Wiltshire and Swindon
Local Development Framework
Aggregate Minerals Site Allocations Local Plan
Representations to assist the Examination Hearing
Issue 4: Site Allocations
Cox’s Farm
Saleem Shamash BSc (Hons) FRICS MRTPI
Marston Meysey Parish Meeting
October 2012
CONTENTS
1.
Qualifications and experience
3
2.
Cox’s Farm
4
3.
Safeguards Associated with the Restoration Scheme
5
4.
Safeguards from the Extraction Operations
8
5.
Safeguards Associated with Heavy Vehicle Movements
2
13
1.
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
1.1
I am Saleem Shamash, and since July 2006 have been a local resident of
Marston Meysey, a small village in the north part of Wiltshire towards the
Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire borders. I appear in the capacity as the
Marston Meysey Parish Meeting Minerals Representative. I set out my full
qualifications and experience in Appendix MMPM 1.
3
2.
Cox’s Farm
2.1
I have been in productive dialogue with the Council since I submitted the
original representations on behalf of the Marston Meysey Parish Meeting
dated 9 March 2012 in relation to Cox’s Farm. Since that time also, the
Government has replaced all previous minerals planning guidance notes
and statements with the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF)
and the accompanying Technical Guidance, which has a section on
Minerals Policy.
2.2
In setting out these representations, I refer to Table 1 of the Wiltshire and
Swindon Aggregate Minerals Site Allocations Plan – Dialogue following
proposed submission consultation (Document Reference Min/33) as this
summarises the position reached with the Council and the areas of
difference. I also refer to the NPPF and the Technical Guidance as
appropriate.
2.3
I divide these representations under three headings, which are then set
out in the following sections, i.e.:
• Safeguards associated with the Restoration Scheme Operations
• Safeguards from the Extraction Operation
• Safeguards associated with heavy vehicle movements
4
3.
Safeguards Associated with the Restoration Scheme Operations
3.1
Looking at Question 3 of Issue 4, it is possible that concerns about the
importation of inert landfill will be allayed if this is not allowed because of
the Source Protection Zone 1. However, Table 2.2 still provides
inadequate safeguards to ensure the prompt restoration of land in a way
that minimises the potential significant impacts.
3.2
The concerns held are reinforced by the evidence of what is occurring at
an existing operation at a site known as the Roundhouse Farm. This lies
south of the main village, although immediately adjacent to a few
dwellings and the Second Chance Touring and Residential Park. This site
is shown edged blue on the plan attached at Appendix MMPM 2.
3.3
In brief, a planning application was made in 2001 for the Roundhouse
Farm operation that was estimated to yield about 1.2 million tonnes. The
restoration scheme originally proposed lakes, but following objections from
the MoD this was changed to a reed bed scheme. The MoD still objected,
but the Council went ahead and granted planning permission. This was
issued in 2003, once a Section 106 Agreement had been completed and
was conditioned to prevent the importation of inert landfill.
3.4
Once the operation commenced, the operator experienced difficulty in
implementing the restoration scheme and applied to have this condition
removed. I attach as Appendix MMPM 3 the representations I submitted
on behalf of the Parish Meeting expressing concern about the resultant
uplift in HGV movements and suggesting a variation to the Section 106
Agreement. In discussion with the Case Officer, he made it clear that he
did not consider my suggestion could be justified against planning policy,
which by then included the adopted Core Strategy and Development
Control Polices. Permission was granted on 12 May 2010 (Ref:
N/10/00590/WCM), which allows therefore an increase in the impacts
5
associated with the site restoration, in particular noise and disturbance,
additional traffic conflict and wear and tear, with no mitigation.
3.5
In spite of this variation, the operator has still not been able to progress
restoration of the site in line with the phasing plan and so large areas of
water remain. These are attracting birds, including a flock of Canada
Geese, which increase the risk of bird strike with aircraft operating from
RAF Fairford. This is naturally a concern to local residents as an aircraft
could crash in our neighbourhood and it could be one carrying ordnance. It
is therefore clear that the planning permission granted and as varied is
failing to ensure prompt restoration and at the same time increasing the
risk of bird strike.
3.6
The operator has now submitted a planning application in relation to the
adjoining Whetstone Bridge Farm, which is edged red on the plan at
Appendix MMPM 2. The documentation submitted with this application
reveals that the operator wishes to combine operations and will be looking
to vary the approved restoration scheme at Roundhouse Farm. Details on
this have yet to be revealed.
3.7
It is clear from this that the adopted framework is not providing an effective
basis for ensuring proper site restoration and aftercare in phases linked to
the extraction operations. There is naturally a concern to avoid a similar
situation arising at Cox’s Farm, but this Plan as currently proposed does
not provide a sound basis. To make this Plan sound, it should remedy the
existing policy deficiencies, by specifying more definitive criteria on
phasing and methodology, including any associated operations such as
the importation of inert landfill. This would then provide a sound basis for
adequate control by way of planning condition or Section 106 Agreement.
3.8
I accordingly request the Inspector recommend such changes to make the
plan sound and emphasise that such an approach would ensure the plan
remains positive; is justified as a more appropriate strategy based upon
6
the evidence; would improve deliverability of both the mineral extraction
and the restoration and aftercare of the site; and accords with national
policy, for example:
• With reference to NPPF Paragraph 32, provide a basis against
which improvements could be undertaken within the transport
network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the
development.
• With reference to NPPF Paragraph 143, bullet six, help ensure
permitted operations do not have result in unacceptable adverse
impacts on the factors set out.
• With reference to NPPF Paragraph 143, bullet eight, ensure worked
land is reclaimed at the earliest opportunity, taking into account of
aviation safety, and that high quality restoration and aftercare of
mineral sites takes place.
• The plan would be more consistent with the Technical Guidance to
the NPPF including paragraphs 20 and 21. It would also provide a
sounder policy basis for imposing conditions consistent with the
guidance set out at paragraphs 36 onwards of the Technical
Guidance.
7
4.
Safeguards from the Extraction Operations
4.1
The Cox’s Farm site is the only proposed allocation that currently abuts
villages rather than the odd individual dwelling. The Council’s evidence
base justifies very clearly the need for this particular planning
circumstance to be properly reflected under this Plan.
4.2
With reference to the further detailed assessments set out in Documents
Min/12 – 17, there is a common theme that whatever the issue, there is a
need to safeguard the village of Marston Meysey. For example, see page
36 of the Noise Assessment at Min/13, and the Wiltshire Council
Conservation Team comments under Site Option U3 on Page 5 of the
Historic Built Environment Assessment at Min/16. Page 6 is a plan that
identifies the nearby listed buildings.
4.3
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, places
through Sections 66 and 72, a statutory requirement in making this Plan,
to have special regard /attention to the desirability of preserving the setting
of the listed buildings; and the character or appearance of any
Conservation Areas.
4.4
It is helpful therefore that there is greater recognition of these factors in
the Minor Modifications and that the Council officers accept both the
principle of a Zone of Sensitivity and the appropriateness of showing it on
the Proposals Map. This is consistent with the approach adopted
elsewhere, for example, in the Suffolk County Site Allocation Development
Plan Document, which was adopted in September 2009 and I attach an
example from this plan as Appendix MMPM 4.
4.5
Whilst this Plan was adopted before the NPPF, the approach is still
consistent with current national policy as explained further below.
4.6
The approach is also consistent with what is required under the Core
Strategy and the Development Control Policies. Looking at the Core
8
Strategy, Policy MSC 1: Linking the Strategy, Site Allocation DPDs and
Community Involvement requires the Council in preparing this plan to work
with stakeholders to ensure the issues associated with the development of
sites are identified and addressed at the earliest opportunity. The
evidence produced by the Council has identified the issues and the
specific site allocation presents the earliest opportunity to begin
addressing them.
4.7
Paragraph 5.76 of the Core Strategy goes on to indicate that all proposed
sites in this plan will be subject to the assessments required under Policy
MSC 8: Living with Minerals Development – Protecting Residential
Amenity. This refers specifically to maintaining an acceptable separation
from residential areas.
4.8
The Development Control Policies maintains this requirement on this plan.
Paragraph 1.4 makes it clear that the Development Control Policies will be
relevant to this plan preparation and refers specifically to the delineation of
allocated sites. Policy MDC2: Managing the impacts of minerals
development stating quite clearly (with my underlining):
“…Where the need for mitigation is identified by assessment and/or
through consultation with key stakeholders, mitigation measures should
be clearly defined and submitted as part of the development proposal,
where necessary incorporating appropriate separation distances to
safeguard residential amenity…”
4.9
In the course of dialogue with the Council, I submitted a plan consistent
with this policy framework, showing a proposed Zone of Sensitivity and
this is attached as Appendix 4 to Document Min/33. I add in passing that
the MMPM is a key stakeholder, especially in the new world of localism.
4.10
Having regard to paragraph 3.10 and the officer response set out in Table
1 of Min/33, under the sub heading Table 2.2 – Human Health and
9
Amenity, the officers accept the appropriateness of showing the Zone
protecting Marston Meysey, including the Old Spotted Cow, which is a pub
with a scenic garden and rooms, as well as a residence.
4.11
The officers do not however accept the proposal to incorporate a Zone
that also protects Dunfield to the east because they are concerned that
this would sterilise the resource potential of the site.
4.12
In my view, to ensure the plan is sound it is appropriate to incorporate a
Zone of Sensitivity to protect both Marston Meysey and Dunfield as similar
considerations apply. I refer again, for example, to the specific references
to Dunfield made by the Wiltshire County Conservation Team under Site
Option U3 in document Min/16. Referring again to the plan shown on
Page 6 this identifies the nearby listed buildings in Dunfield and like
Marston Meysey a large part of this settlement is also designated as a
Conservation Area. I venture to suggest that the key difference is that with
the exception of Cox’s Farm itself, Dunfield is in Gloucestershire and not
Wiltshire. The statutory requirement on co-operation introduced by the
Localism Act 2012 seeks to ensure cross boundary impacts are taken into
account and a Zone of Sensitivity protecting Dunfield would be satisfy that
statutory duty.
4.13
It was common ground at the Local Plan Inquiry into the old Minerals
Local Plan, that Cox’s Farm cannot be realistically restored back to
agriculture, without continuous pumping and nothing has changed to alter
that fact. It follows therefore that to satisfy the statutory duties to protect
the conservation areas and the listed buildings the operations have to be
set back, to preserve the agricultural setting of the listed buildings; and the
rural and quiet character and appearance of the conservation areas.
Taking into account other issues such as noise and residential amenity
issues the need for the Plan to show a Zone is reinforced further.
10
4.14
The Zone of Sensitivity can therefore be properly justified against the
evidence. In addition, a Zone is necessary to ensure effectiveness and as
explained above, consistency with the development plans higher up in the
hierarchy and the NPPF and the specific Technical Guidance.
4.15
Paragraph 20 of the Technical Guidance states at the outset of the
Section on Minerals Policy:
“As set out in the NPPF, minerals planning authorities are expected to
ensure that plan proposals do not have an unacceptable adverse effect
on the natural or historic environment or human health.”
4.16
The Council’s evidence base shows that without an adequate safeguard
zone the potential for unacceptable impacts on all these factors is high. It
follows in a plan led system that this must therefore be properly addressed
at this stage and that is best achieved by specifying a Zone on the
Proposals Map.
4.17
With regard to the NPPF, the third bullet of paragraph 145 makes it clear
that plans should provide “specific sites”. The requirement to make
provision for minerals development must also be deliverable. As the
Council’s own evidence points to real constraints associated with
developing up to the boundaries of Marston Meysey and Dunfield, so the
plan ought to identify those and the likely constraint on operations.
Otherwise the allocation will not be sufficiently specific and land will be
shown that is not truly available and cannot be effectively worked. This
would undermine the credibility, effectiveness and soundness of the Plan.
4.18
A Zone as suggested would also make the plan more effective, by giving
greater certainty to any operator and local residents, as to the realistic
extent to which the site could be developed.
4.19
Paragraph 157 of the NPPF also states:
11
“Crucially, Local Plans should:
• Identify land where development would be inappropriate, for
instance because of its environmental or historic significance”
4.20
The Council’s own evidence base demonstrates why for important
environmental and historic reasons a Zone of Sensitivity to protect both
Marston Meysey and Dunfield is a crucial requirement for this plan. I
therefore request the Inspector recommend the Council adopt this
approach. In so doing, I acknowledge that some further work may be
appropriate to better define the boundaries of any Zone, especially around
Dunfield. If it assists, I would be prepared to agree with the Council on the
ground an alternative plan to the one in Appendix 4 to Document Min/33
that could be submitted prior to the Inspector completing his report.
4.21
If as a consequence of the Plan having greater transparency on the
realistic extent of the available resource at Cox’s Farm, the Council’s
provision is low, then a realistic and sound option before the Council
would be to allocate the application land at Whetstone Bridge Farm that
also lies with the Mineral Safeguarding Area/Reserve Zone. This option
would have the added benefit of ensuring adequate criteria, for example,
related to highway issues are put in place to guide the determination of the
extant application.
12
5.
5.1
Safeguards Associated with Heavy Vehicle Movements
In Section 2, I explained the frustrations in seeking mitigation measures
linked to highway and transportation issues. I attach as Appendix MMPM
5 electronic correspondence with the Council about another proposal at
Alex Farm to the west of Marston Meysey towards Latton. As at
Roundhouse Farm, the Case Officer has not accepted my suggestions or
arguments pointing again to a lack of policy basis in the Core Strategy and
Development Control Policies and questioning also legality.
5.2
Without getting into the detail, I hope the Inspector can at least see how
the MMPM has tried to be constructive and imaginative in finding solutions
that can be properly reconciled with the regulatory framework,
notwithstanding the views on the Council’s Development Control Officers.
5.3
I appreciate the Minor Modifications put forward by the Council and I
understand their comments that some matters I have raised might be
better addressed at the planning application stage and I have reflected on
this matter further.
5.4
From the evidence, it is clear that the Council’s own Development Control
Section requires the Development Plan to provide a more effective basis
upon which to secure highway measures by way of planning agreement. If
anything, that basis is undermined in Table 2.2 by the use the words
“where considered appropriate in law” in the Traffic and Transportation
sub-section. This wording adds nothing to the plan as one can imply
generally that the Council would discharge its functions lawfully. The
wording serves only to suggest that to request financial contributions to
help address and mitigate highway impacts is somehow unlawful, which is
incorrect.
13
5.5
I therefore request the Inspector remove this wording as unsound. To
make the Plan sound I also suggest the following wording, so that the Plan
can be used to properly secure the likely highway mitigation measures as
may be required:
“To
ensure
adequate
highway
mitigation
measures
and
improvements are implemented, the Council will impose planning
conditions or require a Section 106 Agreement where necessary to:
• Control HGV routing
• Improve the standard of the C124 and C116 and reduce
conflict with other road users, such as cyclists
• Make an annual or commuted payment to contribute
towards damage caused by excessive wear and tear
• Make a contribution towards improvements to the
C124/116 junction with the A419, to create an all
movements junction
Planning agreements may have to allow for the possibility of
cumulative impacts and so where appropriate any contribution may
be contingent upon the relevant highway authority letting a contract
for the works.
5.6
This alternative wording is justified on the evidence, is consistent with
national policy and would greatly improve the effectiveness of the plan,
whilst still providing a positive framework. I appreciate that to make the
Plan consistent this change would have to carry across to the other
allocated sites, but regard this as a necessary benefit in view of the
potential for cumulative highway impacts.
14
APPENDIX MMPM 1
Qualifications and Experience
1.1
I am Saleem Shamash and hold an Honours degree in Estate
Management and am a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors and a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I have
over 25 years experience in town planning and have held senior positions
in the Planning Departments of major firms of Chartered Surveyors.
1.2
I have appeared as an expert witness and as an advocate at many public
inquiries and hearings. I have also prepared expert reports for the Courts
in relation to landlord and tenant proceedings and other matters. Clients I
have represented have included the Ministry of Defence, the Commission
for New Towns, the Prudential Assurance Group, Taylor Woodrow and
Orange Personal Communications Ltd.
1.3
I am currently the National Town Planning Manager of Arqiva, a major
electronic communications company that amongst other things owns and
operates the UK terrestrial television broadcast network. I have therefore
been responsible for securing all planning permissions across the 1,154
sites that comprise the television broadcast network, necessary to
facilitate Digital Switchover. In my current role, I have submitted evidence
published by a Trade and Industry Select Committee and appeared before
an All Party Group Hearing. I have also been on the Government Working
Group that prepared my industry Code of Best Practice and I drafted the
specialist guidance on Mobile Phone Masts that appears on the Planning
Portal.
1.4
Whilst minerals are not my specialist field, I am nonetheless well versed in
the operation of planning law and policy and through my work understand
the difficulty in balancing often competing objectives. That said, I did
appear before the Inspector in relation to the Wiltshire and Swindon
Minerals Core Strategy (Core Strategy). I was able to reach a satisfactory
position through discussion with the Council Officers on issues around the
Wiltshire
and
Swindon
Minerals
Development
Control
Policies
(Development Control Policies). I did not therefore have to attend the
hearing into that document. For a period I sat on a Liaison Group
established with the Council and the operator of workings at Roundhouse
Farm, just south of Marston Meysey. This latter involvement gave me a
good insight into the practical issues associated with operations in this
area, especially around site restoration and the level of protection afforded
through planning conditions.
1.5
In presenting these further representations I would like to thank the
officers of the Council, who made themselves available to hold
discussions with me and other local residents. Although I am attending
this hearing, their pragmatic and open approach, which culminated in the
Schedule of Proposed Minor Modifications arising from the proposed
submission consultation and ongoing dialogue with stakeholders June/July
2012 (the Minor Modifications), has at least greatly narrowed the issues
between us.
KEY
/2
A/9
BD
N
BOUNDARY:
APPLICATION SITE
(GLOUCESTERSHIRE AND
WILTSHIRE)
1/1
BDA/1
1/2
BDA/1
BOUNDARY:
OTHER LAND IN THE
APPICANTS CONTROL
MMEY5
MMEY9
EY6
MM
PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
SCHEDULED ANCIENT
MONUMENT (S.A.M)
MINERAL CONSULTATION
AREA
(GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY
COUNCIL)
MINERAL
SAFEGUARDING AREA/
RESERVE ZONE
Quarry
(ADOPTED WILTSHIRE &
SWINDON MINERALS CORE
STRATEGY)
DAVID JARVIS ASSOCIATES
planning development
landscape environment
DAVID JARVIS ASSOCIATES LIMITED
1 Tennyson Street Swindon Wiltshire SN1 5DT
Tel: 01793 612173
Fax: 01793 613625
Email: mail@davidjarvis.biz
Client
MORETON C CULLIMORE
(GRAVELS) LTD
Project
LAND AT WETSTONE BRIDGE
FARM PROPOSED SAND &
GRAVEL QUARRY
Drawing Title
APPLICATION SITE & CONTEXT
Date
Scale
1:10000 AT A3
SCALE
0
100m
Drawing No.
250m
500m
MARCH 2012
FIGURE 2
APPENDIX MMPM 3
From: saleem Shamash [mailto:saleem.shamash@virgin.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:16 PM
To: 'mari.webster@wiltshire.gov.uk'; 'Day, Jason'
Cc: 'andrew.c.n.brand@btinternet.com'; 'Colmer, Peter'; 'Harry Seaton BT Internet'
Subject: Application Ref: N/09/01589/WCM - Alex Farm
Dear Mari and Jason
It was a pleasure to meet you both at the offices of Cricklade Town Council on 3 November 2010.
The matters we discussed crossed over to the above application on which further information has
been submitted and is being consulted upon. I would like to respond to this on behalf of the
Marston Meysey Parish Meeting with focus in particular on the highway issues.
Road Improvements
A – The A419 Junction
In our original response dated 7 October 2009, we did seek the completion of an all movements
junction between the C124 and the A419. Whilst noting the position of the Highways Agency and
the assertion that the trigger point would not be reached by this or other existing operations, we
remain concerned that the Council has not to date been able to properly explain when this might
occur, having regard also to the other sites that may be allocated for mineral extraction and could
therefore also come on stream in the life of this development.
We continue to explore this with the Highways side of the Council, but for the time being still
believe that this development should be subject to a Section 106 obligation to make a future
contribution to these works in the event that the trigger point is reached and a contract is let
following the usual statutory process. This would ensure a strategic approach towards the
provision of this infrastructure as recognised as important in paragraph 4.9 of PPS 12 and fulfil
the requirements of Policy MDC8 of your adopted Minerals Development Control Policies
(MDCP) that indicates minerals development will only be allowed where it is demonstrated that
the proposals facilitate sustainable transport by:
•
•
•
Minimising transportation distances…
Ensuring a proposal has a direct access or has suitable links with the Wilshire HGV
Route Network or primary route network…
Mitigating or compensating for any adverse impact on the safety, capacity and use of
a highway…through improvements to the appropriate network where necessary.
An obligation of this nature would satisfy the relevant tests that are set out in Chapter 2 of your
MDCP, which echo the advice set out in Circular 05/2005 – Planning Obligations. In addition I
draw particular attention to the clear guidance in Paragraphs B21 onwards of the Circular that
refer to the need in cases like this for the provision of pooled contributions to allow for specific
future provision of infrastructure improvements.
In short such an obligation would:
•
Be necessary to allow for the specific future provision of infrastructure in a fair and
equitable way consistent with the policy criteria of a recently adopted LDF document
and national policy guidance
•
•
•
It is directly related to the proposed development which will generate a high
volume of heavy traffic movements even if on their own they do not justify any
junction improvements from the outset
With proper assessment a level of potential contribution could be assessed and
agreed with the developer to ensure that it is fairly and reasonably related in
scale and kind to the proposed development
Be reasonable in all other respects, because the obligation would not be triggered
unless the cumulative traffic volumes justified it at a future date.
We trust with this fuller explanation of our position properly reconciled with your adopted policies
and national guidance you will reconsider this request favourably.
B – The Bend at Sheeppen Bridge
As we indicated to you we wish to explore with your Highway colleagues the straightening of the
bend at Sheeppen Bridge, i.e. at the first set of traffic lights on the C124 from the A419 junction.
We envisage this would be done by taking advantage of the S.106 Agreement that applies to
Roundhouse Farm and so would not be an obligation we seek through the Alex Farm
development.
However, in conjunction with this we believe it would be appropriate to create a traffic light
controlled junction at the Alex Farm site entrance that could be timed to operate only when the
quarry is open and triggered by vehicles waiting to access or egress the site. We regard this as
an appropriate measure bearing in mind that the bulk of the loaded lorries leaving the site will be
making a right hand turn across the carriageway. The provision of such access arrangements
would therefore be a matter for the Alex Farm development and accordingly a matter that we also
request through a Section 106 obligation, pending the outcome of our discussions with your
Highway colleagues.
Wear and tear
It is very obvious that the heavy aggregate lorries cause an undue amount of wear and tear to the
public highway, especially surfaces like the C124 and C116, which are essentially rural roads
designed and constructed to support lighter traffic movements in terms of weight and volume.
These roads are in an almost constant state of disrepair and although just recently the subject of
works now have an unsatisfactory uneven patchwork surface that looks unlikely to survive past
the oncoming winter. By contrast similar roads that are not generally used by aggregate lorries
remain in largely good condition.
It is therefore reasonable that some form of wear and tear obligation be entered into, possibly via
a S.106 agreement and this is something which your Service Director for Strategic Services
(Highways & Passenger Transport) concurs with.
To ensure that such an obligation satisfies the relevant tests we suggest a tariff be agreed per
lorry movement.
Traffic routing
We note that the developer is prepared to enter into a traffic routing agreement to avoid Latton
and make use of the A419 junction to Cricklade to the south. However, we do not consider this
would be possible to control this by way of planning condition – not least because there would be
significant problems with enforcement. The principal tools available to the Council, i.e. a Breach
of Condition Notice or an Enforcement Notice would not be able to cater with the occasional lorry
passing through Latton, because at the time of service the breach would have quite literally
passed and in the case of the former would the Council really prosecute and in the latter what
could the Council do to ensure future compliance that would be proportionate? In addition, using
either notice would open up the potential for challenging the validity of the condition, possibly
through the Courts or on appeal against an enforcement notice, through lack of enforceability.
It is also difficult to see how this can be addressed through a Planning Agreement, as the
problem with enforceability is largely due to the feasibility of being able to successfully achieve
the traffic routing i.e. how in practice can all HGV’s be properly controlled, monitored and
prevented from passing through Latton.
National guidance is very clear on this. Paragraph C9 of Annex C of Minerals Planning Guidance
2 – Applications, Permissions and Conditions states:
(b) Lorry routes
C9. Offers are sometimes made by mineral operators to restrict their lorries to particular
routes. Such schemes have sometimes proved successful but not all lorries calling at a
site are likely to be in the control of the operator and in law a planning condition cannot
control the right of passage over public highways. Some measure of control may result
from a condition requiring the posting of a notice at the site exit requesting all drivers
either to use or avoid particular routes. Highway authorities have powers under the Road
Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to make traffic regulation orders to prevent the use of certain
roads by unsuitable types of traffic for example heavy commercial vehicles. But such
orders, which might restrict by weight or size, would apply to all traffic in prohibited class
irrespective of its origin or destination since it would be impracticable to distinguish
vehicles visiting a particular site. If there is serious doubt whether local roads can
accommodate such increase in heavy traffic as the proposed development is likely to
generate, then, unless improvements are made or there is convincing evidence that
control of traffic is feasible, planning permission may have to be refused.
The generality of this advice applies irrespective of whether a planning condition or planning
agreement is proposed and this clearly recognises problems with feasibility.
At the very least such an agreement would have to be backed with the installation of number
plate recognition cameras at the site entrance and on the road to Latton and to underpin
enforcement a punitive level of fines for any breaches. Such a system would also enable the
proper levy of the wear and tear tariff that your Service Director supports.
Turning the point around you will appreciate that any planning permission issued that is deficient
in this regard would be open to successful judicial review.
I trust you will take these further representations into account and no doubt I shall add to them
following dialogue with the Highway side of your Council.
In the meantime, if you would like to discuss anything further, please do not hesitate to contact
me on 07973 430768.
Yours sincerely
Saleem Shamash BSc (Hons) FRICS MRTPI
Marston Meysey Parish Meeting
Site 12 & 12A: Timworth
Proposer: Ampton Hall Estates
Area: 98.8 ha (combined)
Estimated resource: 2.5mt
1
Overview and Sustainability Appraisal
1.1
Area 12 is identified in the Adopted Minerals Local Plan as an ‘Area of
Search’, Area 12A has been put forward in addition.
1.2
This would be a new site; there is no existing infrastructure in place.
1.3
There are no national landscape designation constraints, but area 12A abuts
a Special Landscape Area to the north.
1.4
There are no international or national nature conservation designation
constraints. Timworth Wet Meadow County Wildlife Site lies 170 metres to the
north east.
1.5
Access would need to be to the B1106 and A134. Area 12A would best be
linked by a conveyor running under the intervening unclassified road.
Conveyor transportation of aggregate throughout the site would be preferred
in order to minimise dust and noise (SA objective 13 - minimise noise and SA
objective 18 - efficient movement).
1.6
The old railway line is a strong and important physical feature in the
landscape and the footpath through the site could be diverted along the route
of the old railway line. The land between the old railway and the A134 should
be left as an unworked amenity/buffer area
1.7
The presence of cropmarks means that the site should be subject to
archaeological evaluation (SA objective 4- archaeology).
1.8
Core Strategy Policy 4 requires consideration of the cumulative impact that
any new working might have in association with other nearby workings. The
existing Timworth Quarry is expected to become exhausted in 2014 and it is
considered that this new site should only come on stream when that site has
been worked out. There are visual, hydrological and highway issues relevant
to the cumulative impact of this area being worked concurrently with the
existing quarry.
1.9
Restoration of the site would be to agriculture, grassland, water and woodland
with potential for biodiversity. To avoid any possible dangers of bird-strike,
any water areas would need to be designed not to be attractive to wading
birds.
2
Environmental Safeguards
1.1
Green Farmhouse is located at the northern end of the western portion of the
site and is Grade II listed. Proposals to work the site, including final
restoration, will need to safeguard the setting.
2.2
Based on the geology at the nearby quarry, it is expected that this site would
need to be dewatered in order in win aggregate. The potential impact of
28
dewatering on the nearby County Wildlife Site should be assessed for
hydrological impact; there may also be potential impact on licensed
groundwater abstraction points.
3
Buffer Protection Areas
3.1
Buffer strips are necessary around the site to protect residential amenity of
properties on the northern and north-western boundaries. Advance planting
and/or screen bunds would influence the necessary extent of these margins.
3.2
It is proposed that the old railway line and strip of land lying immediately to
the west and adjoining the A134 should not be worked. This area should be
subject to extensive tree planting.
4
Conclusions
4.1
This site has similar physical characteristics to the existing Timworth Quarry
before it was worked. Accordingly, the development of this site would likely
result in a similar significant change to the character of the landscape, but
nevertheless one which could successfully introduce trees, water and
biodiversity to the site (SA objectives 7 and 8- biodiversity and landscape).
4.2
The cumulative impact of mineral working is relevant to the commencement
date for this site. Having regard to the remaining life of the existing quarry, it
is not expected that this site would be worked until 2014.
29
30
APPENDIX MMPM 5
Stonewold House
Marston Meysey
Wiltshire
SN6 6LQ
18 March 2010
The Area Development Manager
Wiltshire Council
Development Services
Bradley Road
TROWBRIDGE
Wiltshire
BA14 0RD
For the Attention of David Rose
Dear Sir
APPLICATION NO: N/10/00590/WCM
Roundhouse Farm Quarry, Eastern Spine Road, Marston Meysey, Wiltshire
Further to your letter dated 16 February 2010, seeking views from the Marston Meysey
Parish Meeting (MMPM) on the above application by 18 March 2010, I set out our
response, together with comments on the details submitted in respect of the discharge of
Conditions 37, 39 and 40.
If I can clarify at the outset that the MMPM welcomes the continued commitment by the
operator to implement the reed bed restoration scheme as largely permitted by the
original consent dated 3 July 2003. However, we do have a number of detailed comments
and concerns, which are set out below.
Condition 2
The operator is now implementing the variation to the original planning permission,
which was permitted by decision notice dated 22 December 2009. Condition 2 of this
planning permission details the approved drawings, which are now proposed to be varied.
From the Informative attached to this permission it is clear that any such amendments
require the prior approval of the Council. For the avoidance of doubt in the future, this
formality must therefore be carried out. Condition 2 also deals with the phasing of
operations and the progressive restoration of the site. In its original form the condition
1
made reference to the Environmental and Supporting Statements which set this out. It
would be therefore be helpful and appropriate if the plans could also be accompanied by
a schedule setting out the sequence and anticipated timing of what is now proposed or
cross referenced to the accompanying statement dated 22 January 2010.
Definition of Inert Fill
If Condition 28 is varied to allow the importation of inert fill, it is necessary to properly
define this within any replacement or new condition, or possibly through an Informative.
The definition set out in the Glossary of Terms in the Adopted Waste Core Strategy DPD
might provide a suitable form of wording or alternatively as might be supplied or
required by the Environment Agency.
Quantum of Infill
To minimise any associated impacts, it is necessary to limit the importation of any infill
to what is reasonably necessary to achieve the restoration scheme. This should therefore
be regulated by way of condition requiring the Council’s approval at each successive
phase, possibly in consultation with the Cotswold Water Park.
Hydrology
There is considerable local concern about the implications for flood risk. The importation
of inert fill and the clay lining required to restore the canal is perceived as likely to affect
hydrology. We trust the Council will, in consultation with the Environment Agency, have
proper regard to any potential implications for wider land drainage and flood risk.
In addition, we are very concerned that any management scheme should be practical and
capable of proper long term maintenance. Indeed, we are particularly concerned to avoid
a scenario whereby a scheme is allowed that may work in theory, but then cannot cope
with silting and is not designed for ease of maintenance. There is no doubt that the
flooding that took place in July 2007 was made very much worse by the lack of
maintenance of the drainage system and this in part was a function of the inaccessibility
of vital elements.
We are aware that this is a concern that has been raised directly with your Land Drainage
Section which has advised the operator that a maintainable watercourse should remain in
position due to the future inability to maintain a wide open reed bed by mechanical
means. Hence, your Council has indicated that a flow path is needed between the
highway and the River Thames to enable access in the event of an emergency and to
allow de-silting. We trust therefore that this will be properly addressed with the operator
and the details amended accordingly.
2
Highways
It has long been established in national and local policy that development should
effectively fund highway improvements necessary to facilitate the scheme and any future
maintenance. That principle was applied in relation to the Roundhouse Quarry when
originally approved as evidenced by the Section 106 Agreement dated 3 July 2003.
Since then, the town planning legislation and emerging policy guidance has moved to
ensure this principle is applied more extensively to avoid the unnecessary burden that
otherwise falls on the public purse, which for minor roads is held at Council level. At this
level, the Council’s Mineral’s Development Control Policies DPD, as adopted in
September 2009 also provides clear guidance through Policy MDC8 and its reasoned
justification. Paragraph 6.9 and the footnote in particular refer to the appropriateness and
mechanisms for seeking costs to maintain highways that may be damaged by excessive
weight or other extraordinary traffic.
When originally approved, it was estimated that the Roundhouse Quarry would yield
around 1.2 million tonnes. The consequential highway obligations set out in the Section
106 agreement provided for:
•
The creation of a new access into the site and a commuted sum in respect of its
future maintenance for the duration of the operations – this obligation, which was
only necessary to serve the development itself, has been completed and we
understand a commuted payment made
•
The provision of a bond in the sum of £240,000 that would be payable with
interest at any time up to the completion of the extraction operations for
improvements to the C124 to secure the realignment to the Eysey Bends and/or
Sheppen Bridge and/or Gally Leaze Bridge – the bond has presumably been
made, but it is not evident that any of these works have been carried out since the
commencement of development. The development therefore still carries an
extensive financial liability for these potential highway improvements that were
intended to address the wider highway impacts of the development.
At local level, the MMPM would not want the improvements to the C124 carried out as
the existing bends and traffic lights provide necessary traffic calming, but would prefer
an alternative and more appropriate obligation to be sought.
Based upon the applicants figures they estimate that they require 246,405 cubic metres of
fill or using their conversion rate 492,810 tonnes. This represents just over 40% of 1.2
million tonnes. The applicants assess that at best only half this amount would be brought
to site by lorries already coming to pick up minerals, although at worst this could be as
low as 20%.
On the figures they supply, the worst case scenario equates to 64 additional lorry
movements per working day, which would be a significant increase on the current traffic
3
generation. This very obviously represents excessive weight and extraordinary traffic so
triggering the local policy requirements referred to above.
This is especially the case as the C124 has long been recognised as having inadequacies.
This has most recently been referred to in Paragraph 5.85 of the Minerals Core Strategy
DPD as adopted in June 2009. Even if the capacity of the C124 could accommodate such
an increase in strict highway safety terms, there would inevitably be greater noise
generation and increased conflict with other road users, including cars, cyclists and horse
riders.
In addition, it is clear that the C124 cannot cope physically with the demands placed upon
it as it is in a near constant state of disrepair that is an obvious draw on the Council’s
scarce resources.
Given this potential increase in lorry movements and the fact that the development
already has a potential and large liability in respect of highway works with little local
support, we consider the Section 106 Agreement should be varied or replaced as follows:
•
The developer be released from the bond and the requirement to fund the
improvements to the C124 as specified in the current S.106 Agreement
•
In place the imposition of a wear and tear obligation, either by way of an agreed
commuted payment or a tariff based upon lorry movements over and above an
agreed figure.
Such an arrangement would have the advantage of bringing the original highway
obligations up to date, providing an added incentive on the operator for minimising
potential lorry movements and providing some financial assistance to the Council
towards the costly and continual process of maintaining the C124.
I hope this response is helpful towards your determination of the application and details
before you, but if you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Saleem Shamash BSc (Hons) FRICS MRTPI
For and on behalf of the Marston Meysey Parish Meeting
4