Construction of access to B4379, extraction and processing of sand and gravel, re-profiling and restoration of the site, related highway works to B4379 and A41.

The Principal Planner introduced the second of the two related applications on the agenda for the Woodcote Wood site 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 a proposal on the surrounding area. He drew Members’ attention to the Schedule of Additional Representations circulated prior to the meeting. 

The Principal Planner explained that the scheme had received an approval resolution in July 2006.  It had not been possible to complete an accompanying legal agreement but the Woodcote Wood landowner was able to demonstrate that the proposals were still being actively pursued.  Given the period of time which had elapsed since the original resolution the applicant needed to submit updated environmental reports under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. These had been undertaken and covered ecology, noise, dust, ground and surface water, archaeology, landscape and visual impact.  The update process also identified the need for the amended access and relocation of the proposed quarry plant site and an application for this had been considered at this meeting (see agenda item 5 – planning application 17/03661/EIA and as detailed at Minute No. 89). 

The Principal Planner further explained that Sheriffhales Parish Council had objected on the grounds of highway safety, whilst also expressing concerns about dust and noise. Highway matters had been considered in the previous item (see agenda item 5 – planning application 17/03661/EIA). Telford & Wrekin Council had expressed support for the officer recommendation.  The Environment Agency had raised no objections and a Water Monitoring and Management Plan condition had been recommended.  Natural England had raised no objections to the new access application which included an ecological report covering the entire proposed quarry site.  They had been consulted on a Habitat Regulations Assessment and the statutory period of notice had now been given and no objections had been received. Shropshire Council’s ecology section had raised no objections. Conservation Officers had accepted the conclusions of the heritage assessment that there would be no adverse impacts. Public Protection had not objected and acknowledged that baseline conditions for noise and dust had not changed significantly since 2006 and had recommended noise and dust conditions.  There had been no drainage objections and an updated visual appraisal confirmed that the site continued to benefit from good natural screening by virtue of topography and the retained woodland edge and was also relatively remote from the nearest residential properties. Three comments had been received from members of the public - one objecting, one neutral and one in support. The objection was on procedural grounds and the support was from a near neighbour who acknowledged the need for sand and gravel production.

Policy:  Whilst the individual policies had changed since the application had been submitted the general thrust of minerals policy remains the same. NPPF paragraph 142confirms the importance of maintaining an adequate and reliable supply of minerals and Paragraph 144 requires that mineral planning authorities should give great weight to the benefits of the mineral extraction.  Shropshire Council’s Environmental Policy team leader confirmed that Woodcote Wood had the status in the SAMDev plan of an ‘unworked site commitment’. Notwithstanding this, the Officer report concludes that the proposals clearly meet the relevant SAMDev policy tests for unallocated sand and gravel proposals.

In conclusion, the Principal Planner explained that Woodcote Wood was a former allocation with a historical approval resolution and is named as an unworked commitment in the SAMDev plan. Updated environment information had been submitted and confirmed that there had been no material changes in the environmental or geographic context of the site.  A related application for a new access at the site was a separate item to be considered at this meeting.   The inter-relationships between the two applications had been assessed and addressed in the respective reports.  It had been concluded that the updated environmental information accompanying the current application had demonstrated the continued acceptability of the site and accordingly the proposals remained compliant with relevant policies and guidance.

Mr R Small, speaking on behalf of Mr M Bubb, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor G Tonkinson, representing Sheriffhales Parish Council, spoke against 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 reiterated his concerns regarding access arrangements; and

·         Expressed concerns regarding the presumption of acceptance regarding the clearance of scrub and the detrimental environmental impact this would have upon the site.

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 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 windfall sites, the Habitat Regulation Assessment, heritage assets, permitted development rights for forestry operations and archaeology matters.

RESOLVED: That,

1.         Having noted the updated environmental information submitted in support of the Environmental Statement accompanying the application, planning permission be granted as per the Officer’s recommendation, thereby re-ratifying the original approval resolution dated 25 July 2006, subject to:

·         The conditions as set out in Appendix 1 to the report;

·         Condition No. 13 being amended as follows:

“No development shall take place until the sole access proposed under application reference 17/03661/EIA has been constructed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.”

·         The additional conditions as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters.

2.         The requirement for a legal agreement originally set out in the committee resolution dated 25th July 2006 be updated and transferred to planning application 17/03661/EIA on the basis that the substantive issues are more appropriately dealt with in that application than the current proposals.