Environment Act 1995 -
Application for the determination of conditions to re-activate a dormant sand
and gravel site under planning permission 2250 dated 10 December 1951 - field
no. 297, Cae Efa Lwyd, Penygroes.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Judith
Humphreys
Link
to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Environment
Act 1995. Application to determine conditions to re-commence the dormant sand
and gravel site under planning permission 2250 dated 10 December, 1951 - field
number 297, Cae Efa Lwyd, Penygroes
(a)
The Senior Planning Officer - Minerals and Waste
reminded members that this application had been deferred at the meeting of the
Committee on 27 November 2017 in order to hold discussions locally and receive
additional information from the applicant.
It
was noted that a public meeting had been held where the local member was
present but nobody from the local community had been present. He stated that it
had been explained at the meeting how officers had drawn up the conditions
recommended, emphasising that these conditions were more descriptive and
restrictive than those submitted by the applicant.
It
was reported that the applicant had submitted more information and a summary
had been included on the additional observations form. He drew attention to the
fact that the applicant stated that the Vibrock company were experienced and
that they provided specialist advice on noise and air quality in Britain and
abroad. The information received referred to open-cast coal works and the
'Newcastle' study. He noted that the Institute of Air Quality Management
acknowledged that the majority of mineral developments involved fewer
dust-producing activities than an open-cast coal works.
It
was emphasised that it was not possible for the Planning Committee to refuse
the application and that this was a matter of deciding on new conditions in
accordance with the Environment Act 1995 as the planning permission was valid until
2042. He noted that the work plan submitted either applied for a four-year
period by using a new access or an eight-year period should the existing access
be used. He explained that the plan favoured by the Council was the one with
the new access and also the provision of a continuous acoustic bund on the
eastern and southern side of the site. He elaborated on the Council's
conditions which included restricting the level of excavation, noise
monitoring, air quality and dust and restrict the hours of operation and other
technical matters.
It was explained that the conditions proposed by the Council had been
agreed between the Planning Authority and the Public Protection Unit. He added
that if the application was refused, then the applicant's conditions would
become operational.
(b) The local member (not a Member of this
Planning Committee), objected to the application, noting the following main
points:-
·
That there was fierce objection to the proposal of
re-opening the site;
·
The quarry would be frightfully close to
residential houses; that nearby houses were within 30 metres of the quarry. In
accordance with existing requirements, a quarry would not be approved without
being 100 metres away from houses;
·
That the applicant could make a further application
to extend the period;
·
That public health standards were different to
those that existed back in 1951;
·
That the conditions proposed did not sufficiently
mitigate the impact;
·
That the assessments were historical and general;
inconsistent and misleading;
·
In the context of dust, according to the World
Health Organisation, there was no safe level in terms of particles entering the
respiration system thus causing lung and heart disease;
·
It had been resolved at the previous meeting to
defer the application in order to receive further reports on dust matters;
however, these had not been received and they would take time to produce;
·
That there was a need to act in accordance with the
five methods noted in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015;
·
She asked the Committee to refuse the conditions,
that a Prohibition Order should be imposed and that the Welsh Government should
be asked to consider the application.
(c) In response to the
local member’s observations, the officers noted as follows:
·
They acknowledged the local strong feelings.
Partially agreed in regards to the quality of the information submitted as part
of the application and officers had challenged the content on three occasions.
By now, it was considered that the impact was acceptable;
·
That the legislation
substantially restricted what the Committee could decide as there was extant
planning permission already and that this was a decision on the conditions.
There were two possible options:
Ø Accept the conditions that had been the subject of discussions with NRW
and the Public Protection Unit that included 42 in total - the conditions
placed exceptional but reasonable restrictions on what could be done in the
quarry. Including no processing on the
site, only loading, no operating on weekends as well as noise and dust
monitoring.
Ø Refuse or defer
the application - the applicant's conditions would become operational from 5
January 2018.
·
That the four-year and eight-year work plans were
acceptable but it was suggested that it should be restricted to four years as
the work would end sooner;
·
That Schedule 2 included a condition that only the
new access could be used, prohibiting use of the existing access subject to the
approval of the subsequent application on the agenda;
·
In terms of a Prohibition Order prohibiting the
resumption of mineral working, a Prohibition Order had been issued on five
hard-rock sites on the Llŷn Peninsula coast in 2005 as the reserves of
hard-rock were excessive. Since they had been put in place, the size of the
land bank was down from over a millennium to a 30-year provision. There was collaboration in the field across
North Wales and the situation in terms of permissions was under continuous monitoring. In the case of this site, the site owner had
expressed an interest in working the site on many occasions so this site did
not merit an order;
·
That there was a legal
test that had to be satisfied in terms of imposing a Prohibition Order, but as there
was an intention to work the site, this was not an option.
(ch) It was proposed and seconded
to accept the conditions in Schedule 2 of the report.
A
member noted that he was uncomfortable to be a part of a decision that would
approve a quarry so close to dwellings. He was concerned about the impact on
tourism businesses in the area, the environmental impact and the impact on the
welfare of residents. He noted that
there was a duty to care for people. He enquired whether a third option was
available to the Committee, namely to defer and consider the company's evidence
in more detail and how the impact in terms of health could be mitigated.
In response to the above observations, the Senior
Planning Service Manager noted that conditions were being proposed by the
Council that would be monitored by the Public Protection Unit and that any
other matters could be managed through statutory nuisance legislation.
The Environmental Health Officer noted:
·
That officers had challenged the information in the
application on many occasions;
·
That strict conditions had been recommended and
that additional matters in terms of dust and noise, should they arise, would be
investigated under statutory nuisance legislation;
·
That the Public Protection Unit were operating in
accordance with the most current guidance of the Institute of Air Quality
Management.
The Senior Solicitor noted that should the
application be deferred in order to consider in more detail the evidence of the
company and how the health impacts could be mitigated, then the applicant's
conditions would become operational from 5 January 2018.
(d) During the
ensuing discussion, the following main points were noted by members:
·
That there was a need for sand and gravel but on
the other hand, there was a negative side to it. The Transportation Unit were not very
supportive to the application and Allt Goch was a dangerous road;
·
Concern that the development was within 30 metres
of a house;
·
That the Council's conditions were stricter than
those of the applicant; therefore, the situation would be better should the
Council's conditions be accepted, otherwise, the applicant's conditions would
become operational;
·
Would objectors be able to challenge this type of
decision through a procedure such as a Judicial Review?
·
That the site needed to be monitored and that there
was a duty to protect the public;
·
The Committee had no choice but to accept the
Council's conditions as it was the best option for the people of the area;
·
That there was a need to ensure that the lorries
transporting from the site would be covered;
·
That the Council's conditions were strict therefore
they would work in favour of the residents provided they were accurately
monitored. Air quality should be monitored more regularly than every 6 months
as noted in the conditions;
·
That there was a need to collaborate and that it
was important to establish a Liaison Group;
·
That evidence was needed of the monitoring work
carried out by independent people and a right to return the application. Could
quarry activities be prevented if they acted contrary to conditions?
·
That a baseline needed to be established now prior
to the commencement of the work in order to compare noise levels and the level
of particulates;
·
Committee members were asked to accept a report on
the monitoring arrangements.
(dd) In response to the above observations, the
officers noted:
·
That the observations of the
Transportation Unit responded to the original proposals. The subsequent application on the agenda
related to the provision of a new access to the development. Attention was drawn to the fact that the
Transportation Unit supported the new access and to the use of Allt Goch;
·
That it would be a matter for any
interested party to challenge this type of decision if they were of the view
that there were grounds to do so;
·
That it was an option to establish a
Liaison Group that would act as a formal forum to monitor the site with the
operator, local member, officers and community representatives as members.The
applicant was willing to discuss such an arrangement. Establishing a Liaison Group would be a
voluntary act and it could not be conditioned, the applicant could be advised
to establish a Liaison Group that would be administered by the Council;
·
A condition was recommended that the
applicant drew up a plan in response to any complaint received within 6 months;
·
There was no right to prevent
activities in quarries. The site would be monitored regularly. Operators
responded quickly to matters that were brought to their attention. If the operators did not respond when their
attention was drawn to any action that was in breach of conditions, enforcement
steps could be taken;
·
That operators were required to comply
with conditions, and that they would be prosecuted if they failed to do so;
·
That a level had been received from the
applicant and that the level of background noise could be monitored. In addition, the equipment of the Public
Protection Unit could be installed in properties in order to obtain
measurements in relation to air quality and nuisance.
Resolved:
(i)
That the planning authority is of the opinion that
the two scenarios including the four-year work plan and eight-year plan are
acceptable, subject to the appropriate regulations imposed under the amended
schedule of planning conditions. The
four-year plan of working along with an output restriction of 100,000 tonnes
per annum is the best option, subject to a favourable outcome to the
application for a new access under planning reference C17/0455/22/LL. Bearing in mind that a new and bespoke access
would direct heavy traffic away from Ffordd Clynnog and ensure the
implementation of the Alternative Scheme as noted on the application plans, it
is possible that a more effective mitigation plan will be implemented.
(ii)
To authorise the
Senior Manager, Planning, Environment and Public Protection Services to
determine the conditions in Schedule 2 of the report under the delegation plan.
· Permitted Operations & Compliance with the
Submitted Details/Plans
· Length of Working (Four years, 100,000tpa),
· Restriction on permitted development rights,
buildings, structures, private roads, floodlights and fences,
·
Mitigation for local biodiversity, Badgers,
breeding birds and reptiles,
· Working hours,
· No work on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays or
Public Holidays,
· Soil treatment and husbandry
· Drainage, measures to prevent polluting local water
courses,
·
Restoration to mixed agricultural and nature
conservation use,
· Field boundary restoration,
· Archaeological mitigation and recording,
· After-care measures for agricultural use and
biodiversity management,
· Dust controls and noise limitations, machines on
the working face to be fitted with white noise alarms.
(iii) To ask the applicant to
establish a Liaison Group as soon as possible.
(iv) That Committee members
receive a report on the monitoring arrangements.
Supporting documents: