Variation of conditions 4, 12, 14, 19, 22, 23, 26 & 27 on pp ref CW2001/0769/M - for the extraction of sand and gravel.

Variation of conditions 4, 12, 14, 19, 22, 23, 26 & 27 on pp ref CW2001/0769/M - for the extraction of sand and gravel.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. F. Bradley spoke on behalf of Lyde Parish Council and Mr. A.W.C. Morris spoke against the application.

In response to comments made by the speakers, the Team Leader (Minerals and Waste) advised that the basic principle regarding this site was that planning permission for the extraction of sand and gravel existed by virtue of the original (1965) planning permission.  The application sought to vary a number of conditions that had been placed on the planning permission when it was ‘modernised’ in 2001, specifically in relation to the reclamation of the site.  He noted local residents’ concerns about ground water but emphasised that, after a significant exchange of correspondence with the Council and the applicant’s agent and the consultant, the Environment Agency had no objection to the proposed variation of conditions subject to conditions.  He added that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer was satisfied with the consultant’s report.  Therefore, whilst there could be no absolute guarantee, the proposal was unlikely to have an impact on ground water.  The Team Leader also noted concerns about the stability of the sides of the excavation but commented that the steep sides were very stable and there was no evidence that there would be any impact from slippage.  He also clarified matters relating to the proposed excavation boundary.

Councillor Mrs. S.J. Robertson, the Local Ward Member, felt that Herefordshire’s countryside was being eroded by quarry activity and other landscape blight.  She noted that there was an over provision of gravel and the need for reduced waste in the construction industry.  She felt that the Sub-Committee had imposed reasonable conditions in 2001 which would ensure that the impact of the development on the area and on local communities was mitigated.  She expressed concern that, even with boundary fencing, the proposed pond would be attractive to children and accidents might occur as a result.  Local concerns about human rights matters were mentioned.  Councillor Mrs. Robertson noted that no guarantees could be given that water supplies would not be affected and felt that this potential risk should be avoided.  Given these considerations, she proposed that the application be refused and the site returned to original levels.

A number of Members spoke in support of the Local Ward Member and expressed their reluctance to vary the conditions, issues discussed included: perceived discrepancies in the information provided; concerns about the potential hazards of a large excavation; fatal accidents in quarry ponds; conditions that had not been adhered to; and the need for adequate boundary fencing and planting.

In response to a question, the Team Leader outlined some potential scenarios if planning permission was refused and the terms of the original planning permission were not adhered to.  The Team Leader also commented that the boundary fence was of a higher quality that the Health and Safety Executive required and it was proposed that this be supplemented with a belt of blackthorn to prevent access.

In response to a question, the Team Leader advised that the consultants did not consider that the excavation to below the water table to create the pond was likely to result in a surge of water in this instance.

It was suggested that highway safety was an additional reason for refusal but the Team Leader reminded Members that the proposal would mean that some 320,000 tonnes of material would not longer need to be imported into the site, representing a reduction of at least 15,000 lorry movements.

In response to some comments by Members, the Legal Practice Manager noted that the Sub-Committee was not the appropriate forum to discuss any potential revocation of planning permissions.

RESOLVED:

That    (i)    The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application, subject to the reasons for refusal set out below and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services, provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.  Health and safety considerations; and

2.  Detrimental impact on rural countryside.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:            Following the vote on this application, the Development Control Manager advised that he would not refer the decision to the Head of Planning Services.]