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
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,
Minerals and Waste Officer stressed that this was an application to Review
Mineral Sites under the Environmental Planning Act 1995 to approve a work plan
and a list of conditions for a dormant mineral site. It was added
that it was not possible for the Planning Committee to refuse the application
and they were required to agree to new conditions. It was highlighted that full, modern
conditions needed to be applied and the quarry development should be subject
to. It was explained that dormant
consents could not legally recommence without making an application to the
Mineral Planning Authority (MPA) and full modern conditions had been approved.
A list of new planning conditions was proposed by the applicant together with a
revised list of conditions with amendments by the MPA. It was noted that the
MPA had challenged the applicant's conditions and had proposed reasonable
conditions that included control of dust, noise restrictions as well as
limiting working hours.
Members’ attention was drawn to the
need for them to also determine a relevant/separate planning application to
create a new access for vehicles to serve the sand and gravel pit under
reference C17/0455/22/LL. As well as
approving the work plan and the conditions, the Committee was also requested to
consider the work schedule with a choice of four years and excavating 100,000
tpa and creating a new access, or eight years and excavating 50,000 tpa using
the existing access.
It was highlighted that a number of
objections had been received as well as a petition objecting on the grounds of
the impact on the amenities of nearby residents.
(b)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, an objector to the application noted the
following main points:-
·
NO
to re-opening the quarry. NO to the
Gravel Pit
·
Major
inconsistencies in the report and the assessments
·
Common
sense should prevail
·
It
was possible to excavate in another three adjacent fields - this raised the
suspicions of residents
·
That
nearby houses were within 30m to the quarry
·
It
was ridiculous to use words such as 'limited impact'
·
Accepted
that there were conditions to wash lorries, but what about clothes and the
world of nature
·
That
the safety of human health was a priority
(c)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points:
·
That
the quarry contributed to the local economy
·
The
work would employ 15 full time posts
·
That
the gravel was of good quality and was processed locally
·
There
were benefits to the alternative application that would restrict excavation to
four years rather than eight
·
That
discussions had taken place with the MPA and there was an agreement on some of
these
·
That
it was possible to comply effectively
(ch) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local
Member (not a member of this Planning Committee) made the following points:-
·
NO
to the Gravel Pit and NO to the New Access
·
There
would be pollution and noise for years
·
It
led to concerns - impact on the amenities and well-being of nearby residents
·
That
public health standards were different to those that existed back in 1951
·
There
were inconsistencies in the assessments and surveys attached to the
application
·
That
the assessments were historical and general; inconsistent and misleading
·
That
Vibrock investigations used common examples and recycled information from one
assessment to the next - using the same arguments Consequently, questions arose regarding the
credibility of the assessments
·
In
the context of dust, according to World Health Organisation guidance there was
no safe distance
·
That
the quarry was a danger to the health of local residents
·
Dormant
quarries should not be considered for re-opening - it was necessary to follow
current policies
·
Pleaded
with the Committee to prevent the application
(d) In response to the comments, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted
that he accepted that it was a sensitive and difficult application for the
Committee with restrictions on their resolution. He reported that it was the
responsibility of the developer to present assessments and that the Planning
Department had challenged several matters.
The Environmental Health Officer
was asked to respond to the concerns. It was noted,
·
That
officers had been challenging the application since 2014
·
The
main aim was to reach a situation where the local community did not face
problems
·
That
strict conditions had been imposed on the development and that excavation was
the best method and not processing
·
In
the context of a visible nuisance, it was noted that it was possible to impose
a control condition together with controlling the impact on the community's
health by setting appropriate levels where it would be possible to monitor the
situation if complaints about air quality were presented
·
That
officers favoured the four year option as there would be fewer side-effects by
not using the access near the houses.
·
Regarding
noise, it was noted that a condition to install an additional buffer had been
included
(dd) In
response to a comment regarding prohibiting re-excavation, the Senior Planning,
Minerals and Waste Officer highlighted that this had been considered, however,
the quarry owner had submitted figures for the reserve fund permitted in
response to the RAWP Minerals Surveys. In addition, the MPA had received
specific enquiries concerning the site for many years.
(e) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application on the grounds of
health and safety and as there was no suitable road to cope with the heavy
loads. The improvements needed to be presented
prior to any implementation.
(f)
The
Monitoring Officer reminded all that the Committee could not refuse the
application as planning permission already existed within the Act, and that the
Committee's function was to appoint appropriate new conditions for the
application. It was noted that the
applicant has submitted 30 conditions that would be implemented if the officers
had not challenged these and imposed 42 very strict and appropriate conditions.
(ff)
It
was not accepted that the proposal to refuse the application was appropriate.
(g)
It
was proposed and seconded, with concern, to agree to the revised conditions in
order to ensure control of the development.
(h)
An
amendment was proposed and seconded to agree to the revised conditions and to propose
a new access for the four year excavation option and / or the eight year
excavation option.
(i)
A
further amendment was proposed and seconded to conduct further discussions, to
include local residents, prior to making the final decision.
(ll)
During
the ensuing discussion, the following points were highlighted by individual
Members:
·
That
it was necessary to have an open discussion with the community to share
information.
·
It was necessary for the
applicant, the officers, Local Member and local residents to come together to
discuss the conditions.
·
That
the background and nature of the application made it difficult for the
Committee to make a decision
·
It
was necessary to challenge technical matters
·
It
was necessary to challenge the concerns of local residents about dust
RESOLVED to defer the decision in order to receive further reports on dust
matters.
Supporting documents: