| |
|
While the “Land not Sand” group was organising a meeting and looking for environmental experts locally and environmental information with which to oppose any Hanson planning application, Longworth Parish Councillor Peter McGregor was on another track. He had read through all the relevant planning documents in July as soon as the Hanson project was announced, and had noticed Policy PE3 in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. This required the provision of a buffer zone of 350 metres between any mineral workings and towns, villages or hamlets. He rapidly realised that the settlement created from the former Longworth House (where he lived) might well be a hamlet, and the map revealed that 350 metres from the nearest house stretched westwards right across the “Hanson” field, making it impossible to work.
What was a hamlet? Six dictionaries later he was convinced that the 27 acre, 13 contiguous properties, 34 inhabitants settlement still called “the old hospital site” by some locals was a hamlet indeed. How robust was Policy PE3? An inittial telephoned enquiry to a Council official got the response “quite robust”. A letter to the Council was fobbed of with the answer that “everything will be taken into account when the planning application was considered.” This seemed to be not good enough.
McGregor managed to obtain a copy of the last review of sources of soft sand in the County, carried out in 1989/91. He also persuaded the Council to let him have copies of the correespondence between OCC and Hanson by quoting the Freedom of Information Act although it did not come into force until 1st january 2005. From the first he discovered that the Pinewood site was identified in 1991 as a source of sand, but incorrectly given a 100+ metre buffer zone to “Longworth Hospital”. The site was in fact a residential development from 1987. He also noted that in 2003 an official had failed to tell Hanson that there was a hamlet to which attention would have to be paid.
Since the planners were being evasive it was obvious that something would have to be done. County Councillor Judith Heathcoat arranged a meeting with the Leader of the County Council, Councillor Keith Mitchell. Before the meeting McGregor sent this paper to OCC.
The planning process is designed around the concept that an application for consent to a development is submitted, the necessary publicity is given to the application, and comments on the proposal may be submitted by those who support it or oppose it. Planning officials make a recommendation, the Planning Committee makes a decision, and unless there is an appeal that is it.
When a proposed major planning application is announced in advance of its actual submission the situation is quite different. It may be that all the main environmental factors relating to the case are known. In such a case it should be accepted that the Planning Authority should be prepared to explain on request how its own policies in its Plan will be applied. This interpretation should not be held back until the planning application is submitted unless there is an indication of quite unusual factors not covered by the Plan and which the potential applicant should declare. We consider that any unwillingness to clarify the interpretation of the OCC's own plans in the Longworth case would be quite unacceptable and politically indefensible in a period of supposed open government.
The preparation of Structure Plans and Local Plans is a serious and carefully considered matter, which takes several years. As we understand it there is consultation with many concerned parties and a final consultation with the relevant central government department before the Plan document is adopted. We asked a member of the OCC staff how robust the listed plans in a planning document such as the Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP) were in the face of attempts to ignore, modify or override them, and we were given the impression that they were indeed robust. If this were not the case there would be little purpose in producing them.
Although sometimes taken to be merely an aide memoire to officials a Plan should have a wider purpose. In the words of the Explanatory Notes to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 “The provisions introduce powers that allow for…………an increase in the predictability of planning decisions.”
We assume that the predictability of planning decisions has always been an aim of the planning process since this, rather than an attempt to speed up the process itself, is likely to simplify the system. Planning is a highly subjective matter and the drawing up of a Plan is intended to make it less so. If planning permission applicants and those who may wish to oppose the applications know what the planning documents mean they may not proceed with the application or possibly opposition to it. An interpretation of the documents must therefore be available even in the absence of a current application. This is what we are seeking.
Two other paragraphs in the new Act seem relevant and it would be surprising if they were not in the existing Act which we have not yet had a chance to consult.
- An old policy contained in a waste local plan or a minerals local plan is replaced in relation to any area of a county council for which there is a district council only by a new policy contained in a development plan document which is prepared in accordance with a minerals and waste development scheme.
We take this to mean that the current relevant minerals and waste document is the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan adopted July 1996. We assume that the current Structure Plan is still the Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2011 rather than the Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 Deposit Draft,
- If to any extent a policy set out in a local development document conflicts with any other statement or information in the document the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy.
We take this to mean that the main thrust of the policy is sacrosanct and cannot be reinterpreted by referring to other words in the document.
- We assume that the words used and the syntax conform with normal English definitions and practice, and that identical words or phrases have identical force.
We understand that “the local planning authority must keep under review the matters which may be expected to affect the development of their area or the planning of its development” We take this to mean therefore that the OCC has reviewed and reported on all possible sources of soft sand in the county and the relevant environmental problems associated with developing each site. It would be surprising if the OCC merely awaited applications since this would be a failure to discharge its legal obligation
We come now to the specifics of the proposed Hanson application to develop a field on Pine Woods Road Longworth as a sandpit. It is not yet an application but only a stated intention to make an application. It has therefore put a planning blight on nearby properties. However the important facts are well known and it is necessary that the residents involved can be clear about how the OCC will approach the application. It would not be satisfactory to wait for the application since this takes any real influence of residents out of the circuit. Unlike most planning applications we know before it is lodged exactly where the development is intended, We therefore know exactly what the current environmental situation is and have many years of accumulated experience. We have several similar developments nearby which enable us to assess the likely environmental damage, which would result, and the adequacy or otherwise of all the so-called remedial measures which have been offered at the application stage in “mitigating” the effects of the development. After a completely misleading public presentation by the prospective applicant we managed to extract an admission of many unknowns and uncertainties attached to any proposal. This correspondence was copied to OCC.
A study of other similar applications suggests a degree of confusion in interpreting the Plan by planning staff, including a failure to realise that the Plan must be followed. There are several key plan paragraphs which we should like to have interpreted. We asked Mr Duncalfe about Policy PE3 and were told only that everything would be taken into account when the application is received. We are not satisfied with this answer.
Rather than try to anticipate all the factors which are relevant and likely to be the subject of subsequent representations we wish to have a clear understanding of several which would be completely unaffected by the nature or content of a Hanson application.
Buffer zones
From the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted July 1996):
Chapter 4. Protecting the Environment
Page 30
4.7. Policy PE3. Appropriate buffer zones will be safeguarded around mineral working or waste disposal sites for protection against unacceptable losses of residential or natural amenity
Since the late 1970s the County Council has operated a buffer zone policy based on a requirement for a distance of 350 metres between mineral workings and towns, villages and hamlets, and 100 metres between mineral workings and an individual dwelling or a small group of dwellings. When determining planning applications for mineral or waste development, the County Council will have regard to these established standards, together with the individual circumstances of the site and the other measures which may be used to mitigate the effects of the development proposed.
Our legal advice is that the word “appropriate” refers to the chosen distances of 350 metres and 100 metres and cannot be subjectively used to introduce some other distance. It is an adopted policy; the buffer zones of 350 metres and 100 metres are established standards since the late 1970s. We understand that the expression “have regard to” is definitive and means “must do” since this is how the OCC interprets Policy Planning Guidelines from central government when such words are used.
The use of the shortened version of this Policy given in Annex 4 of the MWLP Page 76 is both inappropriate and unwise since it does not give the two distances. We assume that the OCC does not insert specific distances in a document, which may have taken three years to produce and describe them as established without meaning it. This needs to be clarified before a planning application is considered. (The distance from the wall of the nearest property in the Longworth House hamlet to the western boundary of the field, which is the subject of the intended planning application, is 340 metres .) It is for OCC to explain why the distance of 350 metres should not apply to the buffer zone and to set out the individual circumstances of the site and the other measures, which may be used to mitigate the effects of the development proposed. The word “mitigate” should be strictly interpreted.
In passing we think that the Inspector in the Cassington appeal was in error in substituting his subjective assessment for the distances laid down in the Plan. As we have pointed out the Plan has to take precedence. We have not yet checked whether he also exceeded his powers.
Trees
MWLP page 35 paragraph 4.27: Oxfordshire has very little woodland: only about 6% of the county is woodland, of which about half is ancient woodland.
MWLP Policy PE10: Mineral working and waste disposal should not damage or destroy woodland and forestry.
MWLP Code of Practice Page 59 paragraph 11 (a): When designing a landscaping scheme to screen mineral extraction and landfill operators should…seek to retain, protect and improve as many important hedge and tree belts and woodlands, particularly round the edge of the site.
MWLP Code of Practice Page 59:
As a general rule no mineral extraction or waste disposal (or any activity associated with them) should take place within 5 metres of a hedgerow and one and a half times the spread of the branches of a mature tree.
The site is quite well wooded towards the southern end and at the northern end, and the whole character of the Longworth House hamlet and the approach to Longworth village conservation area depends upon the trees on both sides of Pine Woods Road. The hamlet itself has many fully grown ornamental trees and a varied collection of forest sized trees including mature oaks, turkey oaks and limes. These give some protection from the west wind, which does however carry straw and other light agricultural detritus from the field across the road at certain times of the year The trees define the nature of the hamlet. The hedge on the Pine Woods Road side of the proposed site consists mainly of full sized wild cherries, hawthorn and field maple. There is a line of mature trees stretching across the field from the gate, most important in the landscape as seen from the A420. Many of these are oaks.
All of these existing trees should be preserved and we think that the OCC could give this commitment now. To cut any of them down would totally destroy the look of the area.
Access
MWLP Code of Practice Page 59:
As a general rule no mineral extraction or waste disposal (or any activity associated with them) should take place within 5 metres of a hedgerow and one and a half times the spread of the branches of a mature tree.
There has been much discussion about access for vehicles and it seems to have been assumed that this could be achieved through the existing gate towards the A420. This is not so. The line of trees stretching westward from the gate would obstruct large vehicles if the one and a half times the spread is to be protected. This is another quite specific quantified policy
Providing an entrance would require the gate to be repositioned.
The gates open on to Pine Woods Road, a narrow country road that is derestricted. This derestriction results from the fact that the houses in Pine Woods Road are grouped as a hamlet and not spread along the road and Thames Valley Police will not agree to a restriction in such a situation. There is actually a derestriction sign at the northern end as one drives south towards the A420 and quite a lot of fast traffic. Large tractors more than half the width of the road also drive fast along it. Choosing a new site for the gate will not be easy. We note (from the Cassington conditions) that there should be arrangements for removing mud from vehicles before they drive on to Pine Woods Road.
The general question of the danger of the A420/Pine Woods Road junction has been discussed elsewhere. Acceleration and deceleration lanes will be required and possibly a roundabout. At the moment the bus company will not allow its vehicles to cross the A420 at this point.
Structure Plan Policy M18: Rapid and convenient access to the primary road network of high quality roads will be sought for minerals traffic in the context of the Structure Plan policies T1 - T19. Where such access is not directly (our italics) available the use of other roads will be strictly controlled, and measures such as haul routes, routing agreements and appropriate contributions towards road improvements will be secured before planning permission is granted.
We think the whole question of the exit and the junction needs to be discussed with residents before the planning application is submitted. Clearly there will be a need for a significant expenditure by the applicant and they should be made aware of this.
Enforcement
When planning permission is granted subject to a long list of conditions we wonder how these will be enforced. Our experience is bad. There is a shortage of enforcement officers and many of the kind of conditions which are laid down in mineral applications will be regularly breached and would require weekly or more frequent visits to each site and a readiness to be on instant call by a complaining resident.It would be irresponsible to give planning permission subject to many conditions unless the planning authority could guarantee that they would be enforced.
Studying previous cases we get the clear impression that the aim of planning
officers is to score a large number of conditions, many of them trivial, some of them uneforceable, some worthless (e.g. bunds) which have little effect but have to be created by the minerals company in order to find a place for removed top soil..
The bunds constructed to the north east of the Hartford sandpit provide no mitigation of noise even though planted with a row of out of place cupressus Leylandii (not native trees which are characteristic of the area, hardly following MWLP Code of Practice Page 59 paragraph 11(b) It is known that it is extremely difficult to predict the effect of a new source on the noise of an area until the source is operational, unless it is possible to completely enclose the source in some way (e.g. as with a transformer.) We get the impression that achieving a ;large number of conditions is taken to be more important than ensuring that they can be enforced.
A recent letter in a local paper frrom a Hatford resident said:
"Sand Quarry menace: On the evidence of the way that the work at Hatford sand quarry has transpired in recent years under Earthline, then residents of Longworth need to be concerned. Dust, noise, increased traffic, and a disregard of the planning consent given in 1991 that goes well beyond ‘extracting sand and restoration to agricultural use’ continues to go ahead, and seems likely to continue until 2025! The Environment and Economy Department at Speedwell House in Oxford seem powerless to enforce the planning permissions given originally to Sand and Gravels (Standlake) Ltd."
We look forward to a positive reaction to this paper from the OCC and a clear definition of how its own Policies will be interpreted.
pmcg 22/10/04
|
|
|
|
