Proposed new access & installation of processing plant to facilitate sand & gravel extraction on adjacent Woodcote Wood site.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.  Members had undertaken a site visit on a previous occasion and had viewed the site and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

The Principal Planner explained that Woodcote Wood had been identified as a ‘preferred area’ for sand and gravel extraction in the Shropshire Telford and Wrekin Minerals Local Plan (1996-2006).  This had now been superseded in Shropshire by the Site Allocations and Management Development Plan (SAMDev) which referred to Woodcote Wood as an ‘unworked site and commitment’.  The 5.2ha site was bounded by the A41 to the east and the B4379 Sheriffhales road to the south and comprised a commercial Woodland, the central portion of which had recently been felled.

The planning committee of the former Shropshire County Council resolved to approve extraction of 2.55 million tonnes of sand and gravel at the site over a 13 year period in July 2006 (ref. SC/MB2005/0336/BR).  However, an associated legal agreement covering off-site highway matters was not completed as required third party land was not available.  Since this time the landowner had investigated the feasibility of achieving an alternative access which had led to the current proposals for an access directly onto the A41.  At the same time, the applicant NRS Ltd had submitted updated environmental reports for the original quarrying application which would be considered as the next item on the agenda.

The sand and gravel processing plant was originally to be situated at the south central area of the original application site. The current proposals would re-locate it to a lower elevation within the proposed eastern extension.  An unoccupied residential dwelling known as ‘The Keepers Cottage’ would be utilised for office accommodation during the operations, after which it would return to residential use.  Restoration would be to broad-leaved woodland.  The access road would be retained but all other quarrying items would be removed.  The current proposals include a net gain of approximately 1.5 hectares of permanent broad leaved woodland.  This was in addition to the woodland which would be created by restoration of the main quarry site. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

The Principal Planner further explained that Sheriffhales Parish Council had objected mainly on traffic safety grounds. There had been no objections from other consultees including Telford & Wrekin Council, the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Highway Authority, Trees, Conservation, Archaeology, Public Protection, Drainage services and Ecology.  He drew Members’ attention to the Habitat Risk Assessment accompanying the report.  Natural England had not objected to this within the statutory consultation period.  Chetwynd Aston & Woodcote Parish Council had made no objections.  23 letters have been received objecting to the proposals mainly on highway safety grounds and as detailed in the report. Three letters of support had also been received stating that the proposals would facilitate highway improvements and supply of sand and gravel with the least impact.

Policy: The Principal Planner explained that the Council’s Environmental Policy Team Leader had indicated that whilst the site was not included as part of the landbank in Shropshire’s Local Aggregate Assessment it had status as an unworked site commitment in the SAMDev plan, so it should not be considered as if it were an unallocated site. Notwithstanding this, an assessment of the quarrying scheme had been undertaken with respect to SAMDev policy MD5(3) which set out the circumstances in which unallocated sand and gravel sites may come forward. The proposals had been found to satisfy the relevant criteria.

Highway safety: The Principal Planner explained that Shropshire Council’s highway consultants had not objected. They had advised that an originally proposed ghost island on the A41 was not needed and instead that a 2.4m stand-off should be provided along the site’s frontage with the A41. The applicant had agreed to this and amended plans had been submitted.  Highway Officers consider that the resulting improvement in northbound visibility from the B3479 junction would be beneficial in highway safety terms.  A road safety audit had been undertaken and had been accepted by Shropshire Council’s highway consultant.  The committee report had been updated to reflect this.  The applicant had also agreed to make a £50k financial contribution to deliver off-site highway improvement works including improved signage and line markings on the A41 approaches to the B3479 junction. In addition, the applicant had agreed to a package of other measures including:

1)      Replacing the grassed verge on the southern side of the A41/B3479 junction with a hard surface to improve southbound visibility;

2)      A planning condition securing realignment of the estate boundary wall to the north of the B4379 to facilitate an improved alignment for the B4379 junction;

3)      A condition preventing quarry HGVs from approaching from the north in order to avoid right turning manoeuvres across the A41. This would be backed up by CCTV and appropriate monitoring and enforcement provisions.

Whilst local objectors may have preferred to see a roundabout on the A41/B4379 junction this was no longer possible as the third party land was not available.  Nor could it be required, as access was no longer proposed to be from the B4379.  A highway consultant acting for the prospective developer of a nearby quarry at Pave Lane had stated that Highways England DMRB standards for trunk roads should apply and a ghost island should therefore be provided. However, the A41 was not a trunk road and Shropshire Council’s highway consultants had confirmed that the proposed access met relevant safety criteria.  It was additionally stated that the application of trunk road junction standards to non-trunk roads was not compulsory and the current proposals would deliver benefits including the improvement in northward visibility from the B4379 junction. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advised that ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’ (NPPF Para 32). Given the advice of Highway officers it is considered that any residual cumulative impacts would not be sufficiently severe to justify refusal. The additional benefits including in terms of improved visibility at the B4379/A41 junction and the proposed highway contribution weigh in favour of the proposals.

In conclusion, the Principal Planner explained that Woodcote Wood was a former allocation with an historical approval resolution and was named as an unworked site commitment in the SAMDev plan. The current proposals would facilitate development of the site by delivering an amended access and would also enable a more comprehensive restoration scheme.  Objectors had expressed concerns particularly in relation to highway safety. Whilst the originally proposed roundabout was not deliverable other meaningful improvements to the highway are, including improvements to the B4379/A41 junction which would not otherwise be possible. The individual and cumulative effects of the proposals had been assessed. No technical consultees had objected and no issues had been identified which would be likely to give rise to unacceptable impacts. This was having regard to the design of the scheme and the recommended planning conditions and legal agreement.  It had been concluded that the proposed new access and plant re-location scheme can be accepted in relation to relevant development plan policies and guidance and other material planning considerations.

The Principal Planner drew Members’ attention to the Schedule of Additional Representation, which had been circulated prior to the meeting, and which requested some minor flexibility in wording of the conditions if the Officer recommendation was accepted. Additionally, he confirmed that the period for Judicial Review was now six weeks and not three months as stated in the report.

Mr G Tonkinson, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Mr M Kitching, representing local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor Dr A MacWhannell, representing Sheriffhales Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor B Page, representing Chetwynd Aston and Woodcote Parish Council, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15) Councillor Kevin Turley, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement.  He then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         He suggested that there was no reason why an island could not achieved in the south corner of the development;

·         A Safety Audit had suggested that a right turn into the site would not be safe; and

·         He urged Members to refuse the application.

With the permission of the Chairman and owing to the fact that an additional Parish/Town Council and objector had been allowed to speak against the proposal, the agent was permitted to speak for up to six minutes.  Mr R Williams, the agent, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.  In response to questions from Members, Mr Williams provided clarification on the controls and safeguards in place to prevent HGV drivers accessing the site from the wrong direction.  

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  In response to questions, the Principal Planner provided clarification regarding the Highway Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) standards.  He drew Members’ attention to the legal agreement which would cover traffic routing, enforcement provisions and the requirement for CCTV and other control and safeguards regarding highway safety. 

RESOLVED:

That, as per the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions and legal obligations as set out in Appendix 1 to the report and subject to the additional conditions as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters.