PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 July 2013

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 July 2013

8.13/0761/HCR3 - Herts County Council Regulation 3 Application: Mineral extraction, processing and importation of sand and gravel and reclamation materials (from Denham Park Farm) for restoration to agriculture and a small wetland area and a new vehicular access at Land at PYNESFIELD, OFF TILEHOUSE LANE, MAPLE CROSS, HERTFORDSHIRE, WD3 9YB for Hertfordshire County Council

(DCES)

Parish: Non-Parished / Ward: Maple Cross and Mill End
Expiry Statutory Period: 20 June 2013 / Officer: Luke Axe
Recommendation: That the Local Planning Authority recommend to Hertfordshire County Council (Minerals Authority) that planning permission be REFUSED.
Reason for consideration by the Committee: Called in by the Director of Community and Environmental Services.

1.Relevant Planning History

1.1.There is no directly relevant planning history relating to the application site itself. However, this current application is connected to a recent planning permission granted by Buckinghamshire County Council on 21 December 2012 for the proposed extension of the period within which permission SBD/8214/02 (for a progressive mineral extraction and infilling with inert material and restoration to agriculture at Denham Park Farm to the west) can be implemented. The Denham Park Farm site is currently being prepared for commencement of operations, which includes the creation of a new access track. Details of how this current application at Pynesfield relates to the Denham Park Farm consent are set out in the Description of Development and Analysis sections below. Other relevant applications relating to Denham Park Farm include:

1.205/1630/FUL - Creation of new access to A412 (Denham Way) to serve a proposed mineral workings site in Buckinghamshire -12.04.2006 - Refused. Allowed on appeal by Secretary of State.

1.309/1723/FUL - Application to extend the time limit for implementation for the creation of new access to A412 (Denham Way) to serve a proposed mineral workings site in Buckinghamshire following the grant of planning permission on 29th December 2006 (References: 05/1630/FUL & APP/P1940/A/06/2015886) -21.12.2009 - Approved, not implemented.

1.412/2283/FUL - Renewal of 09/1723/FUL: Application to extend the time limit for implementation for the creation of new access to A412 (Denham Way) to serve a proposed mineral workings site in Buckinghamshire following the grant of planning permission on 29th December 2006 (References: 05/1630/FUL & APP/P1940/A/06/2015886) -28.01.2013 - Approved.

2.Site Description

2.1The application site (Pynesfield) is located approximately 6km to the south of Rickmansworth and 4km to the south-east of Chalfont St Giles. The A412 runs to the east of the application site and Tilehouse Lane borders the site to the north and west. The application site measures approximately 17 hectares in area.

2.2Approximately 700m to the west of the application site is Denham Park Farm, a permitted mineral extraction site where works preparatory to operations at that site have commenced. The permission for mineral extraction at Denham Park Farm would:

(i)involve the extraction of approximately 500,000 tonnes of sand/gravel;

(ii)not include an on-site processing plant;

(iii)involve the materials being taken of site for processing, resulting in vehicle movements north and southbound along the A412;

(iv) be accessed via the A412 onto Tilehouse Lane

(vi)result 154 vehicle movements per day (124 HGV and 30 LGV)

(vii)have a lifespan of approximately 20 years

2.3The application site is located within the Green Belt, ColneValleyRegionalPark and contains trees subject of a group Tree Preservation Order.

3.Description of Proposed Development

3.1Description of Development

3.1.1This application to the Hertfordshire County Council (Minerals Authority) seeks planning permission for the extraction and processing of minerals at Pynesfield. The application proposes the extraction of sand and gravel (approximately 350,000 - 400,000 tonnes) which would be carried out in conjunction with operations at the permitted Denham Park Farmmineral extraction site.

3.1.2The application site would comprise a processing plant measuring 42m in width by 76.5m in length (3,200 square metres). The height of the equipment would, in places, extend to a height of almost 7.5m. The processing plant would be located towards the north side of the site, nearest the access onto Tilehouse Lane. To the south of the processing plant would be two stockpile areas (one for Denham Park Farm and the other for Pynesfield) of materials for processing, three water bodies and an area of land containing the deposit which is proposed to be extracted. The extraction area (i.e. the deposit) would measure approximately 420m in length (north/south) and 120m in width (east/west). An internal haulage road is proposed to extend from the access along the east and west sides of the site. An internal area of hardstanding is proposed to the northern part of the site measuring approximately 180m (north/south) in length by 100m in width (east/west). This area of hardstanding would accommodate the processing plant, a site office and would form a car parking area. Surrounding the perimeter of the site would be a bund extending to a height of 3m. A hedgerow is proposed to provide additional screening along the boundary with the A412.

3.1.3This processing plant would enable the processing of materials both from Pynesfield and Denham Park Farm. As currently permitted, materials from Denham Park Farm would be processed off-site, involving the transfer of materials to and from site north and southbound along the A412. The introduction of the processing plant at Pynesfield would reduce the need to take materials off-site from Denham Park Farm to be processed. The total number of estimated HGV vehicle movements is 124 movements per day (62 in and 62 out). A further 30 LGV movements per day would account for staff and other people travelling to and from the site. Access will be gained via a proposed access onto the A412.

3.1.4The proposed hours of operation would be 0700-1800 Monday to Friday and 0700-1300 on Saturday. There would be no operations on Sunday and Bank Holidays.

3.1.5The Pynesfield site would have a lifespan of 10 years and would also extend the life of Denham Park Farm by 5 years (to 25 years). Upon completion of operations at Pynesfield, a scheme of restoration is proposed by backfilling the land with inert material in order to return it to high quality agricultural farm land. A small wetland area is proposed to the south-east corner of the site adjacent to the A412.

3.2Supporting Documents

3.2.1In support of the application, the applicant has submitted a Transport Statement, a Non-Technical Summary, an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, an Archaeological Evaluation, a Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal, a Geophysical Survey Report, an Ecological Survey, an Assessment of Hydrogeology and Hydrology, a Flood Risk Assessment, an Environmental Statement and an Agricultural Land Classification Report.

4.Consultation

4.1.StatutoryConsultation

4.1.1ColneValley Partnership - Objects. Would be harmful to the landscape character of the ColneValleyRegionalPark. Discussed further in analysis below.

4.1.2Environmental Health - No objection.

4.1.3Environment Agency - Objects. The development proposes an unacceptable risk to groundwater quality and resources. Discussed further in analysis below.

4.1.4Highway Authority - No objection, subject to conditions.

4.1.5Herts. Biological Records - No response.

4.1.6Herts. & Middlesex Wildlife Trust - No objection.

4.1.7National Grid - No response.

4.2Public Consultation

4.2.1The Hertfordshire County Council (the Minerals Authority) is the determining authority for this application and, as such, there is no statutory requirement for the Local Planning Authority to consult in its capacity as a statutory consultee. All representations should therefore be made to the County Council. Notwithstanding this, the Local Planning Authority considered it good planning practice to take account of any representations received, which are summarised for information below.

4.2.2Number consulted: 0 No responses received: 14

4.2.3Site Notice: Expired N/APress notice: N/A

4.2.4Summary of Responses

Objections (Total: 14)

Would harm openness and rural character of the Green Belt; would result in a loss of agricultural land; would harm the natural environment; would endanger protected species; would result in a loss of wildlife habitats; would result in an increase in traffic; would cause flooding; would result in harm to highway safety; associated vehicle movements would result in harm to neighbouring amenity; on-site activity would result in noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties; the development would add to the harm already caused by HS2.

4.2.5Whilst all representations set out above (statutory and neighbourhood) will be addressed in the planning analysis below, it should be noted that HS2 is a separate matter and cannot form a material consideration in the assessment of this application. The planning analysis does not, therefore, deal with matters relating to HS2.

5.Reason for Delay

5.1Committee cycle.

6.Relevant Planning Policy, Guidance and Legislation

6.1National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

6.1.1On 27 March 2012, the framework of government guidance in the form of Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance Notes was replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This application will be considered against the policies of the Core Strategy of the emerging Local Plan and the Saved Policies of the Local Plan 1996 -2011, as well as government guidance contained within the NPPF.

6.1.2The adopted policies of Three Rivers District Council reflect the content of the NPPF.

6.2Three Rivers Emerging Local Plan

6.2.1The Core Strategy was adopted by the Council on 17 October 2011. Relevant Policies include PSP3 (Development in Secondary Centres), CP1 (Overarching Policy on Sustainable Development),CP6 (Employment and Economic Development), CP9 (Green Infrastructure), CP10 (Transport and Travel), CP11 (Green Belt) and CP12 (Design of Development).

6.2.2The Development Management Policies LDD (Proposed Submission Version) was submitted to the Secretary of State on 7 December 2012. Relevant Policies includeDM2 (Green Belt), DM6 (Biodiversity, Trees, Woodlands, Watercourses and Landscaping), DM7 (Landscape Character), DM8 (Flood Risk and Water Courses) and DM9 (Contamination and Pollution).

6.2.3The Site Allocations DPD (Proposed Submission) was recently out to public consultation.

6.2.4The Sustainable Communities SPD was adopted December 2007.

6.3Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011

6.3.1The Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011 was adopted in July 2001 having been through full public participation. The policies were saved and confirmed by Government Office for the East of England on 14th September 2007. Notwithstanding the adoption of the Core Strategy on 17 October 2011, the following Local Plan Policies remain saved and are therefore applicable:

GB1, D6, D7, N1, N3, N4, N5, N12, N13, N15, N16, N17, N22 and T7.

6.4Other

6.4.1The Localism Act received Royal Assent on 15 November 2011.

6.4.2The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and the Habitat Regulations 1994 are also relevant.

7.Planning Analysis

7.1Introduction

7.1.1The NPPF makes it clear that minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore important that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. However, since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, it is important to make best use of them to secure their long-term conservation.

7.1.2In determining applications for mineral extraction, the NPPF states that local planning authorities should therefore:

• give great weight to the benefits of the mineral extraction, including to the economy;

• ensure, in granting planning permission for mineral development, that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality;

• ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties;

• provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary. Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only be sought in exceptional circumstances;

7.1.3In determining this application, it will therefore be necessary for Hertfordshire County Council to balance the economic benefits of the proposed mineral extraction site against any adverse impacts identified. The following analysis will consider the impacts of the development in relation to the Green Belt; the Colne Valley Park; highway safety; pollution, contamination and flooding; residential amenity (including noise and disturbance); wildlife and trees.

7.2Green Belt:

Introduction to Green Belt Policy:

7.2.1The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. Green Belts can shape patterns of urban development at sub-regional and regional scale, and help to ensure that development occurs in locations allocated in development plans. They help to protect the countryside, be it in agricultural, forestry or other use. They can assist in moving towards more sustainable patterns of urban development.

7.2.2The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into force on 27 March 2012. This revoked and replaced various documents including Planning Policy Guidance Notes, Minerals Planning Guidance Notes, letters to Chief Planning Officers and Circulars 05/2005 (Planning Obligations) and 1/2008 (Strategic Planning in London).

7.2.3As with previous Green Belt policy, the NPPF identifies the five purposes of including land in Green Belts as:

-to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

-to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;

-to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

-to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

-to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

7.2.4Policies of the Councils Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Saved Local Plan and Development Management Policies LDD (Proposed Submission Version) reflect the guidance contained within the NPPF.

7.2.5Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) states that there will be a general presumption against inappropriate development that would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

7.2.6More specifically, Saved Policy GB1 of the Local Plan replicates the Government guidance contained in the NPPF (particularly the excepted forms of development as contained in Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF) which stipulates that a Local Planning Authority should not regard the following forms of development as inappropriate in the Green Belt, provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it:

• mineral extraction;
• engineering operations;
• local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for aGreen Belt location;
• the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent andsubstantial construction; and
• development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order.

7.2.7The NPPF states that when considering planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. “Very special circumstances” will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

7.2.8Whilst mineral extraction sites are specified as an exempted form of development (i.e. are not considered to be inappropriate development by definition) within Paragraph 90 of the NPPF, this is only on the basis that the mineral extraction site proposed would preserve the openness and rural character of the Green Belt and would not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. In this case, however, the development isconsidered to conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, namely its failure to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The introduction of large bunds surrounding this site, a sizeable extraction plant and associated site infrastructure (including a site office, haulage road, car park and other areas of hardstanding) would, for reasons expanded further below, result in an urbanising appearance detrimental to the openness and rural character of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The development is therefore inappropriate and, as such, harmful by definition.

Impact upon Openness and Rural Character of Green Belt:

7.2.9In addition to being harmful by definition, the development would cause significant actual harm to the openness and rural character of the Green Belt.

7.2.10The proposed bund, which would measure 3m in height above the existing land level and would extend around the perimeter of the site, would form a large and oppressive unnatural feature within the landscape, preventing views (from the primary vantage points of the A412 and Tilehouse Lane) into the open landscape beyond. This would significantly reduce the perception of openness in this part of the Green Belt.

7.2.11In addition, the extraction plant itself would span an area measuring approximately 42m by 76.5m (3,200 square metres). The height of the equipment would, in places, extend to a height of almost 7.5m. The area covered by the plant, its height and metallic appearance would be harmful to the openness and rural character of the Green Belt. This impact would be further exacerbated by the extensive area of hardstanding on which the processing plant would sit, along with that forming the car park and internal haulage road.

7.2.12It is also relevant to note that, in addition to the built development proposed, harm would be caused by the activities taking place on site. Internal vehicle movements and the operation of plant machinery would result in the introduction of activity not consistent with the open and rural character of the Green Belt. Furthermore, it should also be noted that lighting will inevitably be required to support on site operations, particularly during the winter months. This lighting during winter months would only exacerbate the prominence of the development and its resultant impact on the openness and rural character of the Green Belt.

Very Special Circumstances:

7.2.13Green Belt Policy sets up a general presumption against inappropriate development which, by definition, is harmful to the Metropolitan Green Belt. Consequently, it is upon the applicant to demonstrate very special circumstances that would justify inappropriate development. It must be noted, as stated in the NPPF, that these very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness is outweighed by other considerations.

7.2.14From the supporting documents submitted, the applicant’s case for very special circumstances could be considered to include: