Date of Meeting: 21st June 2006
Reference No:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
Date Received:
Case Officer:
Recommendation:
Parish/Ward: Horton Agenda No. 02
Parish Council
04/01716/FULL
Full
Extraction of sand and gravel from Poyle Quarry
extension with restoration to agriculture and access
onto Poyle Road
Land West Of Colne Brook Foundry Lane Horton Slough
Berkshire
RMC South East
Wyn Thomas Gordon Lewis Ltd
14th December 2004
Paul Butt
REF
Planning Context:
Preferred area for mineral extraction
and for waste disposal using
engineered landfill (this is a landfill
site whose sides are made
impermeable so that it can be used
for the tipping of non-inert waste) in
the Minerals Local Plan; and
Green Belt.
Sustainable Development Implications:
Areas helps to
required levels of aggregates
Extraction
from
Preferred
maintain
provision without disturbing areas which
have not been identified for future
extraction.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Structure Plan –
Policies M1, M2, M5, W1, W2 and W3;
Minerals Local Plan -
Policies 3,4,6,7,8,18 and 20;
Waste Local Plan - Policies WLP1 , 2,3,4,11, 25,26, 27 and 30; and
Local Plan
2.
GB1 and GB2
Previous Relevant Decisions
There are no previous relevant decisions on the application site,
although
applications for minerals extraction on land to the east of the site have
been
approved as follows:
470508 -
the extraction of sand and gravel with restoration to a lake
was approved in 1998; and
02/882570 - the extraction of sand and gravel with restoration to a lake
on
land to south of approved 470508 was also approved in
2003.
An application for the retention of the existing processing plant and the
formation of a new access at Poyle Quarry (all within Slough Borough)
is currently before Slough Borough Council.
3.
The Highway Authority
The Highway Officer’s response is awaited.
reported as
Late Observations.
4.
Any response will be
Neighbour Notification Responses
Only one response has been received expressing concerns over added
disturbance and noise in the area; the increase of lorry traffic on the
local roads; possible health impacts from dust; that part of the site
should be left in its agriculture state; and that they would actively
discourage any development for a quarry.
5.
Horton Parish Council
6.
Horton Parish Council raise no objection subject to the approval by
Slough Borough Council of the application for the retention of the
existing processing plant and the formation of a new access (all within
Slough Borough and currently before Slough Borough Council), and
the transportation of any material between this site and the Kingsmead
Quarry, through Horton village, being prevented (the two sites would be
worked by the same operator).
.
Berkshire Archaeology
Berkshire Archaeology have considered the results of an
archaeological evaluation report, including trial trenching) that was
commissioned by the applicant from Wessex Archaeology. Berkshire
Archaeology advise that the report confirms that a number of
archaeological remains dating to the later Prehistoric period (the
Bronze Age, Iron Age and the Romano-British periods) survive on the
site, representing the managed landscape that may include settlement,
agriculture and ritual use. Berkshire Archaeology further advise that
these important remains will require a detailed mitigation strategy to
ensure that they are either preserved in situ where possible or by
recording. This matter can be covered by condition.
7.
BAA (Heathrow Airport (safeguarding) )
BAA raise no objections subject to a condition.
8.
English Nature
English Nature object as no assessment has been made of the
potential impact of the proposal on the SW London Waterbodies
Special Protection Area, nor on the Wraysbury and Hythe End Gravel
Pits and Wraysbury No1 Gravel Pit SSSI’s.
9.
Environment Agency
The Environment Agency object as insufficient information has been
provided with the application.
10
Joint Strategic Planning Unit
The JSPU raise no objection subject to conditions.
11
Ramblers Association
The Ramblers Association emphasise the need for the highest
standards of restoration and after use recreation provision. Some
detailed suggestions are made.
12.
Slough Borough Council
Slough Borough Council raise concerns relating to a range of drainage,
hydrological and hydrogeological issues; the omission of part of
Preferred Area 12 from the application (a part which is in Slough
Borough); impacts on footpath users; and impacts on residential
properties in parts of nearby Colnbrook.
13
Three Valleys Water
Three Valleys Water object over the potential impact of the proposal on
an underground water supply tunnel.
14.
RBWM Drainage
The Drainage Officer raises concern over possible increase to risks of
flooding in the area, or downstream And advises that no dewatering
should take place during flooding events in the lower Colne catchment
area.
15.
Environmental Protection Unit
The Environmental Protection Unit raise no objection subject to
conditions.
16
Landscape
The Landscape Officer comments on the apparent absence of a tree
survey and of identified landscape benefits arising from the proposal.
17
Rights of Way
The Rights of Way Officer objects as the proposal would be detrimental
to the character and enjoyment of the new footpath alongside the
Colne Brook and of Horton Bridleway No. 4. No attempt has been
made to address the impact of the haul route on the new footpath and
the Minerals Local Plan requirements for restoration have not been
met.
18
Ecology Advisers (Jacobs Babtie)
Detailed ecological comments are made over matters omitted from the
applicants’ ecological assessment; the lack of measures for ensuring
protection of the site’s ecological value; and the need for an
Environmental Management Plan. It has however been established
that there is no need for the applicant to undertake a survey of the site
to establish the presence or otherwise of Greta Crested Newts.
REMARKS
Note: Members are advised that a weighty submission of documents
were received just prior to this report being written and that there
is likely to be some considerable Late Observations to make at
the Panel meeting as there was insufficient time to digest the
contents of the submission prior to the closing deadline for the
agenda. This is unfortunate timing, particularly given the length
of time that the applicant’s have had to respond to the Council’s
requests for further information. However, it is considered
beneficial that both this application and those on the adjoining
site and at Kingsmead are considered on the same agenda.
1.
The Site and Surroundings
The application site is a flat generally open area of 21. 5 Ha of
agricultural land lying to the north east of Horton. It is bounded by the
south by the farm complex of buildings at Berkyn Manor Farm, to the
east by areas of recent mineral extraction (now restored to lakes), to
the north by the Borough boundary with Slough, and to the west by the
Colne Valley Way. A small strip of land across the worked mineral area
is also included as part of the application site to provide a haul route as
far as the RBWM’s administrative boundary. Mineral extracted from the
site would be taken via this haul route to an existing processing plant in
Slough Borough Council’s administrative boundary and out through a
new site access on to Poyle Road (also in Slough). A separate
application, that is as yet undetermined, has been submitted to Slough
Borough Council for the retention of the processing plant and the
formation of the new site access onto Poyle Road.
2.
The southern boundary of the site is some 400m at its closed point
from the Stanwell Road. Apart from the dwellings at Berkyn Manor
Farm, the nearest houses to the site within the RBWM are in Foundary
Lane, some 300m to the south. The north-west corner of the site
adjoins the southern end of Drift Road in Colnbrook with Slough at a
distance of some 20-30m from the nearest dwelling.
3.
Land immediately to the west of the site is subject to a current
application 06/00588 for mineral extraction, the subject of a separate
report on this agenda. These two sites are in two different ownerships
and would be worked by two different mineral operators.
4.
The application site forms part of Preferred Area 12 in the Minerals
Local Plan (MLP) and of Preferred Area 25 in the Waste Local Plan
(WLP). The MLP designation has established the extent of the site and
the principle of the gravel extraction from the site subject to various
detailed requirements being satisfied. The WLP identifies the site for
engineered landfill (this is a landfill site whose sides are made
impermeable so that it can be used for the tipping of non-inert waste).
5.
The site is not the subject of any landscape or nature conservation
designations. Approximately 60% of the agriculture land within the
application site is classified as best and most versatile land, Grade 3a,
with the remainder being Grade 3b.
The Proposal
6.
The proposal seeks permission for the extraction of approximately
800,000 tonnes of sand and gravel, to be worked at an average rate of
some 150,000 tonnes per year. All extracted material would be taken to
the existing processing plant at Poyle Quarry and would then leave the
quarry via the proposed new access on to Poyle Road. Following
extraction the site would be filled with inert waste and would be
progressively restored to agriculture of the same clarification as exists
as present.
7.
To facilitate drainage the restored land would take the form of a small
dome with its summit towards the northern end of the site. The summit
height would be around 21.25m AOD, sloping to just under 20m on the
northern edge of the boundary and toaround 19m on the southern
edge. Current levels on the site range between 18 and 20m AOD.
8.
It is proposed to work the site in a series of phases, starting in the
north-eastern part of the site and moving generally anti-clockwise to
finish in the south. Phase 2 would involve extraction in the area closest
to the houses in Colnbrook where the extraction works would be pulled
back from the boundary so that it would take place no closer than 80m
from the nearest dwelling in Drift Way. A 3m high soil bund would be
erected around the north-west corner of the working area to provide
visual and noise screening to nearby residents. This bund would be
extended approximately halfway along the western boundary of the site
(alongside the Colne Valley Way) whilst a similar bund would also be
erected along the northern boundary of the site (roughly along the
RBWM /Slough boundary). Although the proposed bund does not
extend the full length of the site’s western boundary (alongside the
Colne Valley Way as there is insufficient soils within the site to allow
this), the submitted plans indicate that no working would take place
within approximately 20m of the Colne Valley Way at any point.
9.
The applicant advises that the proposed restoration scheme has been
designed to ensure that the site can be returned to agricultural use in a
similar fashion to that which is currently employed using imported inert
infill materials and the re-spreading of the stored soils. No areas of new
planting are shown in the restoration scheme. The applicant further
advises that the creation of any new nature conservation features has
been rejected following consultation with the British Airports Authority.
10.
The application is supported by an Environmental Statement.
Main Planning Issues
11.
The main planning issues in determining the application are considered
to be (in no particular order of priority):
(i)
the policy issues deriving from the Minerals and Waste Local
(ii)
the availability of the inert filling material proposed in the
quantities
and at the time required for the phased restoration of the site;
Plans;
12.
(iii)
the cumulative impact of potentially three minerals workings
(land to the east of Horton Road, Kingsmead Quarry and this
application site) operating simultaneously;
(iv)
the drainage of the site, including the impact of any changes to
the groundwater, and the impact on flooding in the area;
(v)
the impact of noise, dust and other potential sources of pollution
on local residential amenity; and
(vi)
planting and restoration issues.
Members are advised that traffic generation issues are not identified as
a main issue because the site access is in Slough BC. This is because
minerals extracted from the site would be taken via a haul route across
the administrative boundary between the RBWM and Slough Bourough
Council, on to an existing processing plant in Slough Borough Council’s
administrative boundary and out through a new site access on to Poyle
Road (also in Slough). A separate application, that is as yet
undetermined, has been submitted to Slough Borough Council for the
retention of the processing plant and the formation of the new site
access onto Poyle Road. The issue of the suitability of the access to
serve the traffic generated, the environmental impacts of that traffic
generation, and the routing of HGV’s is therefore a matter that is more
properly dealt with in that application.
Appraisal of Main Planning Issues
(i) Policy issues
13.
14.
Preferred Area 12 was designated as such in the MLP following a
lengthy Public Inquiry in 1993 at which the issues of the principle and
overall suitability of the site for the extraction of sand and gravel were
considered. Under MLP Policy 8, there is a presumption in favour of
allowing mineral extraction at the site so long as:
(a)
an acceptable balance is struck between the need for the
extraction and all relevant environmental, agricultural, amenity
and other relevant planning considerations;
(b)
the details of the proposal
requirements of the Plan; and
(c)
the proposal has full regard to the detailed requirements for the
individual Preferred Areas as set out in the MLP.
satisfy
the
other
detailed
The JSPU has raised no objection to the need to extract the minerals
from the application site. Their comments on application 06/00588
(also reported on this agenda) indicate that there is a need for further
planning permissions for mineral extraction in the Berkshire area in
order to maintain the land bank at the appropriate level derived from
national and regional policies. This same argument would also apply to
the present application site.
15.
The MLP contains an extensive set of detailed requirements for
Preferred Area 12 that are designed to ensure that proper account is
taken of all the relevant environmental and other issues relating to the
extraction of sand and gravel from the site. They are grouped under
headings that approximately match the list of main planning issues
identified above.
16.
The policy issues include consideration of those designed to minimise
the wider impact of mineral extraction in an area where other permitted
extraction sites already exist. In particular, the MLP seeks to ensure
that working does not take place simultaneously on land within
Preferred Area 12 which lies immediately south of the village; that
working of Preferred Area 12 would not unreasonably prolong
extraction and restoration operations at the existing Kingsmead site;
and that not more than one active mineral extraction operation will be
permitted within Preferred Area 12 at any one time.
17.
None of these three issues is directly addressed in the current
submission. Potentially the most significant may be the last of the
three, given that the Council is now currently faced with two separate
new applications for working within Preferred Area 12, and both
looking to commence extraction without delay. These two applications
are from separate mineral companies and reflect the differences in land
ownership within Preferred Area 12. It is understood from discussion
with the applicants that they consider the two applications to be
capable of being worked independently of one another and that there is
no realistic prospect at this time of securing a unified scheme for the
working of Preferred Area 12 as a single scheme.
18.
The applicant has been invited to make submissions as to why they
consider that the MLP provisions regarding only one active working in
Preferred Area 12 should be set aside, or alternatively why extraction
from their part of the site should be given precedence over extraction
from the other. The same invitation has also been made to the
applicant in the eastern part of Preferred Area 12 on land to the east
of Horton Road under application ref. 06/00588. To date no such
submissions have been received from either applicant and therefore
the Council needs to make a judgement, if it is able to, on whether the
cumulative impact of two separate minerals workings operating
concurrently would have a significantly harmful impact.
19.
The Joint Strategic Planning Unit has raised no issue concerning the
proposal to restore the site using inert waste, rather than using noninert waste, which could be allowed under the provision of the WLP.
(ii)
The availability of inert infill material
20.
With increasing pressure to recycle inert wastes (such as construction
and demolition wastes) that might be suitable for infilling the site after
the sand and gravel has been extracted, difficulties have been
experienced elsewhere in maintaining progressive restoration at rates
that keep apace with the progress of extraction. The result can be that
the un-restored areas within a mineral site can get ever larger with the
progress of site restoration, and hence the period of disturbance to the
local environment and to local residents, lagging behind and lasting
considerably longer than was originally envisaged. The applicants
have therefore been asked to give details of the availability of inert infill
material in the quantities needed to ensure that restoration of this site
can be maintained at a satisfactory rate.
(iii)
21.
Cumulative impact
The application as submitted does not address in detail the potential
cumulative impacts of the scheme when taken together with the
potential extraction from the land immediately to the west on land to the
east of Horton Road and the permitted extraction at Kingsmead to the
south.
(iv)
Drainage and flooding issues
22.
The Environment Agency has raised an objection to the proposal on
the grounds that insufficient information has been provided to allow
them to assess it fully. In addition, Slough Borough Council has raised
an extensive list of concerns relating to drainage, hydrololgical and
hydrogeological matters and the RBWM Drainage Officer has also
expressed concerns on certain matters under this heading.
23.
The applicants have offered to address the concerns raised and in
February 2006 they submitted a response to the matters raised by the
Environment Agency. It was agreed with the applicants that this
response would not be put to the Environment Agency until further
clarification had been provided by the applicants regarding the related
matters raised by Slough Borough Council and the RBWM Drainage
Officer. To date this further clarification has not been received.
(v)
Noise, dust, pollution and other impacts on Horton and
Colnbrook residents
24.
The proximity of the site to Horton and Colnbrook means that it is
important that the interests of residents and others in the village are
appropriately safeguarded. The Environment Protection Officer has
raised no objection to the application subject to the imposition of
conditions to address noise and dust issues. A number of other issues
have also been raised with the applicants, notably concerning visual
and landscape matters, but also over dust controls. The applicants
have agreed in principle to supply additional information on these
matters but to date they have not done so.
(vi)
25.
Planting and restoration
Issues have also been raised with the applicant concerning the details
of the proposed planting and restoration, including the scope for
planting additional hedgerows and trees at appropriate locations on
the western and northern boundaries of the site both before extraction
takes place and as part of the restoration of the site. The applicant
has in addition been advised of the comments made by consultees
concerning the provision of new rights of way as part of the restoration
scheme and to the possible need for contingency restoration
measures if it lags behind extraction. However, no further information
on these matters has been forthcoming from the applicant.
Other matters
26.
Whilst this application was submitted in December 2004, it was not
until August 2005 that the final response was received from the
statutory consultees. It was at this time point the applicant was
advised of all the issues raised by the consultees so that these could
be addressed through the submission of further information. In
September 2005 the applicant responded and indicated that they were
willing of supply further information on the wide range of issues raised.
Their letter included the following statement:
“In conclusion, I note that there are a number of issues upon
which further information and clarification is required but, in
principle, none of these issues appear to be incapable of being
addressed via the submission of further information to
supplement the existing ES (Environmental Statement). That
information can be provided in advance of the determination of
the current application ….I will therefore revert to you when the
additional information has been assembled.”
27.
Little more was heard from the applicant until February 2006 when a
hydrological report was submitted. A meeting with the applicants on
8th February 2006 reviewed the matters on which further information
was awaited (which included hydrological matters that were not
covered in the submitted report), and at which the applicants again
indicated their willingness to supply that information. A letter from the
applicant dated 24 March 2005 confirmed this.
28.
At the time of drafting this report, apart from establishing that a survey
for the presence or otherwise of Great Crested Newts is not required,
none of the matters raised with the applicant has been advanced.
29.
The application has therefore been before this Council for some 18
months but there has been very little progress in resolving the
numerous outstanding issues that were notified to the applicant some
10 months ago (in August 2005) or in progressing matters in the
manner agreed by the applicant 4 months ago (in February 2006).
Given this absence of progress and the inclusion of application
06/00588 on this agenda, together with the common issues with the
applications, it was considered that both applications ought to be
determined together.
Conclusions
30.
This report reveals that there remain a large number of important
issues on which the applicant’s have failed to satisfy the Council as to
the acceptability of the application.
31.
In the circumstances, the applicants have been invited to withdraw the
application in its present form, to allow time for all the outstanding
issues to be fully addressed before a revised version of the application
is prepared. At the time of preparing this report the application had not
been withdrawn. It is therefore concluded that the appropriate way
forward is to refuse the application as currently submitted on the basis
of the inadequacy of the information provided.
Recommendation:
That, subject to the
additional comments of the
Highway Officer, the
application be refused for
the following reason:
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority insufficient information
has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal accords with
relevant development plan policies, and in particular Policies M2 and
M5 of the Berkshire Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Adopted in July 2005)
and Policy 8 of the Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire 2001, such that
(a)
the Local Planning Authority is not convinced that more than one
active mineral extraction operation in Preferred Area 12 ought to
be permitted at any one time as the cumulative environmental
impacts, including consideration of those in connection with the
operation of the mineral extraction at the land to the east of
Horton Road under planning application 06/00588, and the
permitted extraction at Kingsmead, have not been addressed in
the Environmental Statement and remain uncertain
(b)
the Local Planning Authority is not convinced that the provision
of sufficient quantities of inert waste for infilling the site after the
sand and gravel has been extracted has been demonstrated to
enable progressive restoration of the site at a rate that would
keep apace with the progress of extraction from the site. This
could result in the period of disturbance to the local environment
and to local residents lasting considerably longer than is
envisaged in the application
the Local Planning Authority is not convinced that the proposal
will not have a significant adverse impact on drainage,
groundwater levels and flooding in the area, and on an
underground water supply tunnel routed across the site; and
(c)
(d)
the Local Planning Authority is not convinced that sufficient
consideration has been given to the visual and landscape
screening of the proposal and to the impact of dust in the area.