low adverse" magnitude during the working of the site and "low beneficial" at year 15 post-restoration. It is considered that Members would benefit from carrying out a site inspection which would look at the viewpoints into the site.
Operational Impacts
6.11 In this case it is considered that the main potential operational impacts are dust and noise. In terms of air quality the Environmental Statement examines dust generation in terms of general nuisance and health impacts. The existing quarry has an agreed dust control scheme which essentially employs dust control measures by the use of a water bowser which is a standard technique and is considered to be appropriate for sand and gravel extraction operations such as these. The applicant proposed the existing techniques would continue on the site with the additional mitigation of the construction of a new earth bank at the northern limit of the extraction area which would provide additional protection from dust emissions.
6.12 In terms of health impacts this can occur with the production of fine particulate matter (PM 10 ) the principle source of which is vehicular emissions. In this case there would not be any increase in the level of existing emissions and the Environmental Statement concludes there would be no significant impact on air quality as a result of this proposal. It is noted that Mid Devon District Council's Environmental Health Officer concurs with the Air Quality Assessment but considers it appropriate to include a suitably worded Condition to control dust emissions in the event of the grant of any permission.
6.13 The Environmental Statement also provides an assessment of potential noise impacts. The assessment measures existing noise levels and shows that noise levels would be below 55 dB(a) which is the upper limit given in Mineral Policy Statement to effects of Mineral Extract. The existing planning permissions sets a level of 50 db which is lower than the MPS2 level, but this reflects the rural nature of the area. The Noise Assessments demonstrates that the predicted noise levels of future quarry operations would remain below the 50 dB limit. However, during temporary works such as the construction of the screen bund limits would increase to above 50 dB limit but would remain below levels set out in such types of activities in MPS2.
6.14 From a noise impact perspective it is considered that the development could operate without significant disturbance and noise level limits could be imposed by a suitably worded condition relating to decibel levels. Operational impacts could also be controlled by conditions relating to areas of operation.
Traffic Impacts
6.15 As part of the Environmental Statement a Traffic Impact Assessment has been provided. The Traffic Impact Assessment sets out the HGV delivery and return route for sand hauled from Town Farm Quarry to the Whiteball processing plant. The delivery route being:
• The County highway (C102) from Town Farm Quarry eastbound to the A38, along the A38 from its junction with the minor road, north, to the A38 junction with Gypsy Lane. • Along Gypsy Lane from its junction with the A38, north, to Greenham Quarry Road, and • North west along Greenham Quarry Road to the Whiteball Site and the return route being, • from Whiteball Quarry along Greenham Quarry Road in the south easterly direction to the A38; • along the A38 from Greenham Quarry Road south to the County highway to Burlescombe, and, • along the C102 east to the Town Farm Quarry site.
6.16 The County boundary between Devon and Somerset is at Whiteball Gate immediately south of Gypsy Lane. Gypsy Lane itself forms part of the HGV delivery route from Town Farm to Whiteball. As for the route inside Devon it is considered there are no highway objections to the proposal as the existing quarry access, which is suitable for its purpose, would be used. Notwithstanding this, the Transport Assessment considers that the existing wheel wash facility should be upgraded and in the event permission is granted, this can be secured by a planning condition.
6.17 Members' attention is drawn to the objection from the occupier of the property on Gypsy Lane which is in Somerset. At this stage the consultation response from Somerset County Council (as Highway Authority) is awaited.
Impact on Private Water Supplies
6.18 Members' attention is drawn to the objection relating to possible impact of private water supplies. The Applicant has been given the opportunity to comment on this issue and a response is awaited. Whilst the issue is not yet resolved, it is considered a way forward would be to require the operator to provide an alternative supply in the event that the private water supply is interrupted. This could be secured by a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement.
Impact on Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Interests
6.19 The Environmental Statement provides an assessment of the potential impacts of the development on the ecology of the site and surrounding area. This includes a desk top study, consultation with nature conservation organisations and field surveys. The main findings of the survey are that an established badger sett (located within the existing quarry boundary) will be affected by the works, dormice were found in some of the hedgerows that will be affected. Four mature inner site boundary hedgerows would be removed, a number of trees of medium bat roosting potential would be directly affected, reptiles were found adjacent to the newly constructed pond within the existing quarry and hedgerows were a bird nesting potential.
6.20 The Applicant proposes a number of mitigation measures which includes:
• translocation of two intra-site hedgerows to the new site boundary; • advanced planting of new boundary hedgerows; • advanced planting of coppice woodland; • construction of replacement badger setts at least six months in advance of removal of the existing sett; • employing a 5 metre working stand off from the boundary hedgerows to minimise disturbance; • hedge and tree removal/felling outside of the main bird nesting season; • detailed survey potential bat roost trees in advance of felling; • replacement of lost hedgerows as field boundaries within the restoration scheme; • creation of new sand faced to facilitate sand martin nesting; • increased broadleaved woodland within the site restoration scheme as a positive contribution to biodiversity to aid dormice establishment; • habitat creation in line with Devon Local Biodiversity Action Plan targets; • new pond and wetland fringe within the Site Restoration Scheme was a positive contribution to aid amphibian populations; and • management restoration across a 5 year aftercare period.
6.21 Members' attention is drawn to the fact that Natural England's comments on the application have not yet been received and further consideration of the matters highlighted above will need to be made prior to the determination of the application.
Impact on Archaeological Interests
6.22 Previous archaeological work has been undertaken within the application area and the work comprised of a programme of archaeological monitoring and recording during topsoil stripping which recorded some prehistoric features as well as the excavation of a series of evaluative trenches which showed other areas were largely archaeologically sterile. It is considered that given the results of the archaeological observations, the proposed quarry extension will have no further archaeological impact to that already observed and recorded by the applicant's archaeological consultant and as such there are no archaeological objections to the proposal.
Impact on Soils and Agriculture
6.23 The scheme proposes soil screen moved within the extraction area which would be stored and used subsequently in the restoration of following established guidelines. The excavated soils would be re-employed for agricultural purposes, woodland and habitat creation and whilst there would be a removal of a relatively small proportion of best and versatile soils (Grade 2 and Sub Grade 3A) for a relatively short term period within the context of the soil resources of Burlescombe. This is a relatively small area and is considered only to have a minor impact. Defra has been consulted on this application but to date no response has been received.
7. Reasons for Recommendation/Alternative Options Considered
7.1 The Committee has the options of approving, refusing or deferring decision on this planning application. In this case there are a number of outstanding consultation responses and the requirement to clarify a number of issues which should be dealt with before the determination of the application.
7.2 Furthermore, it is considered that Members would benefit from carrying out a site visit which would allow them to assess the visual impact of the development, gain and appreciation of the impacts on residents fronting onto Gypsy Lane, assess the likely operational impacts on nearby residents, and examine the restoration works carried out so far at Town Farm Quarry.
Edward Chorlton
Electoral Division:
Local Government Act 1972
List of Background Papers
Contact for enquiries:
Room No:
Tel No:
Background Paper Date File Ref.
09/00141/DCC 20/01/09 Case File
md030409dca sn/town farm quarry 5 hq 070409 Appendix I To EEC/09/107/HQ
Planning Policy Considerations
In this case the most relevant Planning Policies are as follows:
Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10) (September 2001): Policies RE3 (Mineral Planning) and RE4 (Use and Supply of Aggregates).
Devon Structure Plan (2001-2016) (Adopted October 2004): Policies ST1 (Sustainable Development); CO1 (Landscape Character); CO8 (Archaeology); CO9 (Biodiversity Signs); CO13 (Protection of Water Resources and Flood Defence); CO14 (Conserving Agricultural Land); CO16 (Noise); and MN1 (Safeguarding Mineral Resources); MN2 (Environmental Effects of Mineral Working); MN4 (Mineral Working Areas) and MN5 (Aggregate Minerals).
Devon Minerals Local Plan (2004-2011): Policies MP13 and MP14 (Development and Mineral Consultation Areas); MP19 (County Contribution); MP20 (Landbanks); Policy MP22 (Extension to Mineral Working Areas for Aggregate and Mineral Development); MP23 (Mineral Developments as Extensions to Sites not Designated as Mineral Working Areas); MP41 (Development Control Considerations); MP43 (Transport of Minerals); MP44 (Agricultural Land); MP45 (Water Resource Protection) and MP56 (Restoration).
Mid Devon District Local Plan (Adopted July 2006): Policies ENV17 (Countryside Protection) and ENV7 (Archaeological Investigation)
Emerging Policy and other Policy documents which may be regarded as a material consideration include:
The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West 2006-2026 (June 2006): Policies RE10 (Supply of Aggregates and other Minerals) and RE11 (Maintaining a Landbank of Aggregates).
In preparing this Report regard has been had of relevant National, Planning Policy Guidance and Statements, in particular:
PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development); PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas); PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation); PPS12 (Creating Strong, Safe and Prosperous Communities through Local Spatial Planning); PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk); PPG16 (Archaeology and Planning); MPS1 (Planning and Minerals); MPS2 (Controlling and Mitigating Environmental Effects on Mineral Extraction); MPG2 (Applications, Permissions and Conditions); and MPG7 (Reclamation of Mineral Workings).