The Strategic and Technical Planning Committee was scheduled to convene to discuss planning applications for mineral extraction at Woodsford Quarry and land at Hurst Farm and Station Road, Moreton. The committee was also expected to confirm the minutes of their previous meeting.

Planning Application: Land at Hurst Farm and Station Road, Moreton

The committee was scheduled to consider an application for the extraction of approximately 11.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel from land at Hurst Farm and Station Road, Moreton, submitted by Raymond Brown Quarry Products Ltd. The proposed development included phased working, importation of aggregates and cement, construction of a car park, internal haul road, bridged conveyor crossing, erection of a site office, aggregate processing plant, aggregate bagging plant, ready mix concrete plant, and ancillary buildings. The plan also included restoration to water bodies and agriculture, biodiversity enhancements, public access, and use of the retained site office as a visitor centre.

The planning officer's report recommended that the committee grant planning permission, subject to conditions and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 legal agreement.

Key issues outlined in the report included:

• Principle of development: The report stated that the development was acceptable in principle, as the sites are allocated for mineral extraction in the Mineral Sites Plan 2019.
• Loss of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land: While acknowledging the unavoidable loss of BMV agricultural land, the report stated that the agricultural land classification was known at the time of the site's allocation.
• Impact on amenity: The report stated that there would be no unacceptable impact on amenity as a result of noise, dust, or traffic.
• Impact on ecology and the environment: The report acknowledged some impacts, such as the loss of trees and hedgerow, but stated that these losses were balanced against substantial new planting and the creation of water bodies to attract new species.
• Impact on landscape and heritage assets: The report stated that there would be some impacts, such as the loss of trees (including a veteran tree) and hedgerow, but that the losses were balanced against substantial new planting and the creation of water bodies, and that heritage assets were not adversely affected.
• Impact on the economy: The report stated that the development would create jobs for 20 years, plus possible further jobs with the visitor centre, and would support the Dorset economy through the sale and supply of a substantial quantity of sand and gravel.
• Highway safety: The report stated that Dorset Council Highways raised no objection.
• Groundwater and flooding: The report stated that the Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) raised no objection, and that the Environment Agency considered the proposal to be acceptable subject to conditions.
• Permissive bridleway: The report noted that the provision of a permissive bridleway route in perpetuity between Moreton village and Moreton Station would be a benefit to the local community.
• Restoration, aftercare, and after-use: The report stated that the provision of a visitor centre and footpath route around the lake with bird hide provision would be a community benefit, as well as possibly a tourism destination.

The report stated that the proposal complied with the development plan as a whole, and that there were no material considerations which would warrant refusal of the application.

Objections

The report pack included a summary of the objections to the proposal that had been received. These included:

• Traffic: Concerns about increased HGV traffic, the suitability of local roads, and safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
• Noise: Concerns about noise pollution from the quarry and associated traffic.
• Natural environment: Concerns about the destruction of the local countryside and adverse impacts on ecology, including rare plants, bats, and protected trees.
• Restoration: Objections to the proposed restoration plan to create several large water bodies.
• Dust: Concerns about the creation of dust and its impact on human health.
• Cement plant: Objections to the proposed cement plant, citing a further increase in traffic.
• Hydrology: Concerns about the hydrology of the area, proximity to the River Frome, and risks of flooding.
• Conveyor bridge: Objections to the conveyor bridge and its visual impact.

Consultees

The report pack also included summaries of the views of consultees.

Moreton Parish Council objected to the application, stating that the scheme proposed was quite different to that which the Inspector endorsed at the Plan Examination.

Affpuddle & Turnerspuddle Parish Council objected, expressing concern that HGV traffic may travel through Affpuddle along the B3390, or along other unsuitable narrow country lanes elsewhere in the parish.

Knightsford Parish Council objected, commenting that the application did not adequately describe how the area south of Woodsford Castle, which is Grade 1 listed, would be restored in the immediate future.

Natural England

Natural England initially raised concerns regarding the proposed restoration of land at Station Road, as the stream was not shown on the restoration plans, and made recommendations on how to change the plan to incorporate it into restoration in order to reduce nitrogen loads into the river. They also raised concerns about the Hurst Heath area, and the need for more extensive piezometer data to monitor the blocking and filling of drains and ditches, and a more robust and aggressive rhododendron management strategy.

In a later comment, Natural England withdrew its objection, subject to conditions.

Environment Agency

The Environment Agency initially objected, stating that there was insufficient information to determine risks to the water environment. In a later comment, the EA confirmed that they would be able to withdraw their objection, provided that specific conditions and informatives were included, if permission was granted.

Dorset Council Tree Officer

The Dorset Council Tree Officer initially advised that no arboricultural information had been supplied with the application. In a later comment, they advised that the preliminary survey identified a number of trees which would be impacted by the present submitted proposals.

Dorset Council Highways Officer

The Dorset Council Highways Officer confirmed that they had no objection.

Planning Applications: Woodsford Quarry

The committee was also scheduled to consider three planning applications relating to Woodsford Quarry:

• P/FUL/2023/04753: Extension to Woodsford Quarry for the winning and working of sand and gravel with restoration to agriculture, waterbodies and wetlands for nature conservation.
• P/VOC/2023/04760: Mineral extraction and progressive restoration to agriculture and woodland including the erection of a processing plant, concrete batching plant, workshop, office and weighbridge (with variation of Condition Nos. 3, 4 and 15 of Planning Permission Ref. 1/E/2005/0742 to revise the approved phasing of working, extend the duration of the development and allow importation of mineral and processing of mineral from extension site); &
• P/VOC/2023/04761: Formation of silt lagoons to serve existing processing plant at Woodsford Quarry with site restoration to agricultural use (Planning Permission Ref. WD/D/18/002648) as upheld at appeal for non-determination (appeal reference APP/D1265/W/19/3232596) (with variation of Condition Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 9 to extend the duration of the development and associated scheme submission dates).

The planning officer's report recommended that all three applications be refused.

The report pack stated that the key planning issues were:

• Principle of Development
• Impact on the Water Environment
• Loss of BMV Agricultural Land
• Impacts on Heritage
• Impact on Landscape including Restoration, Aftercare, and After-Use
• Traffic and Highway Safety
• Amenity (Noise, Vibration, Air Quality, Dust, and Lighting)
• Impacts on Protected Species, Habitats and Biodiversity including Trees

The report pack included summaries of the views of consultees.

Moreton Parish Council commented that the application documents were very convoluted and make reading about the existing and future Woodsford Quarries and working out whether more silt lagoons will be required very difficult.

Knightsford Parish Council commented that the application did not adequately describe how the area south of Woodsford Castle, which is Grade 1 listed, would be restored in the immediate future.

Historic England stated that it had concerns regarding the application(s) on heritage grounds.

The Landmark Trust objected to all three planning applications.

The Ramblers Association/Dorset Ramblers commented that it was difficult to understand the implications for footpaths S60/4 and S60/6 of the two s.73 applications.

The British Horse Society asked whether the proposed footpath across the reinstated site to the east of Watery Lane could be upgraded to Public Bridleway status.

Network Rail advised that because the site is accessed via the Woodsford (No.38) level crossing, they were concerned that it was likely to increase the number of HGVs using the crossing.

The Dorset Council Landscape Officer commented that when combined, their cumulative impacts will spread over all three areas of land at the same time.

The Dorset Council Tree Officer initially advised that no arboricultural information has been supplied with Planning Application Ref. P/FUL/2023/04753.

The Dorset Council Archaeology Officer advised that the submitted Archaeological Impact Assessment was acceptable and included acceptable .

The Dorset Council Minerals & Waste Policy Team advised that the MS (Policy AS1) commits to maintaining a sand and gravel landbank of at least 7 years.

The Dorset Council Natural Environment Team noted that the Environment Agency uphold their objection and recommend refusal.

The Dorset Council Highways Officer confirmed that they had no objection.

The Dorset Council Public Rights of Way team confirmed that the proposed works were located in the vicinity of the Public Right of Way.

The Dorset Council Conservation Officer advised that the proposed scheme had been assessed, in relation to perceived impacts on encompassing heritage assets, considered of special architectural/ historical significance, and their associated settings to which, from a conservation perspective, impact was considered unlikely and, therefore, in principle, no concern was raised.

The Dorset Council Environmental Health Officer stated that the noise limits, in line with mineral planning guidance, as set out in table 9 of the report, should be attached to any planning permission and controlled by condition.

The Dorset Council Flood Risk Officer advised that the applicant's flood risk assessment details the various sources of flood risk to the site and that the flood risk to the site was considered to be acceptable.

Councillor Laura Beddow commented that whilst recognising the need for minerals, the results of the cumulative impact work is crucial to these applications.

The report pack also included an Update Sheet and a further update sheet for the Woodsford Quarry application. These update sheets stated that the Environment Agency maintained their objection to the application, and that Natural England shared the concerns expressed by the Environment Agency about the potential effects on the River Frome SSSI and the Hurst Heath SNCI. The update sheet also stated that the applicant had submitted a Counsel's Opinion, setting out reasons why it was considered that the Environment has as a statutory consultee, taken an unlawful approach to the assessment of the cumulative impact of the development, contrary to settled caselaw.