County Planning Committee
Date Tuesday 2 September 2014 Time 2.00 pm Venue Council Chamber, County Hall, Durham
Business
Part A
1. Apologies for Absence
2. Substitute Members
3. Declarations of Interest
4. Minutes of the meetings held on 17 June, 1 and 29 July 2014 (Pages 1 - 48)
5. Applications to be determined a) CMA/7/102 & 2) DM/14/00170/VOC - Bishop Middleham Quarry, Bishop Middleham, Ferryhill, Durham (Pages 49 - 106) 1) Proposed western extension for the extraction of 5.5 million tonnes of magnesian limestone over a 14 year period with restoration to agriculture through landfilling of clay and soils over a 20 year period.
2) Variation to Conditions 1 and 7 of Planning Permission T/APP/H1345/A/96/267255 as amended by Planning Permission No’s. 7/98/58CM and 7/2003/0045CM in order to extend the date for completion of mineral extraction, revise the method of mineral extraction and revise phasing of inert landfill operations.
6. Such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration
7. Any resolution relating to the exclusion of the public during the discussion of items containing exempt information
Part B
Items during which it is consid ered the meeting will not be open to the public (consideration of exempt or confidential information)
8. Such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration
Colette Longbottom Head of Legal and Democratic Services
County Hall Durham 25 August 2014
To: The Members of the County Planni ng Committee
Councillor K Davidson (Chairman) Councillor B Moir (Vice-Chairman)
Councillors J Allen, B Armstrong, D Boyes, M Dixon, D Hall, G Holland, A Laing, R Lumsdon, C Marshall, H Nicholson, G Richardson, A Shield, P Taylor and R Young
Contact: Ian Croft Tel : 03000 269702
Agenda Item 4
DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL
At a Meeting of County Planning Committee held in Council Chamber, County Hall, Durham on Tuesday 17 June 2014 at 2.00 pm
Present :
Councillor K Davidson (Chairman)
Members of the Committee: Councillors B Armstrong, D Boyes, M Dixon, A Laing, R Lumsdon, C Marshall, N Martin, B Moir (Vice-Chairman), H Nicholson, G Richardson, A Shield, P Taylor and R Young
1 Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hall and Holland.
2 Substitute Members
Councillor Martin substitute for Councillor Holland.
3 Declarations of Interest
There were no declarations of interest.
4 Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held 1 April 2014 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
5 Applications to be determined
5a CMA/4/107 - Land at Field House Farm to the south of Robin Lane, to the south east of West Rainton, north of Low Pittington and west of High Moorsley
The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for a surface mine working scheme involving surface mining operations for the winning and working of 514,000 tonnes of coal and up to 83,000 tonnes of fireclay, ancillary site operations with progressive restoration and aftercare to agriculture, broadleaved woodland, hedgerows, water bodies, wetland and low nutrient grassland over a 3 year period (for copy see file of Minutes).
C Teasdale, Strategic Principal Planning Officer, provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.
Page 1
The Strategic Principal Planning Officer advised that since the publication of the report a further 41 letters of objection and a petition containing 147 names had been received. In addition a letter had been received from Roberta Blackman- Woods stating that a huge number of her constituents and local Councillors had contacted her and it is clear there is a great deal of anxiety within the area. Noting concerns relating to increases in traffic, and safety issues associated, potential health impacts, effect on the natural environment especially local wildlife, flooding, destruction of farmland, noise. She hopes that the objections of residents are taken into account and given serious consideration by the Committee.
Councillor Guy, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application. The NPPF at paragraph 149 stated that permission should not be granted unless environmentally acceptable or provided significant community benefits which could outweigh the likely impacts. While the planning report accepted that damage would be caused on a temporary basis, this was subjective. Many residents who lived near this site were in advanced years and the site may well for them be permanent.
The Councillor considered that there was no market for coal within County Durham however the report advised that coal still had a significant energy force within the UK. This was contrary to reports and data which had been collected which suggested that unabated coal generation was reduced and eventually eliminated in the UK. Furthermore the price of coal per tonne was currently £47 however the coal would need to be sold on at £60 per tonne in order to break even.
The site would not produce a huge tonnage of coal and would therefore it would not alter the need or requirement for imported coal. In addition the site would have a disruptive impact upon not only residents for a 3 year period but also on visitors to the County and the World Heritage site/Ramside Hall and those using the A690, A19 and A1.
The application proposed that fireclay would be extracted from the site, however the quality of such is unknown. If the quality was found to be inadequate then it would be returned as backfill, therefore to claim that jobs would be available was purely speculative.
The applicant was offering 20p per tonne to a community fund equating to £9 per day, which was an insult to the community given the disruption and irreparable damage to the community. Mention was made to the creation of 40 jobs in the mining industry in Scotland when more had originally been stated.
The economy in County Durham had been successfully rebuilt on tourism and the service sector and this proposed opencast site lies on the gateway to Durham. This proposed site would damage the tourism and service sector economy and visitors would not visit if greeted by open cast mine workings.
City of Durham Local Plan Policy E3 refers to the protection of the World Heritage site, including the need to safeguard the local and long distance views to and from the Cathedral. Breath-taking views could be currently seen from Pittington or
Page 2 Moorsley Hill even from the affected residents’ homes however this would be significantly altered if this application was approved.
In addition to the Cathedral other assets to County Durham, such as Ramside Hall could be at risk, given its proximity to the site. Other smaller local businesses would be impacted upon and many permanent local jobs may be at risk. The application therefore also contradicted NPPF Part 1 (Building a Strong, Competitive Economy) and 3 (Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy) as there were no economic benefits to the County.
Councillor Guy further referred to several paragraphs and Policies within the County Durham Minerals Local Plan 2000 and added that the application directly conflicted with those Policies.
The protection of agricultural land was a concern and reference was made to Policy E9 of the 2004 Local Plan. In addition the opencast site would lead to an increase in traffic with 74-90 Heavy Goods Vehicles accessing the site onto Robin Lane, which was a small narrow country lane and then joining the busy A690. Robin Lane was very narrow and the new proposed access road very close to a bend which would cause danger.
In conclusion Councillor Guy commented that the interests of the community, their health, enjoyment and livelihoods should be given priority over the pursuit of profit.
Councillor Hall, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application. He commented that he was disappointed with the recommendations of the report and feared that if approved the opencast site would decimate local businesses, ruin the character of the landscape and a highly residential area.
Significant investments had been made within Ramside Estates in order to provide world class golf facilities and this application caused great uncertainty regarding its future success. Furthermore uncertainty and distrust may prevent other business from investing in the area.
Open cast mines create huge grotesque holes in the grounds and the huge risks and impacts posed by this proposal are unbalanced against only a meagre amount of cheap and widely available coal that the report states is of lessening use and demand due to developing Government and C0 2. In addition no prior testing has been carried out on the quality of the brick clay. Therefore the objections were based upon environmental acceptability and economic benefit.
The site was visible from many areas within Durham City not only to residents but to the many thousands of visitors, business people and commuters. The land is currently agricultural and with such conflicts with Policy 20 relating to green infrastructure of the emerging County Durham Plan as no compensatory amount or alternative can be offered in its place. In addition the restoration of the land would take some time before it would outweigh the substantial short term harm.
Furthermore great crested newts could also be at risk of harm and these should be protected in line with policy.
Page 3
The site would also bring with it health concerns from dust and noise pollution. The report states a dust management plan has not been put in place as yet, therefore the true impact upon surrounding properties and families is unknown.
Paragraph 122 of the report indicates that for the worst affected properties and families the applicant’s goodwill should be relied upon. This cannot be guaranteed. In addition Durham already has high levels of respiratory illness and high numbers of both children and schools in the vicinity who walk and cycle to school past this site on a daily basis. In addition the area is highly populated with elderly residents.
In addition to the above the impact upon traffic and the cumulative effects would put pressure on already strained networks.
With regard to the economic benefits that the application claims it will bring, it should be noted that with regard to the extraction of fireclay the CDP states that evidence of the quality will be required prior to the determination of any proposals. This has not been carried out and with such the results of the mining could be worthless.
Regarding the extraction of coal the Government’s policy is to clean it or replace it and the CDP states that it is of no strategic value to County Durham and its plan. Deep coal mining which supported mass employment and entire communities is gone and we are now only left with the negative effects.
The employments benefits are questionable given the impact that any open cast will have on our existing businesses, facilities and income generated through tourism in particular Ramside Estates, Durham Cathedral and Durham City.
The third issue is one of prematurity. Granting the application would likely prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process and with such alongside other material planning reasons for refusal the NPPF allows for the application to be refused on the grounds of prematurity.
In conclusion Councillor Hall commented that the applicant could not have submitted a proposal which is more in conflict with the aims of the County Durham plan. In addition the site is nor environmentally acceptable or outweighed by economic benefits. Therefore based upon the risks, unacceptable impact the lack of economic benefit and the prematurity of the application, the application should be refused.
Mrs G Harland, STOPWR Group, addressed the Committee to object to the application. She referred to paragraphs 138 and 139 of the report in relation to concerns for the health and welfare of the residents and the constant disruption that would occur from extraction on the site and the light pollution which would occur from an area which was currently unlit. Furthermore dramatic changes to the contour of the landscape would exacerbate drainage and flooding issues. Any opencast site would be out of character with the surrounding area and it was considered by residents that there was no real environmental or economic benefit
Page 4 to the proposed site. She also raised concerns relating to the impact upon local businesses.
Mrs K Rowham, addressed the Committee to object to the application. She expressed the view that, in her opinion, undue influence could have been placed by the applicant upon the planning officer and some Members of the Planning Committee. She suggested that the only way the application could be considered with any degree of impartiality would be for the Committee to refuse the application and the matter be referred to the Planning Inspectorate for an independent decision to be made.
Mr D Turnbull, Pittington Parish Council, addressed the Committee to object to the application. The Parish Council considered the application to be of detriment to the area not only for residents, but those travelling to visit the area.
The Pittington countryside was an attractive environment at the foot of a magnesium limestone escarpment with panoramic views. These would be blitzed by this proposed opencast site.
The Parish Council would ask that the planning committee refuse the application and give the application a chance to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate, an independent arbiter. The application would desecrate the site visually and would adversely impact upon our local communities.
Mr S MacQuarrie addressed the Committee in support of the application. He reminded the Planning Committee that it was charged with the responsibility to weigh up all the issues and determine the application.
Referring to the nature of the objections he considered it was necessary to consider the facts and reality. Objectors had alluded that the number of staff employed by the applicant in Scotland was a lot less than proposed at the time of application, however this was not the case. Across the 7 sites operated by Hargreaves, over 500 staff are employed.
36 non statutory and non-statutory responses had been received relating to the application, 3 of which were objections received from Parish and Town Councils. The remaining 33 consultees raised no objections and offered no reasons for refusal.
The proposed opencast site would create 60 jobs and the indigenous coal extracted from the site played an important part in the supply of energy. Almost 40% of electricity generated in the UK was from coal.
The applicant did recognise concerns and the applicant was willing to work closely with residents by establishing a liaison committee to address these concerns as well as design issues.
In conclusion he advised that the application complied with local and national planning policy and there were no environmental reasons to refuse. The site if
Page 5 approved would provide a wide range of benefits which would outweigh any short term environmental impact.
L Renaudon, Solicitor Planning and Development advised the Committee that there had been some serious allegations regarding undue influence made without evidence by an objector. She advised that the Planning Committee was charged with the responsibility to determine mineral applications and was in a position to impartially determine this application.
In response to the concerns and issues raised by the speakers the Strategic Principal Planning Officer advised that concerns relating to noise, dust and other matters raised had been addressed in the report and would be mitigated by planning conditions. Furthermore there was no issue of prematurity in this case.
Councillor Dixon commented that the site was to be operated for a period of only 3 years and given that a number of statutory consultees had submitted no objections to the proposals which included dust, he agreed with the recommendations of the report considering that the development could enhance the environment. He noted that Business Durham have engaged with Ramside Estates but supports the economic benefits associated with the proposed development. He noted the substantial community benefit. He asked that Committee consider the implications of an appeal if the application was refused including cost and performance. He considered that Committee should endorse the officer recommendation.
Councillor Laing commented that she objected strongly to the accusations made by one of the objectors regarding the impartiality of Members of the Planning Committee. Councillor Boyes concurred with Councillor Laing’s comments. He further added that he had concerns regarding the proximity of the site to housing, and the disruption, traffic and dust that the site would generate. He considered the proposed number of jobs should be considered in context and that the coal from the site would not keep the power station going and that there was over 30mt of coal in Easington. He did not consider that the proposal was acceptable given the environmental costs over the 3 years of the development, the disruption of wagons and the proximity to enabling development. Councillor Boyes further added that he considered that the sum offered to the community fund was derisory and that the application should be refused.
Councillor Martin queried what the average seam depth would be across the site. He commented that this site would be detrimental to the future development of Ramside Estates and raised concerns regarding the quantity and value of the coal and fireclay to be extracted from the site. Councillor Martin referred to work in Scotland where the value of the coal extracted from a site was so insignificant that further work had to be undertaken to extract more coal, in order to pay for the restoration.
In response the applicant advised that the average seam thickness would be 5 metres.
Page 6 Councillor Marshall considered that material considerations needed to be taken into account and that the proposal would be detrimental to the local economy and would lead to unrecoverable impacts.
Councillor Shield informed the Committee that that he held sympathy with the local residents. He considered that the negative impact on Ramside Estates with the possible loss of jobs and the World Heritage site which would be a consequence of this application was too great and not outweighed by any economic benefit.
Councillor Taylor informed the Committee that he had heard little from the applicant on the economic benefits that the application would bring and furthermore felt that the proposal was vandalism of the landscape and was not acceptable.
Councillor Richardson added that he felt aggrieved at the loss of agricultural land.
In response to the issue of the community fund, the Strategic Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that a contribution of 20p per tonne of coal transported off site would amount to approximately £102,800 during the life of the site.
Councillor Moir informed the Committee that the application was contrary to a number of Development Plan policies as well as the NPPF and therefore concurred with Councillor Boyes’ motion to refuse the application.
Councillor Armstrong said that she did not consider the proposal to be environmentally acceptable.
Councillor Lumsden queried how the health experts who had been consulted had reached their conclusions. In response the Strategic Principal Planning officer advised that DCC Environmental Health Officers had assessed the submitted air quality assessments when considering the impacts of the proposal. She also stated that Public Health England and NHS North Durham Clinical Commissioning Group had also been consulted and raised no objections to the proposal. Councillor Lumsden further queried why more holistic assessments had not been carried out by the Public Health team given the number of objections received relating to health concerns.
Moved by Councillor Boyes to refuse the application, Seconded by Councillor Martin and:
Resolved: That the application be refused on the grounds that the adverse environmental impacts consisting of landscape and visual impacts and local economic impacts are not acceptable and could not be made so by planning conditions or obligations and that the national, local or community benefits would not outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission contrary to relevant development plan policies and the NPPF.
Page 7 5b CMA/4/112 - Land south west of Station Road, West Rainton
The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for a residential development of up to 150 dwellings, small scale community hub comprising use classes A1 and/or A2, A3, A4 and A5 of up to 950sq.m and use class D1 of up to 950sq.m with open space, hard and soft landscaping, associated infrastructure and off site highway improvements (outline all matters reserved expect access)(for copy see file of minutes).
The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.
The Senior Planning officer advised that since the publication of the report 5 further letters of objection had been received. West Rainton Green Group had expressed their concerns. In addition a letter had been received from Roberta Blackman- Woods MP highlighting the main concerns of residents and asking that the Planning Committee take these concerns in to consideration when determining the application.
Councillor Guy, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application. Reference to the development of brownfield over greenfield sites was made and the various policies within the Durham City Plan which were relevant to the application.
The countryside around West Rainton was highly valued and classified grade 1 farming land. The proposed development was also outside of existing settlement boundaries and was not allocated as a site for housing in the emerging local plan and with such, deemed unsustainable for housing development.
Local Plan policy E3 was also undermined as current unrestricted views of the World Heritage site would be lost.
Further concerns were raised regarding the suitability of the site given the contaminated and unstable nature of the ground.
The site also would impact upon wildlife and protected species which currently inhabit the site, all of which would be diminished if the application were to be approved, contrary to Policy E16 of the Local Plan .
There was also significant traffic concerns regarding this application and the proposed development would put stress on the already strained network. In addition the A690 was a designated walking route for children travelling to and from school.
In addition to the strains on traffic there would also be an increased strain placed upon school places and according to DfE guidance, 1 school place would have to be added for every 4 houses. Therefore a total of 38 additional school places would be required.
Page 8 Councillor Hall, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application. He informed the Committee that the local community did not currently require any further housing but did require infrastructure improvements as there were significant safety concerns with the current highway arrangements.
The proposed development would create a separate hamlet and would be of detriment to the existing local shops and businesses.
Councillor Gilbank, West Rainton and Leamside Parish Council, addressed the Committee to object to the application. Currently the site created significant volumes of run-off water into gardens and properties in the area. Northumbrian Water already struggled to deal with the 89,752 gallons of run-off water at the site and residents had major concerns as to how they would cope with potentially 358,280 gallons. This would also impact upon the ability for residents to insure their homes in the future.
Traffic was already very heavy around the site and many used the road as a cut through to Newton Hall and Chester-le-Street. Pittington junction had not been taken in to consideration and residents had major concerns that the proposed improvements would lead to an unsafe rat run.
Reference was made to similar applications which had previously been made on the site and it was questioned how this application differed to any of the others which had been rejected.
Mrs D Mahoney, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application. The site was not identified for development within the emerging County Plan and there was already adequate housing allocation in the plan for the next 20 years. The site also lay outside the boundary of the village and was therefore considered as an incursion into the open countryside, which was contrary to development plan policy.
Volumes of traffic around the site were also high and many used the road as a shortcut in to Durham City. Station Road suffered high levels of congestion and the proposals for a new traffic light system were not considered to be an acceptable solution to the problem.
With regard to the proposed hub, it was noted that the community was already well served by retail outlets and no further services were required. Any new businesses or services may threaten those existing businesses.
Further reference was made to a community meeting whereby over 70% of respondents/attendees were opposed to the development.
Mr R Till, Tees Valley Housing, addressed the Committee to support the application. The proposal would include benefits for the community including new traffic light junctions, 30 homes for social housing, £50k in community group funds and a new surgery for the existing doctor’s practice.
Page 9 Tees Valley Housing was charitable group which was keen to work with residents and maximise job opportunities. The land was intended to remain in the ownership of Tees Valley Homes and as such it was in the company’s best interests to continue to support the community in the area, once the development had been completed.
Mr J Taylor, Applicant’s Agent, addressed the Committee to support the application.
With regard to the flooding issues raised, various infrastructure improvements were proposed which would improve the current situation. In addition the emerging County Plan identified that there was increased flexibility regarding brownfield development.
Proposals had been amended to reduce the number of houses from 250 to 150 which were in line with less than 15% settlement growth. The site would also benefit from a commercial and community centre which was planned to be delivered in the early stages of development. Construction work on the site would provide 37 jobs for each of the 5 years of construction.
In conclusion, Mr Taylor informed the Committee that the site was a sustainable development, well connected and in a viable area. Overall the scheme was considered to be a thoughtful one with community in mind.
Councillor Martin commented that development in the countryside contradicted Policies E7 and H5 of the existing Durham City Plan and with that in mind he failed to see how the application could be approved. In addition the site was not identified in the emerging County Durham Plan and would constitute development in the countryside. With regard to the traffic light proposals he added that in his opinion the traffic issues had not been adequately dealt with and this development may further compound the issues.
In response to the comments made the Area Planning Team Leader (Policy) advised that it is clearly acknowledged that the proposal is contrary to the existing and emerging plan. He advised that he could understand some of the concerns made and the confusion regarding the two separate plans. He considered that national guidance, which took a more pragmatic approach to sustainable development and other material considerations weighed in favour of the proposals. With regard to the emerging County Durham Plan it was noted that the list of sites identified within the plan was not exhaustive and if good sustainable schemes were to come forward then they would be considered.
The Highways Officer informed the Committee that it was estimated the proposed development would generate 93 two-way vehicle movements per day at the A690 road junction. 5,000 vehicles per day currently used Station Road, 400 during peak hours. 2,000 vehicles used the A690 over peak hours. Although a grade separated junction had been recommended for the A690 in 1991, this had been for a proposed development of 400 houses. The road junction on the A690 had been modelled for the extra traffic generated by the proposed development and this had shown the junction could operate safely and within capacity as a traffic signal controlled junction.
Page 10
Councillor Boyes recognised that the site was not allocated in the local plans but that the NPPF carried weight and there would be benefits from the scheme.
Councillor Dixon considered that the development was sustainable in line with the NPPF. He informed the Committee that Tees Valley Housing was a socially responsible housing group with a good reputation. He considered that any potential drainage problems could be addressed and he was therefore minded to approve the application.
The Council’s Solicitor advised members of the Planning Committee that proposals should be assessed against the development plan and then any other material planning considerations.
Councillor Taylor informed the Committee that although the development was outside the settlement boundary, he considered the application to be well thought out. The provision of the proposed 30 social houses would be beneficial to the area.
Councillor Armstrong advised that she supported the proposed development because of the benefits proposed; such as the community fund, affordable housing, retail element and the benefits to the local economy,
Councillor Richardson informed the Committee that the loss of agricultural land and the generation of additional traffic caused by the application led him to the conclusion that the application should be refused.
Moved by Councillor Boyes, Seconded by Councillor Dixon and:
Resolved That the application be approved, subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 legal agreement and subject to conditions, both as outlined in the report.
5c DM/14/00920/FPA - Wolsingham School and Community College, Leazes Lane, Wolsingham, Durham, DL13 3DN
The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the proposed extension to the Wolsingham lower school building, part demolition of existing classroom block to the rear, and associated landscaping (for copy see file of Minutes).
The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation on the application. He advised that 1 objection had been withdrawn since the publication of the report, and planning conditions 8, 9 & 23 have been reworded to read prior to occupation rather than prior to development commencing.
Moved by Councillor Moir, Seconded by Councillor Martin and:
Resolved: That the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
Page 11
5d DM/14/00761/FPA - The Meadows School, Whitworth Road, Spennymoor
The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of school extension, associated external works, and demolition of demountable classrooms (for copy see file of Minutes).
The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation on the application .
Moved by Councillor Nicholson, Seconded by Councillor Dixon and;
Resolved:
That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
5e DM/14/00762/FPA - North Durham Academy (West Campus), Blackett School, Annfield Plain.
The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the reuse of Greencroft Community School to provide a new school facility for Harelaw Special School and partial demolition of existing building, erection of roof infill to existing courtyard area, external alterations and associated landscaping (for copy see file of Minutes).
The Senior Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation on the application. She then advised members that the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer had requested that a validation report was submitted to ensure that any remediation work required had been carried out successfully. She recommended that this could be ensured through the imposition of a planning condition. She also advised members that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer considered that the operational use of the sports facilities should be restricted further than that set out within the officer report, in order to safeguard the amenity of the closest residents.
Councillor Martin advised that he considered that the sports facilities should be made available for members of the public to use in the evening and thus thought that the condition as set out in the officer report was appropriate.
Moved by Councillor Moir, Seconded by Councillor Martin and:
Resolved:
That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and the additional contaminated land condition.
Page 12
DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL
At a Special Meeting of County Planning Committee held in Council Chamber, County Hall, Durham on Tue sday 1 July 2014 at 2.00 pm
Present :
Councillor K Davidson (Chairman)
Members of the Committee: Councillors J Allen, B Armstrong, H Bennett (substituting for Councillor A Laing), D Boyes, M Dixon, D Hall, G Holland, R Lumsdon, B Moir (Vice-Chairman), H Nicholson, G Richardson, A Shield and R Young
1 Apologies for absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A Laing and P Taylor.
2 Substitute Members
Councillor H Bennett substituted for Councillor A Laing.
3 Declarations of Interest
Councillor D Boyes declared an interest in Agenda Item 5 (b) - CE/13/01542/FPA - East Durham College, Houghall Campus, Houghall, Durham, DH1 3SG as a Governor of East Durham College and withdrew from the meeting during the consideration of this item.
4 Applications to be determined
4a) DM/14/00100/LB and DM/14/00101/FPA – Hamsterley Hall and land to the north of the Hall, Hamsterley Mill, Rowlands Gill, NE39 1NJ
The Committee considered a report of the Team Leader – Strategic Team, regarding applications relating to the restoration of Hamsterley Hall as a single dwelling, incorporating works to the bothy, construction of a garage and reinstatement of conservatory, as well as enabling development comprising 35 new dwellings with garages and a new site access from the B6310, with associated landscaping and infrastructure works at Hamsterley Hall and land to the north of the Hall, Hamterley Mill, Rowlands Gill, NE39 1NJ (for copy see file of Minutes).
The Team Leader – Strategic Team, provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.
Page 13 Councillor W Stelling, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application. It had been 2 years since the proposals for the site had last been considered by the Committee. Those proposals had been refused and as such Councillor Stelling had thought that several years on, any new proposals would be of mutual benefit to all interested parties – the local community, the Hall and the applicant. However having sourced information and evidence from a wide range of areas, he was of the opinion that the current application was unacceptable.
In referring to the letters of support and objection which had been submitted, Councillor Stelling highlighted that only 8 of the support letters had been written by individuals, the remaining 255 were signed copies of a standard template letter. By contrast, all 117 letters of objection had been written individually.
Members were advised that the site area was designated as an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV) and was proposed to be designated as Green Belt in the emerging County Durham Plan. As such the area was much valued and held in high regard.
Councillor Stelling had been advised by local residents that the enabling development would harm the character and appearance of the area. Although there were less houses, the development would still be on the same site and although the new proposals saw the development set further back, Members were advised it would still have a visual impact as was to be on higher ground.
In relation to the Hall, local residents had expressed concerns to Councillor Stelling that the property would remain a private dwelling with public access being permitted only once a year. The depth of local feeling was such that the local heritage of the Derwent Valley should not be sacrificed for a private venture such as the restoration of the Hall.
Councillor Stelling highlighted that there was local consensus that the Hall should be restored, it was undeniably a building of significant importance. However that restoration should only happen by the right means, and as the current application was for enabling development on a less acceptable site, then the means remained unacceptable.
Councillor I Jewell, local Member for the neighbouring Division of Dipton and Burnside, addressed the Committee to object to the application. He advised Members that the proposals would have a major impact on his Division, predominantly because the enabling development would be positioned on high ground. Councillor Jewell felt that it was naïve to think that the visual impact of the development could be minimised by the introduction of a substantial area of tree planting.
Councillor Jewell took the opportunity to reinforce several points of objection as follows:- • The previous application in 2010 had been turned down by the Committee, subsequently that refusal had been upheld by the Planning Inspectorate. As such in the interests of consistency and given that there were no
Page 14 fundamental changes to the application, Members were urged to make the same decision as in 2010. • It was highlighted that the enabling development was not the only option for saving and restoring the Hall, there were other available options. • Members were advised that of the schools within the vicinity of the proposed development, one within Councillor Jewell’s division had been oversubscribed for four years. • Although there was only one reported road traffic accident on the B6310 road in the last 5 years, Members were advised that there was regularly debris from vehicles at the roadside due to minor collisions on the road. • The proposed development was not sustainable. • It was argued that ultimately no-one would benefit from the proposals as they were purely for the benefit of a private dwelling.
Councillor Jewell therefore requested that Members refuse the application.
Mr L Rutherford, DVPS, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. He felt that the officers report sided with the developers and he questioned the lengths which were being taken to preserve the listed building. Members were advised that because of the Green Belt location, the Heritage Lottery Fund had refused to support the proposals, stating that there would need to be a step change in relation to the impact of the local heritage before a funding application could be looked at again. Members were reminded that the Planning Inspector had endorsed the Committee’s refusal of the previous planning application for the site.
Mr Rutherford referred to the new build housing as a Trojan horse scheme. He felt that an imaginative proposal was needed on an acceptable site and in the absence of one, he felt that the owner of the Hall should resort to spending their own money on the restoration project. He commented that other land in the Barratts portfolio had not been considered
Ms L Morton, DVPS, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. She highlighted that 117 individual letters of objection had been submitted and while she personally had no objections to saving the Hall, she felt that destruction of the Derwent Valley was too high a price to pay.
Ms Morton felt that the applicants were now trying to demonstrate that in the new application, all observations made previously by the Planning Inspector had now been satisfied. Ms Morton highlighted that the only public benefit to the restoration of the Hall was the possibility of public access once a year. Members were advised that even if the application were to be approved the future of the Hall would still be in doubt, however the Derwent Valley would then have been permanently destroyed.
Ms Morton felt that the Committee were being asked to disregard all relevant planning policies in order to approve the application and while English Heritage were quoted as saying that the benefits of the application outweighed the disadvantages, Ms Morton advised that there were no benefits. She reiterated
Page 15 that previously the Planning Inspector had concluded that the enabling development would destroy the parkland.
Mr W Butterworth, DVPS, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. He reiterated the speech given by Ms Morton, believing that the scheme being put forward should have been entirely different from the original proposals. Members were reminded that the Planning Inspector had previously advised that any forthcoming proposals should be smaller in scale and on dispersed sites.
Mr Butterworth felt that inadequate weight was being given to the emerging County Durham Plan and felt it illogical to set aside the policies contained therein, especially when the plan promoted the importance of the Green Belt.
In relation to the sustainability of the site, Mr Butterworth advised that nothing had changed since the original proposals and the site remained unsustainable. Spatially the site was neither appropriate nor suitable. In terms of economic benefits, Mr Butterworth highlighted that there was no provision for affordable housing within the application.
Mr Butterworth felt that it defied common sense to assume that the enabling development could be disguised with woodland, given that the proposed siting was now on higher ground than the previous application.
In reiterating previous comments, Mr Butterworth felt that the owners of the Hall should independently pay for the restoration project.
Mr P Wilson, CPRE, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. He found the current application to be a virtual repeat of the previous application and furthermore the current proposals failed to address the issues of landscape and sustainability. The only difference was that the scale of the proposed development had been reduced to 35 dwellings.
Members were advised that the supporting infrastructure remained the same as before and he felt that the new proposed development would be more conspicuous as it would be located on higher ground.
The applicant did not offer any affordable housing and the enabling development remained unsustainable in terms of the schools, transport links, roads and other resources that would be required to support it.
Mr Wilson advised that CPRE urged refusal of the current application, reminding Members that the Planning Inspector had supported the refusal of the previous application.
Page 16 Mr M Hepburn, NLP Newcastle, addressed the Committee to speak in support of the application. Members were advised that the application was a great example of exactly what Enabling Development was all about and attention was drawn to the full support of English Heritage and Council Officers for the proposals. In reiterating the view of officers, Mr Hepburn advised that the Hall was not beyond saving and the proposals would deliver both local and national public benefits which would save a rare Grade II listed building. Mr Hepburn advised that the new housing would bring its own very substantial benefits. The development would generate 137 jobs in the supply chain each year on construction, £3 million spent in the local economy each year during construction, additional money spent by residents each year which would support shops and services and an employment and skills strategy which would ensure that local apprentices, tradesmen and suppliers would work on the project.
Members were advised that Business Durham had committed to helping attract senior executives and people likely to start new businesses. Having responded to suggestions from the local community, Mr Hepburn advised that various additions to the scheme would be provided including 10 open days giving access to schools and interest groups, bus stops and lay-bys on the B6310, safer access to the Derwent Walk car park, a gateway feature to encourage drivers to drive carefully and various wildlife and conservation benefits. Mr Hepburn stressed that only essential works to the Hall would be funded from the housing development, the housing was now much less in density and the dwellings would be 100m further away from the Listed Old Lodge and Gates. Mr Hepburn highlighted that there had been no objections from any statutory consultees and 263 letters of support had been submitted to the Planning Authority. It was reiterated that the proposals were a perfect example of exactly what the Enabling Development process was intended for and the application before the Committee was the only way to save a vitally important part of the local heritage.
Mr C Oliphant addressed the Committee to speak in support of the application.
Mr Oliphant advised the Committee of his background as a Chartered Civil and Structural Engineer and Managing Director of BDN based in Durham at the Rivergreen Centre. Mr Oliphant had been Chartered for over 30 years, and had a wealth of experience with important listed buildings including, Durham Castle, Bowes Museum and Durham Town Hall. Members were advised that his company were involved with the Aykley Heads House building as Structural Engineers and brought the building from a fire damaged shell to a completed Award winning Building.
Page 17 Mr Oliphant had first become involved with Hamsterley Hall over 5 years ago when initially he had undertaken a survey to determine which areas of the building were safe to allow access and which needed to be cordoned off or fully restricted. It was obvious at that time that the building was suffering progressive active movement and indeed some areas had already collapsed.
Over the past 4 years Mr Oliphant had been actively involved in updating surveys, emergency shoring work and general stability advice on the Hall.
Without the funding to allow the full structural repair, intervention and restoration, Mr Oliphant advised that he had have very significant concerns that there were large proportions of the remaining fabric that would be lost to structural collapse. The building structure can be saved, but it would be inappropriate to take a reactive approach on only the most severely unstable areas. Members were reminded that some of the collapses over the last 4 years had occurred with little or no immediate warning.
Mrs R Scott addressed the Committee to speak in support of the application.
Mrs Scott advised that she and her husband owned a local business called AD Scott Asbestos Consultancy.
It was clear that the Hall was an important historical building which was considered special by many people, however Mrs Scott wished to show her support for the scheme because of the opportunity the residential development would mean to her and her husband as the owners of a growing local business and parents of a young family.
Mrs Scott advised that they had lived in the area for 10 years and started an Asbestos consultancy from a back bedroom of a terraced house in 2008. The initial ambition for the business had been to achieve an estimated annual turnover of £75,000, by providing asbestos consultancy and services to the Midlands, North and Scotland from a North East base.
Members were advised that the business grew year on year and the current years turnover was excepted to exceed £750,000. Mrs Scott advised that a sister company had also been established which was on target to achieve a turnover of approximately £250,000in its first year. Both companies had the potential to expand significantly and Mrs Scott advised that they employed 11 people, including senior managers and trainees, with 3 current vacancies. The client base included multinational corporations as well as individual companies across the UK, as such the company could realistically be based anywhere in the country.
Mrs Scott was however keen to remain in the area and an opportunity to live in the sort of accommodation and location that the enabling development would provide, would encourage her to stay in the area and continue to invest in the local economy.
Page 18 Mr D Holmes addressed the Committee to speak in support of the application. He had first seen the Hall a few years earlier and although struck by how special it was, he was also aware that the Hall had suffered serious deterioration.
Mr Holmes was, as were most interested parties, aware of the Government’s Enabling Development and the Conservation of Significant Places Scheme and the requirement therein to show that the benefits outweigh the dis-benefits. He felt it difficult therefore to see how the proposed scheme could not be considered as beneficial.
Members were advised that English Heritage, who were not known for being easy to get on side, were in full support of the scheme, a scheme without which a grade II listed building could not survive. There were no other means of funding and no remaining viable options to restore the Hall.
Mr Holmes advised that the owner, having already purchased the estate, was required to purchase the Hall again at market value and that all outfitting would be at his own cost.
There were no objections from statutory consultees or from the Hamsterley Mill Residents’ Association.
Mr Holmes advised that the benefits to the local economy from the scheme were considerable in terms of jobs and to the benefit of local businesses. He believed the current application met all of the expectations of the Planning Inspector with the minimum necessary development to secure the future of the Hall.
The Team Leader – Strategic Team, responded to the points raised as follows:-
• Public access – In addition to the annual public access to the Hall, Members were advised that there would be a further 10 days access granted to scholary organisations, interest groups and skilled craftsmen. Members were reminded that there was currently no public access to the Hall; • Schools – The Education Authority had confirmed that there was sufficient capacity in surrounding schools to support any new pupils coming from the development; • Planning Inspector – Members were advised that in considering the previous application, the Planning Inspector had called for proposals in an alternative format and had advised that a lesser number of properties might assist with assimilation. It was important to remember that this had merely been a suggestion from the Inspector and that the current scheme did serve to minimise impact while securing the future of the Hall. • Sites in Barratt ownership – Members were advised that the applicant had considered sites only in the Spry ownership. Barratts had no interest regarding the ownership of the Hall or the land and only owned land which benefitted from existing planning permission. • County Durham Plan – Members were reminded that only limited weight could be given to the emerging plan and in referring to paragraph 309 of the
Page 19 report, the Team Leader highlighted that there remained outstanding Green Belt issues.
The Principal Landscape Officer responded to points raised as follows:-
• High Ground – It was acknowledged that the effects of the changes to the proposed scheme did site the enabling development on a higher area of ground with slightly more conspicuous views. In relation to the views of the site from the Dipton and Burnside area, there was little difference to the original scheme and from the adjacent B6310, the visual impact of the proposed development was actually reduced. Members were advised that the planting of robust linear trees would be introduced which would aid the reduction of visual impact. In the short term there may be a minimal impact but that would lessen as the trees matured.
Councillor A Shield congratulated officers for a comprehensive report and advised that he supported the restoration of the Hall. Indeed in that regard, he was not aware of any objections to the restoration project, both locally and nationally. However he was mindful of the concerns highlighted previously by the Planning Inspector and by local residents.
Councillor Shield drew attention to the estimated conservation deficit of the proposals, drawing attention to paragraph 229 of the report. Based on the information provided by the developer, Members were advised of a conservation deficit of c.£3.12m and by contrast an conservation deficit estimate by Gerald Eve, the appointed consultants, of £3.69m. Members were advised that although the developer had stated that the proposed development was the minimum necessary to secure the future of the Hall, the Committee would have to ignore the previous refusal and the comments of the Planning Inspector in order to approve the current scheme. He reminded Members of the reasons the Committee had refused the previous application with an 11-2 majority. Furthermore, Members were reminded of the Planning Inspector’s conclusions, in particular that the Committee’ refusal was supported as there were no outward community benefits.
In referring to paragraph 226 of the report and the doubts which remained from English Heritage as to the future of the Hall, Councillor Shield found the application to be a clear breach of the Saved Local Plan and the emerging County Durham Plan. In particular he believed that saved policiesEN1, EN2 and EN6 and Parts9, 11 and 12 of the NPPF were being breached. In relation to the emerging County Durham Plan, Councillor Shield cited breaches of policies 1, 13, 14, 15 and 39.
In concluding, Councillor Shield drew attention to the Planning Inspectors views of the previous application and to the 42 conditions attached to the current application, which he found an unacceptable attempt at mitigation.
Councillor Boyes advised that he had been a Member of the Committee when the previous application had been considered and that he had voted for refusal. At the time he had been concerned about the number of dwellings and the
Page 20 space they would have taken up. However the proposals were now for less dwellings and he noted that the scheme would add jobs into the local supply chain. He was also keen to save the Grade II listed building and in accepting there was no other means to do that, Councillor Boyes moved approval of the application.
Councillor Dixon advised that he too had been on the Committee which had considered the previous application and he had also voted for refusal, as he felt there was no balance to the proposals. However he acknowledged that officers did undertake a robust process when considering the viability of proposed planning applications and the applicant had made changes to the proposed scheme. Furthermore, the NPPF was now a relevant planning document, there were no objections to the proposals from statutory consultees and English Heritage supported the scheme. Councillor Dixon believed that house building was to be accepted as part of the regeneration economic process. In seconding the motion to approve the application, he remarked that years ago, local residents had accepted the development of a nearby railway, whereas the current application was for only 35 well screened dwellings which would enable the restoration of a Grade II listed building.
In response to a query from Councillor Dixon, the Planning Development Manager advised that should the Committee resolve to approve the application, then the possibility of doubling the public access days to the Hall, could be considered.
Councillor Hall noted that Heritage Lottery Fund had refused to contribute to the scheme on the basis of restricted public access to the Hall and he asked for more details in that regard. Furthermore, Councillor Hall had noted on the site visit that 2 properties had been developed adjacent to the Hall and he queried whether the owner of the Hall had undertaken their restoration when now the Committee were being asked to go against planning policy to enable the future of the building. The Chair also queried why an application for the redevelopment of the outbuildings had not been brought before the Committee.
For the Chair, Councillor Shield clarified that although he had requested for that application to come before the Committee, he had made the request outside of the required 21 days.
The Team Leader – Strategic Team, responded to the points raised as follows:-
• Funding – Members were referred to paragraph 219 of the report, which stated that Heritage Lottery Fund would normally require substantial public access in order to provide funding. However, even if more public access were to be offered, the HLF were still unable to guarantee any level of funding. • Adjacent outbuilding conversions – Members were advised that the redevelopment of the 2 adjacent outbuildings had occurred during the previous year. The enabling development was purely in order to fund the restoration of the Hall. It was acknowledged that the owner of the Hall could have sold off the outbuildings, thus fragmenting the estate, however English
Page 21 Heritage Guidance seeks to avoid fragmentation. As such the value of the adjacent outbuildings did not need to be considered as part of the case for enabling development.
Councillor Richardson stated that he could not support the application. There was to be no affordable housing within the development and he was not satisfied that the restoration of the Hall would cost an estimated £5m, yet it would only hold a market value of c£1.6m.
The Chair took the opportunity to voice his concerns about the proposals as follows:-
• The applicant spoke of the unique architecture of the Hall, however it wasn’t the Georgian Gothic aspects which were unique, it was more the ecclectic mix of architectural designs. The Chair felt that even taking into account the proposed conditions to the report, there was insufficient benefit to the scheme; • It appeared that the applicant, in reducing the size of the enabling development, had now been able to contribute an additional £1m to the development which he had been unable to when the previous application was being considered; • The Chair felt that the enabling development would spoil the Derwent Valley and would be unsustainable. He acknowledged that English Heritage were satisfied that the enabling development would not impact on the Hall, however English Heritage failed to consider the impact on the Valley; • In terms of site sustainability, the Chair found the introduction of some nearby bus stops to be completely inadequate, given that the proposed dwellings would be executive homes.
For those reasons the Chair felt unable to support the application.
Councillor Armstrong concurred with the Chair’s comments. Under any other circumstances, she believed that a proposal for 35 dwellings in the countryside at an unsustainable location, would automatically be refused. Furthermore, she felt that the Committee were being asked to support the bankrolling of a private restoration project.
In response to a query from Councillor Lumsdon, the Chair clarified that the Committee could request an increase in the public access to the Hall.
In response to a further query from Councillor Lumsdon, the Team Leader – Strategic Team, clarified that although one of the conditions detailed within the report would see the removal of permitted development rights at the enabling development, the Committee could impose a further condition to restrict the use of garages for business purposes.
Councillor Hall was inclined to object to the application. Although he was attracted by the 35 dwelling development, he remained mindful of the Planning Inspectors observation that the site was unacceptable and he believed that to date, this had not been overcome.
Page 22
Councillor Boyes highlighted that there were benefits to enabling developments and cited examples of previous such proposals which the Committee had approved.
Councillor Shield read out extracts from a recent statement by County Councillor N Foster, regarding the recent sale of Windlestone Hall, also a Grade II listed building, which had been recently sold at a discount despite having an estimated value of £3m after restoration. He compared what was happening with Windlestone Hall with the situation at Hamsterley Hall.
He again called for the application to be refused on the basis that the application contradicted saved local plan policies EN1 EN2 and EN6 as well as Parts 9, 11 and 12 of the NPPF. While he also felt that the application contravened the County Durham Plan, he acknowledged that as emerging policy, it could only be given limited weight.
Upon a vote being taken the numbers for and against were 7-7. Upon the Chair’s casting vote it was:-
Resolved: That the application for Planning Permission (DM/14/00101) be refused for the following reasons:-
• The proposal would only potentially secure the future of the heritage asset • The application contradicted saved Local Plan Policies EN1, EN2 & EN6 and Part 11 (Paragrpah 109) of the NPPF in terms of the impact on the countryside • That the site was in an unsustainable location • The application was inconsistent with the Green Belt policy in the emerging County Durham Plan.
Upon a vote being taken it was:-
Resolved:- That the application for Listed Building Consent (DM/14/00100) be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the report.
4b CE/13/01667/FPA – Sheraton and Neville House, Darlington Road, Durham, DH1 4SY
The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the conversion and extension of Neville House and demolition and replacement of Sheraton House to form student accommodation development comprising of a total of 418 no. beds and associated works and landscaping at Sheraton and Neville House, Darlington Road, Durham, DH1 4SY (for copy see file of Minutes).
The Senior Planning Officer, provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.
Page 23
Members were advised of several updates to the report as follows:-
• Paragraph 144 of the report stated that there was a clear understanding that there was an ambition to increase student numbers from 15,300 to 17,100 by 2020. Those figures were now understood to be incorrect. Members were therefore advised that the degree of increase in student numbers that was expected by the University was anticipated to be around 1,800 to 2020 but this increase was to 15,300 from the baseline of approx. 13,500; • Paragraph 1 of the report mentioned that Sheraton House was the northernmost of the buildings and Neville House the southernmost – Members were advised it was actually the other way round. • A further condition was required for attachment to any permission limiting total occupancy to 418 no.
The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee of several late representations which had been received since the publication of the report, as follows:-
• The applicant had submitted a statement seeking a revision to the wording of condition 2. The applicant raised objections to condition 2, with the main issue being the potential impact that such a phasing of the development would have upon the timescales of the delivery of the development.
4 further comments had been received from objectors as follows:-
• Concerns over impact of so many students and highways implications, queries over why demolition of Sheraton House was being accepted, why repairs to the building not carried out and why the Council has permitted the buildings to be in such a condition. Recession was behind us and alternative developments could now come forward. Essentially those were points that had been raised before in previous submissions.
1 further letter of support had been received:-
• Stated that they and a number of other residents fully support the scheme considering that no other development is going to come forward to redevelop the site and deliver such benefits. Concerns were raised at the accuracy of surveys canvassing opinion on development. Again those were essentially points raised in previous letters of support. A further point was raised that other uses would have impacts upon local residents and those developments would be less managed than the current development.
In addition the University had also sought to further clarify their latest position with regards to the development ahead of the planning committee and this is .. “that whilst discussions are ongoing with the developer the University is not committed to taking any interest in the property at the present time.”
Page 24 Councillor N Martin, local Member, addressed the Committee. He found the application a difficult one to deal with as the current situation with the buildings was clearly not good. In respect of the current application he had originally thought the University were taking the lead, that the development would be for post graduates only and that it would accommodate half the number of students now proposed.
However now the details of the scheme had come out, it was unclear whether the University had any involvement. Councillor Martin felt housing such a large number of students within a residential area, was wrong and undergraduate numbers could not be enforced.
Councillor Martin felt that the application broke policy H6 of the saved Local Plan, policy C5 was also broken by the proposed demolition of Sheraton House.
Councillor Martin questioned the need for further student accommodation within the City. It was predicted that between 2012 and 2020 there would be an additional 1800 students to accommodate, however in highlighting various student accommodation applications that had already been approved, Councillor Martin advised that 1700 had already come forward and all but 100 had planning permission already. As such, increased numbers of future students could not be argued to demonstrate the need for the current proposals.
Members were advised that Councillor Martin had been the Principal of Tervelyan College within the City and had resided in the middle of the college grounds. Although there was no internal noise from the students due to enforcement by the College, Councillor Martin advised he had been regularly woken up in the middle of the night by the noise from students outside. He drew attention from the comments of the Police within the report, which reinforced the problems which could occur through noise. While Councillor Martin had put up with the issues as he had been paid to live within the College grounds, he pointed out that local residents were not.
Mr R Cookson, AlumNO! Residents Association, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. He stated that the proposed development would have a major impact on the lives of local residents, who had originally understood that the 2 buildings were to be converted into residential flats and so had invested in their new homes on that basis. Due to clear provisions within the local Plan, residents had also believed they would be safe from student accommodation being developed on their doorsteps. Residents now felt betrayed by out of area companies who sought to develop the area.
In highlighting the volume of objections to the application, three quarters of residents living in the immediate vicinity, Mr Cookson suggested that there was no evidence of support for the application.
In referring to Policy H16 of the Saved Local Plan, Mr Cookson argued that 418 students would double the population of the local area and the disruption and loss of amenity which would occur as a result of the development, was unacceptable.
Mr Cookson stressed that local residents did not have exaggerated fears, nor were they an anti student community, it was simply that the proposals were believed to
Page 25 be unrealistic. Any music and noise coming from the development would not be controlled and students would be walking and talking through the adjacent estate at all hours.
The concerns of local residents covered a variety of issues including the demolition of Sheraton House, the loss of light and overshadowing for neighbouring properties, unenforceable parking restrictions, highway safety concerns at Potters Bank and concerns that local residents would have to compete against students for use of the local community ground.
Mr Cookson concluded by stating that the proposed development would create an unbalanced community, whereas alternative options would have had much less impact. In summary the development would have a devastating impact on the health and welfare of the local community.
Mr D Abercrombie, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. Mr Abercrombie advised there was a long history on the site and previously many respectful developers had tried to utilise the area, however all had failed to find a viable, deliverable and sustainable proposal.
Although the site had consent for residential development, that was no longer a viable option for developers.
The proposal before the Committee was for purpose built, high specification accommodation which was a viable proposal and had the involvement of the University. Although there was no contract in place at present, Mr Abercrombie advised that proposals were based around the University controlling the development in the future.
Mr Abercrombie also drew attention to the financial contribution and community room which the developer had committed to providing. All statutory consultees were content with the proposals and the large investment on the site would create 160 jobs and bring c.£2.2m into the community in future spending.
Mr S Anthony, local resident, addressed the Committee to speak in support of the application. Mr Anthony advised Members that the Alumno! Group did not accurately represent the majority of people living on the estate and he was also surprised that the local Member was now objecting to the application as he had previously understood that Councillor Martin was in support.
Mr Anthony highlighted that there were already 70 students living on his street and they lived there problem free. He believed it was therefore inaccurate to suggest that the proposed housing of 418 students could not work in a space that was larger in footprint than Faraday Court, as it was already working there.
In relation to community space, Mr Anthony suggested that the creation of additional open space for community use, would be beneficial to the community.
Mr Anthony stated that refusing the application would mean continued deprivation to the local residential community, Durham was an academic city and while that
Page 26 was widely accepted, it seemed only so long as student accommodation was not developed on people’s doorsteps.
The Senior Planning Officer responded to points raised as follows:-
• Residential Amenity – It was appreciated that residential amenity was a key issue with the application and it was acknowledged that the introduction of students in an area would have an impact, however through appropriate management measures, that impact could be reduced; • Extant permission would be for in excess of 200 residents with no management plan and could have been to house students • In relation to the University’s involvement, Members were advised that was not a material impact when considering the issue of residential amenity; • Policy C5 – while it was accepted that the application went against policy C5, Members were directed to the explanation regarding this, detailed from paragraph 124 of the officers report; • Need for Development – attention was drawn to paragraph 142 onwards of the officers report. In concurring with Councillor Martin, the Senior Planning Officer agreed that should the application be approved, it would exceed the number of student beds which the University suggested were required by 2020. However through the development of purpose built student accommodation, a potential would be created for those developments to compete with terraced HMO’s. Furthermore Members were advised that the NPPF stated that where development plans were silent, there was no limitation on student numbers; • The concerns raised by local residents regarding previous development plans not coming to fruition were appreciated, however the Senior Planning Officer advised that just because a developer secured permission did not guarantee that the proposed development would then go ahead; • Parking – The Highways Officer advised that originally the proposals were for a zero parking policy to operate at the development however the Highways Authority had objected to that. As such a pragmatic view had been taken, hence the introduction of 50 parking spaces as detailed within the report. If more than that had been suggested, it would have meant encroachment onto green space, as such 12% parking was realistic; • Members were reminded of the benefits which the S106 and open space contributions would have for the area.
Councillor G Holland advised that he shared the concerns expressed by local residents and by Councillor Martin. He found the proposal to be a watershed application which was not stand alone as there were more similar applications in the pipeline.
The proposals were for more student beds than were actually needed and he was speculative as to the University’s commitment to the development.
Should the application be approved, Councillor Holland believed it would damage and undermine the surrounding residential area and stated that there was a need to protect the welfare of the local community.
Page 27 There were several strands to his objections to the application:-
• Although acknowledging that the emerging County Durham Plan was somewhat weak at the moment, he felt that policy 6C, which related to student numbers, was not met; • Paragraphs 61 and 76 of the NPPF were not met as the proposals would disconnect the community and would not engage locally; • NPPF paragraphs 95-98 regarding zero carbon were also not met. • NPPF paragraphs 128-137 were cited as being contradicted, with particular reference to paragraph 130 relating to the deterioration of a community asset; • In relation to the saved Local Plan, Councillor Holland stated that the application was contrary to policies H2, H7, H9, H13, H16, T1, T10, T21, R1, R2, R3, C3, C5. Policy Q3 was stretched and Q9 section 4 was contradicted, as were policies U14, U15, E21, E22 and E23.
Councillor Holland felt that the application was being proposed contrary to the wishes of the majority of local residents who had invested so much into their homes and had been led to believe that the site would be developed into residential flats. Members were advised that the University was committed to housing students more centrally over the coming years and so in moving refusal of the application for the reasons already stated, Councillor Holland urged Members to oppose the application to secure a harmonious outcome for the site.
In moving approval of the application, Councillor Boyes stated that he found the scheme to be very good, especially with the creation of 160 jobs on a site that was in desperate need of development. He questioned the apparent stigma surrounding students, stating that not all students were hooligans and it was wrong to stereotype them in such a way. There was never a suitable solution in relation to the housing of students, they were neither wanted in the city centre or on the outskirts, it always seemed to be a no win situation.
In seconding the motion for approval, Councillor Dixon agreed that the site was an eyesore which was in desperate need of development and the proposals before the Committee were an ideal opportunity for the site to be appropriately redeveloped. Councillor Dixon believed the Committee had a duty to develop the economy of the area and the current application would create jobs, immediate income and future income for the local area. He stated that the application accorded with the NPPF and suggested that there were worse aspects which could occur in community life other than the citing of students in a residential area.
In referring to the site visit the previous day, Councillor Richardson advised that he had found the site to be in an unsightly condition. However he was aware from relatives that he had in Durham, that the local residents had been promised there would never be students housed at the site.
Councillor Richardson advised that a relative of his used to work at the University who had told him that staff would leave the University at 5pm, followed by the cleaning staff at 6pm, after which only 1 member of staff would remain on site.
Page 28 Once it got to 11pm on an evening, noise would start and with only one person left in control, the noise could not be prevented.
He believed that the site undoubtedly needed tidying up, however Councillor Richardson was not convinced that there was sufficient need for more students beds.
Councillor Hall concurred with the observations of Councillor Richardson regarding the unsightly condition of the site as witnessed on the previous days site visit. Councillor Hall had also noted how the pleasant the surrounding residential area was, exactly the kind of development which was welcomed in the city.
In principle, Councillor Hall found the proposed delivery of such private student accommodation to be acceptable, however when considered in the context of the local area, he found there to be a complete u-turn which undermined many policies. In particular the emerging local plan spoke about sustainable communities where people would want to live, Councillor Hall felt the proposals undermined that completely.
In relation to heritage assets, Councillor Hall felt that a definitive view should be taken – either sentiment should prevail and so effort should be made to retain a heritage feature, or not as the case may be. However Councillor Hall felt it was wrong to cheapen an asset with redevelopment proposals, just to ensure that a site was saved. Councillor Hall felt there was too much impact on residential amenity and so was opposed to the application.
Councillor Dixon highlighted that in this case there was no u-turn on policy as there were already students living within that residential community.
In response to a query from Councillor Dixon the Senior Planning Officer clarified that the site was not listed buildings nor was it within the conservation area. However the site was of architectural merit as a red brick building of a certain era. The departure from the NPPF and saved policy C5 was acknowledged but was acceptable.
Councillor Shield had been disappointed at the state of the site but didn’t feel it was appropriate to be redeveloped for students. He drew attention to the Police comments detailed within the report and furthermore he was surprised that Business Durham had not been engaged in looking into the future of the site.
Councillor Shield also highlighted that having checked the Electoral Register for the area, there were actually only 35 students registered at Faraday Court, not 70.
Councillor Holland agreed that the site was an eyesore and would welcome it’s restoration, but was mindful that the vast number of local residents did not want the proposals. What was needed were proposals which would protect the long term welfare of the local community, which the current application would not do.
Upon a vote being taken on the motion to approve the application, is was:-
Page 29 Resolved: That the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
4c) DM/14/00845/FPA – Land North of Ladysmith Terrace, Ushaw Moor, Co. Durham
The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Office regarding the erection of 167 dwellings, associated infrastructure and landscaping at land north of Ladysmith Terrace, Ushaw Moor, Co Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).
The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout.
Parish Councillor P Stoddart, Brandon & Byshottles Parish Council, addressed the Committee. Members were advised that the application would bring a £25m investment for the regeneration of a dying area. Ushaw Moor was in desperate need of redevelopment.
Councillor Stoddart reminded Members of the new estate which had been developed in the village previously and he advised of how that development had brought life back into the village, however there still remained a need for further regeneration within the area. He therefore welcomed the development of quality dwellings for quality people which would have a ripple effect in supporting local schools, businesses and other local resources. The development would benefit the village as a whole.
He refuted the suggestion that the development would cause traffic problems, advising that on balance the development was a much needed lifeline.
Councillor J Chaplow, local Member, addressed the Committee. She advised Members that the development would bring families back into Ushaw Moor and introduce much needed affordable housing. There was capacity in all 3 local schools to cope with the development, as could the public transport network. Councillor Chaplow advised that residents from Ushaw Moor tended not to use Toll House Road and as such she disagreed with the views of the Highway Authority.
Councillor D Bell, local Member, addressed the Committee. He too advised that Ushaw Moor was in desperate need of regeneration and it was preposterous to suggest waiting until the development of the Western Relief Road. Members were advised that Brandon and other similar areas had benefitted from similar much needed new developments, though they were also subject to traffic issues.
Councillor Bell suggested that the new Sainsbury’s at Toll House Road had certainly increased traffic, however the current traffic volumes had not been considered when that application had come forward.
He therefore called for the Committee to support the application, advising that it would bring both employment and young people into the village.
Page 30 Ms S Dixon, local resident, addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application.
Members were advised that there were 13 homes in Ladysmith Terrace, all built during the turn of the last century, which would be directly overlooked by the proposed development. Ms Dixon was concerned about the impact on the village as a whole and the surrounding settlements.
In relation to the scale of development, Ms Dixon felt that the proposed 167 dwellings was almost the size of another village and she felt that Ushaw Moor would not be able to cope with the introduction of so many more dwellings.
In relation to road safety and congestion, Members were advised that the traffic passing through the village had significantly increased in recent years and that for pedestrians, crossing the staggered junction in the centre of the village as a pedestrian was dangerous.
The access point for the proposed housing estate was off Whitehouse Lane and near a bus stop. Ms Dixon therefore contended that any further increase in traffic plus the vehicles joining Whitehouse Lane near to the entrance of Whitehouse Court and the local school, would create an increased hazard to school pupils and residents. Furthermore, Members were informed that during inclement weather, because of its steep gradient, Whitehouse Lane became hazardous.
Ms Dixon contended that rush hour traffic caused significant congestion and the increased number of cars the development will bring would only increase problems.
Ms Dixon argued that the new development would place an increased pressure on local services. Parking in the centre of the village was already very poor, there was no village hall, a lack of community spirit and Ms Dixon felt that Ushaw Moor was slowly becoming nothing more than a commuter corridor.
Ms Dixon contended that although the new development would be on a mix of greenfield land and former allotments, there was currently a waiting list for allotments and therefore a demand for more allotment space.
Ms Dixon suggested that should the development be approved, that a substantial buffer zone was needed for Ladysmith Terrace. Members were advised that the terrace would ultimately end up marooned between the new properties and the Persimmon development to the south. As such the properties in Ladysmith Terrace would inevitably be overshadowed by the new homes.
Ms Dixon stated that the new development would have a significant impact on the character of village and the patchwork approach to development had a significant impact on the visual amenity of Ushaw Moor. In her opinion, it would have made more sense to develop to the East of the village near the Deerness sports centre, where new homes had already been built. Furthermore Ms Dixon contended that new homes weren’t selling in the village, she therefore failed to see that there was a demand for more to be built.
Page 31
Father J Marsland, President of Ushaw College, addressed the Committee to speak in support of the application. Members were informed that should the application be refused, it would have a significant impact upon the College. The Seminary had closed in 2011, since which time alternative uses had been explored.
Members were informed that the development would generate funds, the proceeds of which would go towards the redevelopment of the Ushaw College site and its associated heritage and art collections.
Mr J Foster addressed the Committee, speaking on behalf of the applicant. He advised that the developer was committed to supporting the economic growth of Ushaw Moor. From the viewpoint of the emerging County Durham Plan, the proposed development was considered very sustainable and would include 20% affordable housing to assist local people to get onto the property ladder.
He informed members of a range of economic benefits of the development as follows:-
• The creation of 32 full time jobs; • £1m additional expenditure countywide; • £1.4m New Homes Bonus; • £1.2m Council Tax Bonus; • Major contribution towards the Council’s new homes target.
Other benefits of the application included landscaping of the area and S106 contributions. Furthermore Mr Foster indicated that the creation of local apprenticeships to work on the development, would be explored.
In referring to the traffic related issues, Mr Foster indicated that the whole development would take approximately 5-6 years to complete and that 1 year into the development, only an estimated 3 more cars per day would use the Toll House Road junction, rising to 26 by 2018. Mr Foster highlighted that by 2018 it was envisaged that the Western Relief Road would be open and so there would be no impact felt by the additional vehicles. Mr Foster suggested that there was no significant impact from additional vehicles as it simply meant cars were joining the end of a queue, creating only a slight inconvenience.
The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that the information presented to them by Father Marsland, Ushaw College, had not been known previously by the Planning Authority and as such had not been included within the officers report.
The Highways Officer responded to points raised as follows:-
• Both the applicant and Highways Officers acknowledged there was a significant volume of cars in the locality. Members were reminded that the Western Relief Road had not been approved, as such Officers advice was that the application was simply premature because of current traffic issues.
Page 32 • It was a fact that the development would add more traffic into an already saturated traffic network. Whilst it could be argued that additional cars would just be joining already existing queues, the Highways Officer stated advised that current users would then suffer more detriment. • Regarding the distribution of vehicles, Members were advised that it was very difficult to predict which routes drivers would take in a saturated network. • Members were advised that when more cars were added to a queue, the ripple effect was that more junctions ended up blocked and so the impact of the queue would grow. • It was hoped that there would be an announcement regarding the Western Relief Road in 2015 but until then from a Highways perspective, while the application was in a sustainable location with good transport links, it was deemed premature.
Councillor H Nicholson felt that Ushaw Moor was very much in need of further development, in particular one that brought 20% affordable housing to within an area. He therefore moved that the application be approved.
In seconding the motion for approval, Councillor Boyes advised that while he respected the opinion of Highways Officers, the impact on highways had to be balanced against the benefits of the development. He commended the local Members who had spoken in support of the application and were welcoming of new development within their respective areas.
Councillor Boyes was drawn by the 20% affordable housing allocation and the creation of 32 jobs. He felt that in terms of traffic congestion, drivers would simply find alternative routes if certain roads were regularly congested. He reminded Members that during the previous year, the Committee had approved a development twice the size at Langley Park and he did not believe that Ushaw Moor could wait any longer for further regeneration.
Councillor Holland also supported the application, commenting that he found the reasons for refusal to be trivial and Councillor Shield expressed his support.
In response to a query from Councillor Hall, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the Planning Authority had managed to secure more dense planting to the rear of properties at Ladysmith Terrace and Taylor Wimpey would plant on those rear boundaries.
Councillor Armstrong advised that Ushaw Moor was in the neighbouring division to her and she was fully aware that the village was desperate for further regeneration. Whilst she acknowledged that there were congestion problems at Stonebridge and Toll House Road, she advised that there were alternative routes which could be taken.
The Chair hoped that the Highways Authority would take on board the comments of the Committee, that traffic congestion should not suffocate development proposals.
Upon a vote being taken it was
Page 33
Resolved:- That the application be approved subject to entry into a suitable S106 agreement and the imposition of conditions be delegated to the Head of Planning Spatial Policy and Assets in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee.
4d) DM/14/01195/OUT – North East Industrial Estate, Stephenson Road, Peterlee, Durham
The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the residential development of 390 dwellings (outline, all matters reserved) at North East Industrial Estate, Stephenson Road, Peterlee, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).
The Area Team Leader, Central and East, provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout.
In moving approval of the application, Councillor Bennett commented that the proposal was long overdue as the Industrial Estate had been something of an eyesore for a long time.
Councillor Moir seconded the motion for approval of the application.
Resolved:- That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined within the report.
4e) DM/14/00362/FPA – North Pier, Seaham Harbour, Seaham
The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the proposed repair and restoration of Seaham North Pier including the replacement of the concrete deck, repair and repointing of masonry walls, repapir and replacement of concrete coping stones, works to repair three previously breached sections and temporary access to the Pier off the A182 at North Pier, Seaham Harbour, Seaham (for copy see file of Minutes).
The Area Team Leader, Central and East, provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout.
Seconded by Councillor Shield, Councillor Moir moved approval of the application.
Resolved:- That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined within the report.
4f) DM/14/00464/WAS – Heights Quarry, Eastgate, Durham
The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the change of use from quarry to recycling of road planings and road base at Heights Quarry, Eastgate, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).
Page 34
The Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. In referring to page 211 of the report and condition no.8, Members were advised that the applicant had suggested the condition to be unreasonable, an assertion which was supported by local Member Councillor J Shuttleworth. As such, officers were in agreement that the condition should be removed.
In response to a query from Councillor Shield, the Planning Officer clarified that condition 8 had not been imposed as a result of consultation. Officers had originally chosen to impose the condition themselves however were satisfied that it be removed, as the current vehicle movements of 150 per day would only be increased by a further 12 vehicle movements.
Resolved:- That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined within the report.
4g) DM/14/00465/WAS – Hulands Quarry, nr Bowes, Durham
The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the change of use from quarry to recycling of road planings and road base at Hulands Quarry, nr Bowes, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).
Seconded by Councillor Moir, Councillor Shield moved approval of the application.
Resolved:- That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined within the report.
Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 36
DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL
At a Meeting of County Planning Committee held in Council Chamber, County Hall, Durham on Tue sday 29 July 2014 at 2.00 pm
Present :
Councillor K Davidson (Chairman)
Members of the Committee: Councillors B Armstrong, J Clare, D Hall, G Holland, C Kay, C Marshall, B Moir (Vice- Chairman), H Nicholson, G Richardson, K Shaw, A Shield and R Young
1 Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M Dixon, A Laing, R Lumsdon and P Taylor.
2 Substitute Members
Councillor C Kay as substitute for Councillor J Allen, Councillor J Clare as substitute for Councillor M Dixon and Councillor K Shaw as substitute for Councillor A Laing.
3 Declarations of Interest
There were no declarations of interest.
4 Applications to be determined
4a CE/13/01696/FPA - County Hospital, North Road, Durham, DH1 4ST
The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the conversion of former hospital and its extension to form 89 student studios, erection of student accommodation building to include 309 bedrooms, demolition of outbuildings and extensions and creation of cycle storage, parking and altered site access at the County Hospital, North Road, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).
The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout.
Page 37 Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.
The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that an additional letter of objection to the application had been received but raised no new issues to those already raised.
Councillor N Martin, local Member, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. He informed the Committee that local residents were opposed to the application which was seen as a step too far in the provision of student accommodation in Durham City, and referred to English Heritage’s objection to the proposal detailed in paragraph 57 of the report. He informed the Committee that County Hall in Durham was a 7-storey building and as such was the second highest building in the City, and this proposal was for an 8-storey building, which would be overbearing in this location.
Councillor Martin referred to proposed University expansion for an additional 1,800 students and informed the Committee that planning permission had already been granted for accommodation for 2,400 students. Additionally, there were approximately 400 spare rooms in HMO’s within the City. Within the vicinity of the proposed development, 67% of properties were occupied by people with different surnames, which suggested student accommodation, and an extra 223 places would be available on the former Henderson’s garage site in the autumn. Under the NPPF there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development, but this application was not environmentally sustainable, economically sustainable or socially sustainable, and had an active objection from the University.
Mrs Harvey Dowdey, Deputy Director of Estates, Durham University addressed the Committee to object to the application on behalf of Durham University. While the University was generally supportive of accommodation which was of sufficient quality and was well managed, the University had concerns about this proposed development. The plans for the development contained insufficient social learning space and only a single common room, which was not enough for this size of development. The proposed rooms were small and the development was unlikely to accommodate a mixture of undergraduates and postgraduates. Mrs Dowdey informed the Committee that the University had not entered into any lease or agreement with the developer and considered the scale of the proposed development to be unacceptable.
Mr Roger Cornwall of the Crossgate Community Partnership addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. He informed the Committee that this was a contentious application, with over 100 people attending a meeting to express their opposition to it. The proposed site needed a high quality sustainable development with a sympathetic treatment of the land. Any development of the site should bring more high quality craft type jobs and result in more full-time equivalent jobs than this proposal would create. The nearby Kingslodge hotel, which had submitted an objection to the development because of the impact it would have on the hotel, had subsequently submitted an application to convert the hotel to student accommodation as a fall back measure if this application was approved.
Page 38 Mrs Jackie Levitas, local resident, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. She informed the Committee that she had lived in Waddington Street for some 37 years and was now the only permanent resident in that street. This development, which was 7 and 8 storeys high, would have an overwhelming effect on Waddington Street and she thought that the planners were correct in recommending refusal of the application. She asked the Committee to consider the effect this development would have on both future generations in Durham City and the City itself. The application would spoil this area of the City and would not introduce a mixed economy which the City needed.
Mrs Turrington, local resident, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. The proposed development, due to its size, would have an adverse impact on the area around the viaduct and the top of North Road. There was no evidence, as claimed by the applicant, that the proposed development would reduce the numbers of HMO’s in the area, as this had not happened in Nottingham when student accommodation was developed. Although the applicant had stated that the proposed development was to be a managed facility, there were no details as to how it would be managed. There were already problems being experienced by local residents from students loitering late at night, and this would only exacerbate these problems. Mrs Turrington made reference to comments reportedly made by a local councillor about City residents not deserving gilded lives and stated that City residents neither wanted nor had such lives.
Councillor Davidson informed Mrs Turrington that although the councillor had been purported to have said this, he had not actually said it. Mrs Turrington apologised to the Committee.
Mr Michael Smith, local resident, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. He informed the Committee there were three grounds for refusing the proposed development, these being that it did not improve sustainability in the area, it was a poor design and there was no community benefit from it. In the area around the viaduct there was an increase in the number of HMO’s for students, and this proposed development was part of a trend towards large student blocks in the area, these being the former Henderson’s garage site, the Kingslodge and there was a danger of a small University campus being created by accident. If the development went ahead, local residents would move out of the area.
Mr Simon Chadwick of Signet Planning addressed the Committee in support of the application. He informed the Committee that the application had been submitted after months of consultation with planning officers to agree key issues. He referred to the scale and massing issues which had been raised and referred Members of the Committee to the scale model of the development which was on display in the Chamber. The NPPF outlined that there needed to be a balance struck between the harm and benefits of any proposed development. English Heritage had commented that the while the proposed development would be harmful to the significance of the conservation area, that harm had been judged to be less than substantial and that the impact of the proposed development on the significance of the railway viaduct would not be harmed.
Page 39 The proposed development would bring with it an employee trainee scheme during the construction phase and would be a £17m investment creating 177 full time equivalent jobs during the 18 months of construction.
Mr Brendan McMullen of Church Lukas addressed the Committee in support of the application. He informed the Committee that the proposed development would protect a heritage asset and that great lengths had been taken to uncover older buildings on the site. The development would produce improved views of the 1853 part of the building from the railway viaduct and improve arboriculture with all A1 trees and the majority of other trees on site being retained. The overriding character of the site was that it was surrounded by mature trees and the materials proposed for construction matched in with the tree line both in and out of leaf. Although the proposals were taller than the ridgeline of the current building, when viewed from the viaduct the gables and finials would make the roofline appear to be lower.
Councillor Holland informed the Committee that a presentation was made to local residents on proposals for this site which was for restoration of the hospital building and creation of high quality residences. At that time there was no mention of student accommodation, however, this proposal was submitted at the same time as the presentation took place. The emerging County Durham Plan contained no conditions regarding student accommodation and Councillor Holland expressed his hope that this omission was addressed during the examination in public phase of the Plan. Opposition to the proposed development was widespread, including English Heritage, Durham University, City of Durham Trust and local residents. Paragraph 141 of the report set out a range of reasons for refusing the application, which Councillor Holland fully supported, and he moved the recommendation in the report.
Councillor Marshall informed the Committee that student accommodation applications were regularly being brought to Committee for consideration and asked whether there was there was any policy for such applications in the emerging County Durham Plan. Gavin Scott, Area Planning Team Leader replied that the issue of purpose built student accommodation would seek to be addressed as the emerging Plan evolved. Councillor Marshall requested that all partners across the City be included when addressing this issue. He agreed with the comments of English Heritage regarding this application and those of the Design and Conservation Team and seconded refusal of the application.
Councillor Moir informed the Committee that he agreed with the views expressed by Councillor Marshall. Although Durham was a university city, it was also a city in which people lived and enjoyed its amenity. He agreed that this application should be refused and added that the application had been dealt with scrupulously by planning officers.
Councillor Kay, while acknowledging the views of English Heritage that the proposed development would not have a significant impact on the viaduct, referred to the views of English Heritage also outlined at paragraph 58 of the report which stated that the benefits of the proposal were not sufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused. He therefore supported refusal of the application.
Page 40
Resolved: That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.
4b CMA/1/78 - Land to the south of Marley Hill and east of Crookgate Bank
The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for a reclamation and surface mining scheme to extract coal and fireclay involving the remediation of contaminated land and derelict land followed by restoration to appropriate after uses on land to the south of Marley Hill and east of Crookgate Bank (for copy see file of Minutes).
The Principal Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.
Councillor O Milburn, local Member, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. She informed the Committee that no public consultation had been carried out in the Shield Row, Kip Hill and Burnopfield areas, and that the consultation carried out in the Causey area had been done in a haphazard manner. Referring to increased traffic movements, Councillor Milburn informed the Committee that it was proposed that empty lorries would travel the route to Stanley from the Chester le Street area at rate of up to 1.5 lorries every 5 minutes. However, the proposed route of the lorries included a bottleneck at Blind Lane and traffic lights on Chester Road, as well as passing a bus garage, ambulance station, a housing estate with poor access and North Durham Academy. Additionally, Causey Road was often closed because of road traffic accidents. All of this had the potential of slowing traffic on the route, and as a consequence, motorists would start using a short cut on the Beamish incline to Kip Hill which passed a housing estate.
Councillor I Jewell, local Member, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. He informed the Committee that although the application appeared to be straight forward, there were issues in its detail.
Councillor Jewell referred to the issue of contaminated land on the proposed site. The applicant was not proposing to decontaminate this land, but was proposing to stabilise it and then bury it on other parts of the site. However, contaminated land had never been raised an as issue for this area in the past, and if there was a problem with contaminated land, the local authority would be duty bound to make this safe. It was unclear why the applicant was not proposing to decontaminate the land rather than stabilise it and it was also unclear where the stabilised land would be buried on the site, with no information of what percentage would be buried on the part of the site within Durham County Council’s area and what percentage on Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council’s area. Councillor Jewell queried this level of confusion and lack of clarity. The proposed opencast site would destroy an area which was aesthetically pleasing and he urged the Committee to reject the application.
Page 41
Mr Pitch Wilson, Chairman of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), Durham addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. He informed the Committee that mine workings on the proposed opencast site were abandoned some 30 years ago, and the area was now covered with trees and wild flowers and was good quality agricultural land. The coal from the proposed site was coking coal which power stations were not designed to burn and the demand for power station coal was falling. Mr Wilson raised issues about the structure and future viability of the company making the application and expressed concern at who would be responsible for reinstatement of the site should the company fail. Referring to the letters of support for the application, Mr Pitch doubted the validity of these, with the majority being proforma type letters.
Dawn Hodgson, local resident, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. She informed the Committee that a colliery on the site which had closed some 30 years ago had resulted in subsidence damage to her mother’s house in the area, and there was a degree of scepticism that this would not happen again. When this application was considered by Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council, Mr Cory on behalf of UK Coal stated that Natural England had not objected to the application, however, as a Government Agency, Natural England would neither support nor object to an application. If approved, the opencast site would have an adverse effect on tourism in the area, and although Tanfield Railway was in support of the application, it would gain a 2km extension to its railway upon restoration of the site. Finally, Mrs Hodgson referred to wildlife in the area which would be disturbed should the application be approved, particularly to the objection from Butterfly Conservation relating to the colony of dingy skipper butterflies which occupied the site.
Ron Harrison, local resident, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. He informed the Committee that most or all of the remedial works proposed were on the Gateshead side of the County boundary, but all of the SSSI land was on the Durham side of the County boundary. The proposed route for lorries to the site passed a school and academy with an alternative route being along a C class road which passed a residential area and primary school. Mr Harrison referred the Committee to paragraphs 38 and 39 of the report which commented on both the visual impact and the impact on tourism that an opencast site would have on the area, which would turn a beautiful area into a desolate mess within a 4 year period. The proposed opencast site would not generate significant numbers of jobs, as most jobs would be filled by the company’s existing workforce.
Mr Harrison informed the Committee that the application was contrary to Policies M7 and M23 of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan, could affect the SSSI and was of no benefit other than to UK Coal and its investors.
Ian Cowan, on behalf of Tanfield Railway, addressed the Committee in support of the application. He informed the Committee that the proposal would result in the stabilisation of contaminated land and would improve security at the Tanfield Railway, which had experienced problems of trespassers in the past. A survey carried out by the Railway had shown the majority of visitors to be in support of the
Page 42 application, which would provide rail passengers with the opportunity to see opencast mine workings.
Richard Cory, on behalf of UK Coal, addressed the Committee. He informed the Committee that the application it was considering followed significant consultation by Durham County Council, Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council and UK Coal. Mr Cory referred to ecological concerns which had been raised about this application and reminded the Committee that Natural England, a statutory consultee, had raised no objection to the proposed opencast site. UK Coal had worked with landscape and ecology officers and made significant changes to the proposed scheme to minimise visual effects and provide significant ecological mitigation with some areas being excluded from the workings, including 8.1 hectares at Tanfield Railway sidings railway wildlife site and 10 hectares at Byermoor. Ancient woodland soils would be moved to a translocator site to the west of the site, and UK Coal had done all it could to provide substantial ecological mitigation.
Referring to environmental concerns, Mr Cory informed the Committee that similar concerns had been expressed about the company’s Park Wall site prior to it commencing works. However, the Chairman of the Park Wall Liaison Committee had said that although there were concerns to starts with, regular liaison meetings had taken place and any issues of concern had been dealt with by either the company or the County Council.
Mr Cory referred to health and transport concerns which had been expressed and informed the Committee that health issues had been addressed in the environmental statement and the Council’s highways officers considered the proposed transport plans to be acceptable.
The proposed scheme would bring the benefit of the reclamation and remediation of dereliction and contaminated materials within the site at no cost to the public. The scheme would also include the provision of apprenticeships and between 62 and 73 jobs.
Mr Cory addressed the issue of the future of UK Coal. He informed the Committee that the company had embarked on a soft closure plan of its two deep mines , and as a condition of Government support for this plan, the surface mining business was to be sold into independent ownership in summer 2014, with significant interest being received from companies. Any costs of restoration and remediation of the site would be fully backed by bonds under a s106 agreement.
The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that the issues raised by objectors were covered in the committee report. Consultation had taken place within 1km of the site but could not be undertaken with those living along the haul route. The route taken by heavy goods vehicles to the site could be detailed within a legal agreement with the applicant. It was difficult to know exactly where the deposit of the stabilised contaminated land would take place within the site as it would be within a large void, part of which would be within County Durham.
Page 43 Neil Thompson, Principal DM Engineer, informed the Committee that at the busiest time there would be a movement of 89 vehicles in and out of the site, over a working day of 10 to 12 hours, which equated to an additional 8 to 9 vehicles per hour. The route to be taken along the A1(M), A693 and A6076 was a designated route for HGV’s through the County, and these were busy A class roads. The A693 carried 20,000 vehicles a day and the proposed increase in traffic movements equated to less than 1%. Improvement works were ongoing at the Blind Lane junction which were due to be completed early to mid September. There were therefore no highways objections to the proposal.
Councillor A Shield informed the Committee that the economic viability for opencasting had been raised at the previous Committee meeting in June when an opencast application was being considered, including the price differential between imported and home produced coal. There was a need to consider any impact this proposal would have on tourism in the area, with attractions such as Beamish Museum, Gibside, Causey Arch and Tanfield Railway being in the vicinity. There was a possibility that some of the contaminated land, once stabilised, would be buried within the void in County Durham. Councillor Shield referred to paragraph 363 of the report and the concerns of officers on the overall impact on ecology, even with the mitigation and compensation measures being proposed, particularly in relation to the movement of ancient woodland. Paragraph 369 of the report outlined various MLP Policies which this application conflicted with, as well as part of paragraph 118 of the NPPF and Policy CS18 of the emerging Core Strategy. Policy M7 of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan stated that within the exposed coalfield area there would be a presumption against proposals for the opencast mining of coal unless they were environmentally acceptable, and Councillor Shield informed the Committee that this application was not environmentally acceptable. The application brought with it little benefit and he moved that it be refused.
Councillor Clare referred to the previous issue raised regarding the long-term future of the applicant company and asked how relevant this was as a planning issue. Laura Renaudon, Planning and Development Solicitor replied that planning permission ran with the land and not the applicant. Restoration guarantees would be obtained through a s106 agreement to provide a guaranteed sum for restoration and remediation of the site, which would be at no cost to the County Council.
Councillor C Marshall informed the Committee that the proposed opencast site would have a significant impact on landscape in a green belt area, which was not acceptable. The proposal would impact on the wider community with increased traffic, and there was currently no issue with the environment in the area. The local community did not want the proposed opencast site. Councillor Marshall urged the Committee to refuse the application and seconded Councillor Shield’s refusal.
Councillor D Hall recognised that the proposal would bring with it some economic benefits by way of job creation. However, the report stated that it was unacceptable on ecological grounds and that the ancient woodland could not be translocated or replaced. The economic argument for the proposal was transient and temporary and needed to be balanced against the long term effect on tourism.
Page 44 Councillor G Richardson informed the Committee that the countryside of County Durham was now being recognised for its beauty. He could not support approval of this application on the grounds of the effects it would have on local tourism and also the loss of agricultural land.
Councillor Shield informed the Committee that the application was a breach of Paragraph 147 of the NPPF and Policy M7 of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan, in that it was not environmentally acceptable and the its local or community benefits did not outweigh the adverse impacts of the proposal. Councillor Hall added that the reasons for refusal would be as they were in the 1980’s when an application was refused, both by the County Council and on appeal. Councillor Marshall added that the proposal would have a significant impact on an area of high landscape value, and referred the Committee to Policy EN6 of the Derwentside District Local Plan, detailed at paragraph 86 of the committee report. Councillor Hall informed the Committee that there was no mitigation regarding the loss of ancient woodland.
Resolved: That the application be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would not be environmentally acceptable with respect to negative impacts upon biodiversity interests and landscape and visual impacts and could not be made so by planning conditions or obligations contrary to County Durham Minerals Local Plan Policies M7, M27, M29, M24, M36 and paragraph 149 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. Contrary to Policy M7 of the adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan and paragraph 149 of the National Planning Policy Framework it is considered that the national, local or community benefits would not outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission.
4c CE/14/00140/MIN - Stainton Quarry, Stainton, Durham
The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the determination of new planning conditions for working and restoration relating to Planning Permission No. 6/93/1CM issued 18 July 1997 as amended by Planning Permission No. 6/99/24CM issued 24 May 199 at Stainton Quarry, Stainton (for copy see file of Minutes).
The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the site layout.
Terry Cowan, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application. He informed the Committee of a recent incident when more than 80 lorries from the quarry passed his house, and when this was raised with the owners of the quarry, no satisfactory response was forthcoming. Dust control at the quarry was currently inadequate and objection was made to the proposed increase in working hours of
Page 45 the quarry. Any self-monitoring at the quarry was unlikely to reflect actual conditions at the quarry.
Pat Ackroyd, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application. While it was appreciated that this application did not propose any increase in vehicle movements, it was feared that future applications might. The current operator of the quarry purchased it in full knowledge of the conditions attached to it, but has operated with scant regard for these conditions, with no sanction being taken in the past. The proposed increase in working hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. would provide additional hours for the operator to flout planning conditions.
David Guaja, Stainton Quarry Ltd, addressed the Committee in support of the application. He took issue with the reported 80 lorries referred to by Mr Cowan and sought further information regarding times and registration numbers if these were known, because this level of lorry movement could not physically be possible. The quarry was the largest recycling undertaking in the area and quarry inspectors attested that the quarry operated within its conditions. The quarry was unworked when the current operators bought it and was now in the process of being cleaned up, bringing economic benefits to the area.
Councillor K Davidson suggested that some issues raised in the meeting could be discussed outside of the meeting, and suggested that a liaison committee between the quarry and local residents could be considered. Enforcement action was not a matter for the Committee, and if conditions were being flouted, enforcement notices would be brought to the Committee.
The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that the site already had planning permission, and this application was to rationalise the operating times of it. There was no proposal to increase vehicle movements and a dust control scheme would be agreed within 6 months.
Councillor G Richardson reported that noise, dust and vehicle movements had always been an issue for local people, but thought these issues had been addressed. He was disappointed that the quarry was no looking to expend its operating hours.
Councillor C Kay informed the Committee he frequently passed the entrance to the quarry and was surprised to hear the number of vehicle movements. Although he had sympathy regarding issues of noise and dust, these would be dealt with by means of enforcement if necessary. The applicant was not seeking an increase in vehicle movements, but was seeking an increase in operating hours, which could reduce the frequency of traffic.
Councillor G Holland informed the Committee that any problem arising from the operation of the quarry should be dealt with by the local Member with enforcement officers. Local concern was important and the public thought that decisions were made without any cognisance of these concerns.
Resolved: That the application be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.
Page 46 Agenda Item 5a
Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NOS: 1) CMA/7/102 & 2) DM/14/00170/VOC
1) Proposed western extension for the extraction of FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : 5.5 million tonnes of magnesian limestone over a 14 year period with restoration to agriculture through landfilling of clay and soils over a 20 year period. 2) Variation to Conditions 1 and 7 of Planning Permission T/APP/H1345/A/96/267255 as amended by Planning Permission No’s. 7/98/58CM and 7/2003/0045CM in order to extend the date for completion of mineral extraction, revise the method of mineral extraction and revise phasing of inert landfill operations.
W & M Thompson Quarries Ltd NAME OF APPLICANT :
Bishop Middleham Quarry, Bishop Middleham, Ferryhill, ADDRESS : Durham
Bishop Middleham and Cornforth ELECTORAL DIVISION :
Chris Shields Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : Tel. 03000 261 394 [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
The site
1. Bishop Middleham Quarry is located to the north of Bishop Middleham village on land between the A1(m) and A177 roads. It is an established minerals site with a planning history dating from 1948 (although the site existed before this) and a current permission that extends to 2015 for mineral extraction and 2021 for restoration. The site produces magnesian limestone for use as fertiliser (agricultural lime) and in construction as an aggregate. Permitted stone reserves at the site have now been largely worked out with limited material remaining. The site is being progressively restored by infilling the void with imported waste, this being the residual fraction of construction and demolition waste that cannot be recovered. The approved restoration plan would see most of the quarry returned to level and brought back into agricultural use.
Page 47
2. The existing site straddles the U35.17 unclassified road with the western side of the site accessed by a private underpass. The area of the site to the east of the U35.17 has been fully worked out and is currently being backfilled.
3. There are no ecological designations within the quarry but there is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (Bishop Middleham Quarry) to the north east of the site. There are no watercourses within close proximity to the site. A Public Right of Way (Footpath No. 3, Bishop Middleham Parish) crosses the access track to the south of the quarry.
The proposals
4. Two applications have been submitted for determination. The first (site area 15.7 hectares) seeks permission for an extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry for mineral extraction with restoration through the disposal of inert waste. The second application seeks to vary 18 conditions of the existing planning permission relating to the working and restoration of the site in order to accommodate the proposed extension to the quarry. The applications need to be considered together as they are interlinked.
Proposed Extension
5. A western extension to the existing Bishop Middleham is proposed that would allow for the extraction of 5.5 million tonnes (2.95 million cubic metres) of Magnesian limestone with the resultant void progressively backfilled with inert waste (this would include clay and soils) to return it to a level that can be brought back into agricultural use.
6. Extraction of the stone from the site would take 14 years at a rate of 400,000 tonnes per annum. The backfilling operation would take approximately 20 years following completion of stone extraction with the total working life of the site expected to be 35 years.
Working Method
7. Site preparatory works involving advance tree and shrub planting on the site perimeter, creation of tree protection zones and creation of an access road through the existing quarry to the extension would take place following the commencement of the development. Soil stripping to facilitate the removal of the stone would take place in each of the identified working phases using an excavator and this material would be formed into screening mounds around the western and southern perimeter. Topsoil and subsoil would be stored separately and soils would only be stripped prior to entering the next phase of working.
8. The proposal would involve quarrying in three phases and working benches, as per the existing site, to a maximum depth of 92 metres Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The upper benches of the extension area contain a soft limestone that can be effectively used as agricultural lime with the lower benches being harder and capable of being crushed and used as an aggregate. The anticipated ratio of agricultural lime to aggregate from the extension area as a whole be 60:40.
9. The extension area would be accessed from the north west corner of the existing site and worked progressively south through Phase 1. Phase 1 would be split into three (1A, 1B and 1C) corresponding with the 3 benches that would be extracted. Within Phase 1 the extension area would essentially be approached from the top down whereas subsequent phases would have the full extent of the working phase exposed.
Page 48 Phase 2 would progress extraction east toward the existing site boundary and finally Phase 3 would move the working south and back to the west.
10. It is anticipated that material in the top benches of the extension (the agricultural lime) would be soft enough to be extracted using a 360 excavator without the need for blasting. The harder lower bench material would be drilled and blasted as per the existing site with the fractured material crushed and screened in the existing processing area to the east. Material would be stockpiled until removed off site.
11. The phasing has been designed in such a way so as to allow the site to be worked in a logical way, continuing on from the existing site at a point where access to the extension would be direct.
Working hours
12. The existing site operates from 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday and from 7am to 12pm on Saturdays with no working on Sundays, Bank or Public holidays. These operating hours are proposed for the extension to the site and would continue to apply to the existing quarry.
Traffic and access
13. Vehicular access to the existing quarry is taken from the C46 road from the A177 to Ferryhill and this would continue to be used for the extension to the site. The site is currently is unrestricted through condition in terms of the number of daily vehicle movements. The total daily number of heavy goods vehicle movements is normally up to 120 vehicles in and out. It is not expected that this would change as a result of the extension or as a result of the proposed variation application. Vehicles depositing waste material at the site for restoration are used, where possible, to export stone products in order to keep vehicle movements to a minimum.
Restoration
14. The landform would be formed by the phased infilling of the resultant void with 2.95 million cubic metres of clay and soils. This would take place progressively following extraction of the stone from each phase for a period of 35 years.
15. The approved restoration strategy for the existing quarry is for a mixture of conservation and amenity use (to the east of the U35.17 road) and agriculture (to the west of the U35.17 road). A significant portion of the restoration works have been carried out to date on both sides of the road with the area to the south of the site fully restored with the exception of the access road and a storage building and this includes a large area that has been returned to magnesian limestone grassland. It is proposed to retain the compound area in the eastern side of the existing quarry for the operational life of the site as a whole and therefore this would be the last area to be restored.
16. The proposed restoration masterplan for the site as a whole, including the existing quarry and proposed extension, is for all of the land to the west of the U35.17 road to be infilled to level with the soils replaced and returned to arable agricultural land. The area to the east would have a low restoration employed with the minimum amount of infilling to batter against the exposed faces to reduce the vertical height to safe level. This would create a valley feature that would be returned to magnesian limestone grassland with hedgerow planting and water features.
Page 49
17. The phased restoration of the site would continue in the existing working area to the west of the U35.17 and the existing phasing plan (currently in Phase 4 of 6 for landfilling). The proposed variation, discussed later in this report, seeks to vary the landfill phasing to allow continued access to the proposed extension throughout the working life of the site. The extension area would be progressively restored from north to south with the final void area being in the south east corner.
18. The site would be subject to the statutory 5 year aftercare requirement. The aftercare period would commence following the final replacement of topsoil. The aftercare programme would include monthly monitoring for erosion and stability, unauthorised activity and annual monitoring for invasive weed and, if necessary, their treatment. .
Economic Benefit
19. Bishop Middleham Quarry has been operated by the applicant (W & M Thomspsons (Quarries) Ltd) since they acquired the site in 1975. The quarry employees 30 people directly employed, 65% of which live within 10km of the site in the settlements of Bishop Middleham itself, Coxhoe, Cornforth, Ferryhill, Trimdon Grange and Trimdon Colliery. The applicant has also stated that there are a significant number of people indirectly employed by the quarry such as HGV drivers, mechanics and explosives experts.
Variation
20. The proposed western extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry, due to its location, is dependent upon the existing site for access both from the road and internally to the working face. The planning permission for the existing site has an approved working and restoration strategy that would need to be altered to allow access and continued working of the proposed extension area.
21. The proposed variation application seeks to amend conditions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 28, 30, 33, 36 and 39, and remove conditions 9. 10, 24, 31 and 32 of Planning Permission CMA/7/64.
22. The amendments to conditions 5 and 6 relate to extending the time limits for the existing quarry so that the completion dates for the existing site and proposed extension would be the same. Conditions 1, 3, 4, 8 and 11 would be amended to reflect the proposed changes to the working method and restoration of the site, as detailed earlier and conditions 14, 28, 30, 33, 36 and 39 would be amended to reflect new information in relation to the wheel wash and new monitoring points and schemes in relation to noise, dust and blasting.
23. In order to mitigate the additional landfill capacity created by the proposed extension the applicant has submitted a revised final restoration plan for the original quarry void to the east of the unclassified road. This revised scheme has minimised the additional amount of infilling that would be required in this area above what has already been done. Some additional material is required to ensure that the site would comply with the Quarry Regulations 1999 which state that no quarry face is to be higher than 15 metres in height.
24. Both applications are accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). This report has taken into account the information contained in the ES and amended details and that arising from statutory consultations and other responses.
Page 50 25. This planning application is being reported to the County Planning Committee because it involves major minerals development.
PLANNING HISTORY
Bishop Middleham Quarry predates the planning system and the first planning permission was for an extension to the existing site in 1948. Since the current operator acquired the site Planning permission for the extraction of limestone and reinstatement by infilling with waste at the Quarry was granted in 1983. An extension to the north west of the original quarry was granted on appeal in 1997 and a subsequent permission to alter the phasing for both mineral extraction and landfill operations was given in 2003.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY
26. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependent.
27. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’.
28. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report below.
29. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal.
30. NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy. The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. Decisions should support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting.
31. NPPF Part 3 – Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy. States that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, plans should: support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses; support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor Page 51 facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres.
32. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. States that the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. It is recognised that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximize sustainable transport solutions which will vary from urban to rural areas. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.
33. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities . Recognises the part the planning system can play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities.
34. NPPF Part 10 - Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change. Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.
35. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment – The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognising the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land. Part 11 states that local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes
36. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. In determining applications LPAs should take account of; the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage asset, the positive contribution conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities and economic viability, and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character.
37. NPPF Part 13 – Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals – paragraph 144 sets out the considerations in determining planning applications for minerals development. These include ensuring that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural environment and human health, taking into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality, and providing through condition for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf (NPPF)
38. Accompanying the NPPF the Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters. Of particular relevance to this development proposal is the practice guidance with regards to mineral development and their working and restoration and
Page 52 the principal environmental issues of minerals working that should be addressed by mineral planning authorities and the review of minerals planning conditions. http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
39. Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management sets out the Government's policy to be taken into account by waste planning authorities and forms part of the national waste management plan for the UK. PPS10 is still extant until it is replaced by national waste policy. Current indications are that national waste policy will be published alongside the new National Waste Management Plan for England.
LOCAL PLAN POLICY :
COUNTY DURHAM MINERALS LOCAL PLAN (DECEMBER 2000) [MLP] POLICY :
40. Policy M1 – Maintenance of Landbanks – Advises that a landbank of 10 years supply of crushed rock aggregate shall be retained for the life of the plan.
41. Policy M3 – Extensions to mineral workings – specifies that extensions to mineral workings will be allowed under allocations made in specific policies and subject to specific criteria. Extensions to existing workings will be permitted provided that they meet a number of criteria, one of which being they do not involve any further mineral extraction on the Magnesian Limestone Escarpment.
42. Policy M4 – Waste and recycled materials – encourages and supports the use of recycled and waste materials in place of newly won minerals.
43. Policy M24 – Local landscapes – requires that the scale of any adverse effects on local landscape character from minerals development is kept to an acceptable minimum and conserves as far as possible important features of the local landscape. It also requires that restoration schemes have regard to the quality of the local landscape and provide landscape improvements where appropriate.
44. Policy M29 – Conservation of nature conservation value – requires all proposals for minerals development to incorporate appropriate measures to ensure any adverse impact on the nature conservation interest of the area is minimised.
45. Policy M30 – Listed buildings/Conservation areas – states that planning permission for mineral development will not be permitted where this would have an unacceptable adverse impact on listed buildings, conservation areas, or their settings. Where it is justified the permission will only be granted where the working and restoration of the site ensures the retention of important built and landscape features; and final restoration is to at least the original landscape quality, with replacement of any landscape features that it is not possible to retain during working
46. Policy M31 – Archaeological field evaluation – relates to archaeology and the need for archaeological field evaluation prior to the determination of planning permission where there is reason to believe that important archaeological remains may exist.
47. Policy M32 – Archaeological remains – states that where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings are affected by a proposed mineral development there will be a presumption in favour of their preservation in situ. Proposals for mineral development that would have a significant adverse effect on regionally important remains will only be permitted where no other Page 53 suitable locations are available; or where there is an overriding need for mineral which outweighs the requirement for physical preservation.
48. Policy M34 – Agricultural land – states that mineral development which affects or is likely to lead to the loss of 20 or more hectares of the best and most versatile land (Agricultural Land Classification Grades 2 and 3a) will not be permitted unless there is no overall loss of agricultural land quality following restoration; or there is a need for the mineral which cannot be met from suitable alternative sources on lower quality agricultural land.
49. Policy M35 – Recreational Areas and Public Rights of Way – Mineral development that would have an unacceptable impact upon the recreational value of the countryside , and in particular facilities such as paths and other public rights of way will not be permitted unless there is a need for the mineral which cannot be met from suitable alternative sites or sources.
50. Policy M36 – Protecting local amenity – requires the incorporation of suitable mitigation measures to ensure potentially harmful impacts from pollution by noise, vibration, dust and mud, visual intrusion, traffic and transport, subsidence, landslip and gaseous emissions are reduced to an acceptable level.
51. Policy M37 – Stand off distances - states that unless it can be demonstrated that the amenity of local communities can otherwise be protected from the adverse impacts of mineral working, mineral development will not be permitted where the extraction or associated activities are within 250 metres of a group of 10 or more dwellings
52. Policy M42 – Road traffic – states that mineral development will only be permitted where the traffic generated can be accommodated safely and conveniently on the highway network and the impact of traffic generated by the development on local and recreational amenity is otherwise acceptable.
53. Policy M43 – Minimising traffic impacts – requires that planning conditions should be imposed, and planning obligations or other legal agreements sought, to cover a range of matters such as routeing of traffic to and from the site, highway improvements or maintenance, prevention of the transfer of mud and dirt onto the public highway and operating hours of lorry traffic to and from the site.
54. Policy M45 – Cumulative impact – requires that when considering proposals for mineral development the cumulative impact of past, present and future workings must be considered and states that planning permission will not be granted where the cumulative impact exceeds that which would be acceptable if produced from a single site under the relevant policies of the Plan.
55. Policy M46 – Restoration conditions – indicates that conditions will be imposed, planning obligations or other legal agreements sought as necessary to cover a range of issues relating to the satisfactory restoration of minerals sites.
56. Policy M47 – After uses – provides advice in relation to proposals for the after use of mineral sites.
57. Policy M50 – On site processing – where planning permission is required, minerals processing and manufacturing plant, and other developments ancillary to mineral extraction, will be permitted within the boundaries of mineral extraction sites subject to certain criteria. Conditions will be imposed, planning obligations or other legal agreements sought as necessary to cover the minimisation of environmental impact, removal of the plant, structure, buildings as soon as extraction has ceased time limits Page 54 on the storage of materials after working has ceased and preventing the import of materials from elsewhere..
58. Policy M51 – Storage – in granting planning permission for mineral stocking areas the Policy requires conditions to be imposed or planning obligations or other legal agreements sought, to cover the minimisation of environmental impact, time limits on the storage of materials after working has ceased and preventing the import of materials from elsewhere.
59. Policy M52 – Site management – states the ability and commitment of the intended operator to operate and reclaim the site in accordance with the agreed scheme will be taken into account.
60. Policy M54 – Magnesian Limestone Escarpment – has a general presumption against new workings and extensions to existing quarries on the Magnesian Limestone Escarpment, other than those allocated in the Plan.
COUNTY DURHAM WASTE LOCAL PLAN (APRIL 2005) [WLP] POLICY :
61. Policy W2 – Need – requires the demonstration of need for a particular development which cannot be met by an alternative solution higher up the waste hierarchy.
62. Policy W4 – Location of waste management facilities – states that proposals for new waste management facilities will be determined having regard to protection of the environment and local amenity, traffic impacts, opportunities to integrate with other facilities or developments which will benefit from the recovery of materials and to extend or develop existing waste management facilities.
63. Policy W27 – Landfill/Landraise and Groundwater Vulnerability – states that proposals for landfill and landraise will not be permitted on or in a Major Aquifer, or within Groundwater Source Protection Zones II or III, or below the water table in any strate where the groundwater provides an important contribtion to river flow or other sensitive surface waters.
64. Policy W46 – Landfill and landraise – deals specifically with proposals that create new landfill capacity including extensions to existing sites. These will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that they contribute to a sustainable waste management system for County Durham; represent the best practicable environmental option; satisfy an established need; and achieve overall environmental benefits; or a proposal represents a small ‘windfall’ scheme which will secure the reclamation of registered contaminated or previously developed land within a short timescale or increase the nature conservation interest of a proposed site through the creation of new habitats, without creating a significant amount of new void space.
EMERGING COUNTY DURHAM PLAN
65. The emerging County Durham Plan was submitted in April 2014 ahead of Examination in Public. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. To this end, the following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application:
Page 55 66. Policy 54 – Meeting the Need for Primary Aggregates - The Council will seek to make sufficient land available for mineral working to enable a steady and adequate supply of primary aggregates to be maintained. In doing so the Council will seek to maintain a minimum crushed rock aggregate landbank of at least ten years and a minimum sand and gravel landbank of at least seven years at all times. New or extended aggregate workings will not be permitted where the overall crushed rock or sand and gravel landbank is more than adequate to meet future needs and the overall productive capacity of existing sites is more than sufficient to meet the annual scale of working which is required to meet the ten year sales average proposals unless: • The planning benefits of the proposal outweigh the planning objections; and • The proposal accords with the spatial approach to the working of the aggregate mineral concerned as set out in this policy; and • The proposal does not add significantly to the total landbank of permitted reserves in the County; and • It can be demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable adverse impacts on both the environment and amenity of local communities. During the Plan period to 2030, no new magnesian limestone workings will be permitted for aggregate or agricultural lime production. However, if any new working is permitted via extensions to existing sites in accordance with the above criteria no new working will be permitted on prominent escarpment slopes in order to minimise landscape and visual effects. 67. Policy 65 - Landfill and Landraising - Proposals for new landfill and landraising will be permitted only where they would not significantly adversely impact upon sustainable waste management in County Durham, and where it can be demonstrated either that: a. There is a need for the facility, and there is insufficient existing capacity for the management of the waste stream; and b. The management of waste by options further up the Waste Hierarchy (cxliii ) is not possible; or
c. The proposal would bring environmental benefits such as the reclamation of registered contaminated land or previously developed land, within a short timescale, and without creating significant new capacity.
And for all proposals there would be no unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment or amenity of local communities.
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES :
68. Environment Agency – has raised no objections to the proposal but has raised issues in relation to the potential contamination of the Magnesian Limestone Aquifer if extraction was to go below groundwater levels and has recommended 3 conditions be imposed to ensure that the water resources are protected.
69. The Highways Agency – has raised no objections to the proposal and welcome the measures set out in Transport Assessment to mitigate the impact of vehicles leaving the site.
Page 56 70. Natural England – has raised no objections to the proposal, advising that given the location and nature of the works there is not likely to be an adverse effect on statutorily protected sites or landscapes. Officers broadly support a phased restoration for the site and note that there are opportunities for biodiversity and habitat creation.
71. Highway Authority – has raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions being imposed to ensure the operator employs the mitigation measures set out in the Transport Assessment and also that upgrade works to a section of the northern highway verge between the site access and the junction with the A177 are carried out.
72. Bishop Middleham & Mainsforth Parish Council – has raised no objections to the proposal citing strength of past relations and the incremental benefits of working together with Thompsons Quarries.
73. Cornforth Parish Council – has stated that whilst the application falls outside of the parish boundaries they are against any further applications being approved for mineral extraction of this kind.
NON -STATUTORY RESPONSES :
74. CPRE – objects to the scheme stating that the application should not be permitted, however, if it is then screening must be provided to hide the quarry from the motorway and affected residential properties and believe that even short views from the A1(M) are unacceptable. Furthermore, it is considered that the restoration proposal is poor and it should be more beneficial to the community and wildlife.
75. Durham Bird Club – has raised no objections as the workings are moving away from sensitive areas but request that part of the site is considered as being restored for the benefit of wildlife. Also they request the inclusion of an area of Magnesian Limestone grassland and a water feature.
76. Durham Badger Group – has raised no objections to the application and only request that a check for outlying setts is carried out before work begins.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :
77. Spatial Policy – has raised no objections to the proposal. Officers have provided an assessment of the relevant National and Local Plan policies in relation to minerals and waste development and note that the proposed mineral extraction would broadly accord with the NPPF and emerging County Durham Plan. The importation of waste for the restoration of the site would be a departure from local plan policy.
78. Archaeology – has raised no objections to the proposal. Officers initially requested that a geophysical survey be carried out to evaluate the local geology and inform a targeted programme of evaluation trenching. Following the submission of the geophysical survey in 2013 and trial trenching in 2014 of Phase 1 of the site, Officers have stated that there are clearly significant non-designated archaeological features within the proposed extension which will require mitigation. The features appear to relate to later prehistoric activity of the Bronze age (2100BC) to Iron age (AD43) and do not appear to be of regional or higher levels of importance and can be suitably mitigated through the imposition of a condition requiring a scheme of archaeological excavation, recording and publication. As Phases 2 and 3 have not yet been evaluated it is recommended that conditions cover the phased evaluation and subsequent mitigation of impact on the potential archaeological heritage assets in these areas.
Page 57 79. Design and Conservation – has raised no objections to the proposal and stated that there are no designated heritage assets within the application site or within the 1km search radius undertaken by the applicant. The Bishop Middleham Conservation Area lies just over 1km south of the site with no visual relationship between the the conservation area and the quarry expansion site. Partial views may be possible from the upper level of the Old Hall because of its elevated position, but is unlikely to impact upon their setting or significance. The proposed restoration plan respects the historic field boundary and is acceptable.
80. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection – has raised no objections to the submission. Officers have recommended a series of conditions in order to minimise the potential for nuisance.
81. Ecology – has raised no objections to the proposals but requested a lower level restoration to Magnesian Grassland.
82. Landscape – has raised no objections to the proposal. Officers consider that the proposed extension would have some significant effects on the visual amenity of local residents in respect of views from a small number of properties and localised views from roads and footpaths. The adverse visual effects would be generally moderate and localised but relatively long term. Officers consider that the effect on landscape character would be localised and of low impact and would include and a loss of features and visual intrusion of engineering operations. The advance planting on the southern boundary would assist in screening the site and should be secured by condition.
83. Access and Rights of Way – has raised no objections to the proposal. Officers welcome the additional link route to the west of the quarry and are satisfied that this is to be a permissive path. Officers are also satisfied that the additional path created as part of the proposed restoration would also be permissive.
PUBLIC RESPONSES :
84. The proposals were displayed at public exhibitions held by the applicant at Bishop Middleham Village Hall prior to formal submission. The application was also advertised by site notice and in the local press as part of the planning procedures. Notification letters were sent to individual properties in the vicinity of the quarry. In addition the application was publicised on Durham County Council’s weekly list.
Objection
85. 5 letters of objection have been received in response to the extension application and 1 in response to the variation application. The objections relate to there already being an adequate supply of permitted agricultural lime in County Durham and no requirement for further permissions. One resident felt that the proposal conflicted with Policy 53 of the County Durham Plan Preferred Options document. There is a feeling that the jobs created or protected are minimal and do not warrant the destruction to the environment and the noise and pollution that are endured. Specific pollution concerns are raised in relation to airborne dust and respiratory health; quarry dust, noise and pollution were listed 8 of 23 worst things about living in the Parish. The loss of high quality farmland was raised and residents are concerned that conditions of the existing consent are not satisfactorily enforced by the Council.
86. The main issue raised by objectors to the proposal is that the section of the C46 road between the site entrance and the junction with the A177 is dirty and has been eroded by heavy vehicles leaving holes full of stones that are thrown up at cars. Objectors Page 58 have stated that HGV’s from the site do not appear to have always had their wheels cleaned or load sheeted. Suggestions have been made to create a whole new access road from the quarry to the A177, create a new footpath/cyclepath adjacent to the existing highway, and upgrade the verge of the existing highway.
Support
87. 75 letters of support have been received in response to the extension application and 2 letters in response to the variation application. The support letters are from 4 main groups; local residents (37), businesses (15), quarry employees (18) and farming/agricultural customers (5). Supporters of the application state that the proposal would secure 30 jobs and could result in additional employment. The site operator, Thompsons, work with and support the Parish Council. Agricultural customers and businesses have stated that the proposed extension would ensure the continued supply of high quality agricultural lime and aggregate, of which there are limited reserves and the loss of this resource would have an impact on some businesses in the future. Customers feel that the scheme has been designed to minimise impact on the area and think the Thompsons operate to a high standard
APPLICANTS STATEMENT :
88. Bishop Middleham Quarry was acquired by W&M Thompsons Quarry’s Ltd in the early 1970’s. Its acquisition ensured the company had, and continues to have, its own secure source of agricultural lime and road stone. The operations at the quarry now underpin the company’s construction and demolition operations in the north east of England. Due to the continued demand for the products, and the success of the operations, there is a need to extend the quarry again to ensure the continued supply of agricultural limestone and aggregate. In particular the agricultural lime has proved to be a very successful product because it is a high quality agricultural lime by virtue of its fine powdery nature that requires little or no processing. It is therefore in demand both in the North East, Scotland and also it is exported to Europe through the Port of Sunderland. The aggregate is ideal for all types of construction uses and particularly as a roadstone.
89. The extension to the quarry will assist in securing the existing 30 jobs at the quarry for some time to come. It should be noted that approximately 65% of the employees at the quarry live within 10km in the surrounding villages such as Bishop Middleham, Coxhoe, Cornforth, Ferry Hill, Trimdon Grange and Trimdon Colliery. In addition, there is not a high turnover of staff and the majority of employees tend to work at the quarry for some considerable period of time. It is hoped that this indicates the importance, as well as the high regard in which the company is held in the area. This proposed extension may also allow the company to expand its workforce as the company and the operations continue to thrive in this area.
90. W & M Thompsons Quarries Ltd has, and will continue, to work with the Parish Council and to provide assistance, if they require, in relation to community projects. At all times they have responded to concerns or complaints the Parish Council or local residents may have in relation to the quarrying operations. As part of this application it has been agreed that they will carry out improvements to the kerb line on the road entering the village. It is hoped that this will stop drainage issues both now and in the future.
91. The company has worked with Officers from the Council in order to ensure that the working scheme does not have an adverse impact on any of the nearby residential properties. In addition, the phasing scheme has been discussed and altered in order to seek to ensure that the operation of the quarry as a whole, in relation to the Page 59 extension area, has as little impact on the surrounding landscape as possible. In particular, the areas to the very north of the site will be extracted and restored in the first two phases of operations in order to minimise the overall visual impact of the proposed extension. In addition, the company continues to review the restoration scheme for the original quarrying void to ensure that, as far as possible, it can be restored to high quality magnesium carbonate limestone grassland.
92. Extraction and infilling operations have slowed at the quarry due to the recession. However, since the beginning of this year there has been a considerable increase in demand for the quarry products and a large quantity of readily available material to restore the resulting void. The operations at the quarry are continuing in a positive manner and it is hoped that this extension will allow the company to continue to provide material for its existing markets and support the community in which it is based.
The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at the offices of the Strategic Planning Team at County Hall Durham and at http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online- applications/simpleSearchResults.do;jsessionid=02A566CE56D6D7744010482B0F236907?action=firstPage
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
93. Having regard to the requirements of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material planning considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principal and need for the development (mineral and waste), the effects of the development on residential amenity (including noise, dust and blasting), biodiversity interests, landscape and visual impact, public rights of way, biodiversity interests, access and traffic, hydrology, cultural heritage and archaeology, soils and agriculture and cumulative impact
Principle of the development
94. Within the existing quarry 650,000 tonnes of permitted magnesian limestone reserves remain. It is understood that of this, 500,000 tonnes will be extracted for aggregate use and 150,000 tonnes for agricultural lime. It is not considered that the mineral would be extracted within the time period remaining and an extension of time would be required to enable the extraction and full recovery of permitted reserves. The current applications seek to enable the extraction of remaining reserves while accommodating the extraction of additional reserves in the proposed extraction area.
95. 5.5 million tonnes of magnesian limestone would be extracted from the extension area. Of this approximately 2.2 million tonnes would be used for aggregate and 3.3 million tonnes for agricultural lime.
96. The MLP sets out in Policy M1 the requirement to maintain a landbank of at least 10 years for crushed rock aggregate to be maintained throughout the plan period. The MLP also contains a strategy for future magnesian limestone working on the escarpment and identifies two locations where extensions to existing magneisan limestone workings will be permitted for high grade purposes to the south and east of Thrislington Quarry. The strategy recognises that the existing landbank of permitted reserves of magnesian limestone in quarries on the escarpment far exceeds the number of years supply required to meet long term needs. Therefore, apart from allocating land for two extensions to Thrislington Quarry limestone for high grade purposes, the MLP does not envisage any need for working additional supplies of
Page 60 magnesian limestone for aggregate use in the Plan period to 2006 in both Policies M3 and M54.
97. The emerging approach, as set out in the emerging County Durham Plan, is to resist new magnesian limestone workings for crushed rock aggregate unless there are planning benefits that outweigh the objections, the proposal accords with the spatial approach to the working of the aggregate mineral, the proposal does not significantly add to the total landbank of permitted reserves in the County and it can be demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable adverse impacts on both the environment and amenity of local communities. The supporting text to the emerging County Durham Plan also advises that Government guidance requires that local planning authorities should ensure that a large existing landbank bound up in very few sites or ownership should not stifle competition. Accordingly, in order to ensure that competition is maintained over the Plan period proposals to allow small scale environmentally acceptable extensions to existing magnesian limestone sites may be permitted. The updated approach reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF. Given the conformity with the NPPF and sustainable approach toward mineral working, and the stage of at which the emerging plan is at, it is considered that Policy 54 of the emerging County Durham Plan can be afforded weight at this stage.
98. In considering the need to release further reserves of crushed rock it is important to note that the MLP was adopted in December 2000 and regard must be given to the current position with regard to mineral reserves in the County, current sales and future provision. In particular, the NPPF requires minerals planning authorities to plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates and to prepare a Local Aggregate Assessment and make provision for the land won elements in the Local Plans. The Council has prepared a Local Aggregate Assessment (Joint LAA) in partnership with Council’s in both Northumberland and Tyne and Wear.
99. The Joint LAA (April 2013) indicates that based upon the current ten year crushed rock sales average, that over the 19 year period 2012 to 2030 County Durham must make provision for 57,697,300 tonnes of crushed rock. Given the extent of existing permitted reserves of 134,065,120tonnes on 31 December 2012 (equivalent to a 46.7 year landbank) County Durham does not need to seek to make any additional provision for crushed rock over the period to 2030 as there are sufficient reserves with planning permission to deliver supply over the plan period to 2030.
100. In order to maintain a steady and adequate supply of aggregates the Joint LAA has also considered the composition and distribution of the crushed rock landbank. Approximately 110 million tonnes of County Durham’s crushed rock reserves (as of 31 December 2011) are located within County Durham's ten magnesian limestone quarries. It is understood that a significant proportion of these permitted reserves are contained within five sites (Old Quarrington and Cold Knuckles Quarry, Thrislington Quarry, Cornforth West Quarry, Cornforth East Quarry, and Coxhoe Quarry). The remaining permitted reserves being located within the five remaining quarries (Crime Rigg Quarry, Witch Hill Quarry, Running Waters Quarry, Aycliffe Quarry and Bishop Middleham Quarry). However, a number of these sites are currently inactive and some have not been worked for a number of years.
101. Through further work to develop the County Durham Plan the Council recognises the need to carefully consider the approach to all types of crushed rock supply and in particular to take into account the Government's latest guidance on the operation and use of landbanks. This requires that the Council must use landbanks of aggregate minerals principally as an indicator of the security of aggregate minerals supply, and to indicate the additional provision that needs to be made for new aggregate extraction Page 61 through Local Plans; make provision for the maintenance of landbanks of at least 10 years for crushed rock, whilst ensuring that the capacity of operations to supply a wide range of materials is not compromised; and ensure that large landbanks bound up in very few sites do not stifle competition.
102. Whilst there is no identified need for the magnesian limestone it is considered that the proposed extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry could provide a number of benefits. The proposal would safeguard the existing 30 jobs currently provided at the quarry and benefit the indirect employment of additional HGV drivers, plant mechanics and explosives experts. In addition there are also employees at the agricultural lime store in Jedburgh. It would allow the quarry to make a continued contribution to the supply of aggregates helping County Durham meet its own needs whilst making an ongoing contribution to the needs of neighbouring areas. It would enable the continued supply of agricultural lime from the quarry for both domestic and international markets. Finally, on the basis that a significant proportion of the existing permitted magnesian limestone reserves are bound up in a limited number of sites in limited ownership allowing an extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry would help to maintain a competitive local aggregate market. Although an additional 2.2 million tonnes of crushed rock aggregate would be extracted as part of the proposal this would not significantly add to the overall landbank of crushed rock in County Durham. The proposed extension would not be located on a prominent slope of the Magnesian Limestone escarpment and the landscape impact is considered amongst other environmental issues later in this report. It is therefore considered that although the proposal would conflict with existing MLP policies, it would accord with the NPPF and Policy 54 of the emerging County Durham Plan.
Need for landfill
103. The extracted areas of Bishop Middleham are being progressively restored with imported waste material to bring the site up to level in the existing site (to the west of the U35.17 road) in order to return this area to agriculture. The types of materials that are imported to the site are clays and soils arising from construction and demolition projects that cannot be recycled or reused due to how the material is received. The operator had fallen behind tipping timescales set out in the 2007 Planning Permission, primarily due to the recession and also initially because of the Landfill Tax Regime but then also by the recession, however, progress on the site is now returning to pre- recession levels. Material is currently being tipped in Phase 4 of the existing quarry and this will continue for another 6 to 8 months at current rates before moving to Phase 5. The proposed extension to the quarry would create an additional 2.95 million cubic metres of void space.
104. ‘Waste Strategy for England 2007’ set out the Government’s objectives to reduce waste and increase recycling of waste and energy recovery. The Waste Review of 2011 sets out the Government’s aims for a ‘zero waste’ economy. The direction of travel set by the Review is a new focus in national policy on the use of materials throughout the economy; the integration of business and household waste; a smaller and different role for central government; and more focus upon the householder or business and the importance of this agenda – from waste prevention to waste management – for the “green economy”. Waste is a valuable resource. The Government has consulted upon a draft of the Waste Plan for England, which will replace ‘Waste Strategy for England 2007’. This can be given limited weight at present as it does not contain any new policy for waste management, and provides a single point of reference and summary for all waste policy. Its purpose as a consultation is to ask whether the Plan – when combined with the updated waste planning policy – will fulfill the obligations of Article 28 of the revised Waste Framework Directive as far as England is concerned. As a direction of travel, it provides a summary of waste policy Page 62 and brings together the findings of the Waste Review 2011, confirming waste as a resource and prevention at the top of the Waste Hierarchy and disposal to landfill at the bottom.
105. The Government’s policy direction with the changes to the Waste Hierarchy is clear that preparation for re-use and recycling should come before final disposal of waste. This is reflected in WLP Policies W2 and W46, which require developments to demonstrate an established need for the facility and to show that they would make a contribution to the County’s sustainable waste strategy and achieve overall environmental benefits, and move waste up the Waste Hierarchy. This direction of travel is also reflected in the emerging County Durham Plan.
106. The policy direction is changing further still with the amended Waste Framework Directive (WFD) being transposed by the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. These state that by 2020 at least 70% of construction demolition and excavation waste (CDEW) should be subject to material recovery. Therefore CDEW should be being moved up the Waste Hierarchy.
107. The current PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management sets out a positive and plan led approach to planning for sustainable waste management, seeking to move waste up the Waste Hierarchy and forms part of the national waste management plan for the UK. The Government has also recently consulted on a replacement for PPS10. This can be given limited weight also, as at the time of writing the Government are still analysing feedback. As a direction of travel, this revised guidance again focuses on waste as a resource and on efficient resource use, and minimising costs of waste to society, including environmental costs. It is more streamlined; has a tougher stance on waste in the greenbelt; includes additional text on energy from waste; reflects the abolition of RSS; and reflects the Duty to Co-operate.
108. Due to the new challenging diversion targets set out in the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, there will be competition from a number of sites both within the County and in the region for inert waste for use in restoration. The timescales involved in restoration will naturally increase because of the reduction in material available due to increased recycling. This will have implications for the achievement of a satisfactory restoration at sites permitted to accept such waste as well as for approved and proposed contours to be achieved. Within the County, Bishop Middleham Quarry is not the only site where inert fill is being used, there is also Old Quarrington Quarry (required to be restored by 2026) and Crime Rigg (requiring restoration by December 2024.
109. There is considerable capacity left in County Durham for inert waste landfill. This amounts to almost 8.5 million cubic metres. The increase in void space created by this development would amount to a near 35% increase on the regional inert void space available void in County Durham. This is a departure from the sustainable waste management system for County Durham.
110. There are 3 sites within the County that accept inert waste and these are Bishop Middleham, Crime Rigg and Old Quarrington. Crime Rigg and Old Quarrington are due to be restored by 2024 and 2026, respectively. The proposed extension and variation to Bishop Middleham would see progressive restoration continuing for a further 35 years until 2049. This would mean that Bishop Middleham Quarry would, for the 23 years subsequent to the closure of Old Quarrington, have the only inert landfill capacity in the County. Whilst it is anticipated that waste recycling rates will progressively increase in accordance with the waste hierarchy it is also assumed that there will always be a residual fraction that is unable to be recycled or that has no productive use. It is further considered that the restoration of the site through the Page 63 importation of inert waste would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment or amenity of local communities. It is therefore considered that the proposal would partly accord with Policy 65 of the emerging County Durham Plan.
111. The timescales involved in restoration will naturally increase because of the reduction in material available due to increased recycling and reuse. This will have implications for the achievement of a satisfactory restoration. The acceptability of landfilling at this site is not merely a case of the consideration of whether it is an appropriate form of restoration at this site and whether restoration can be achieved in timescales.
112. The proposed volume of material to be imported is significant, however, this has been partially mitigated through the variation application in that only the minimum amount of material would be imported into Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the existing quarry (to the east of U35.17 road) to ensure a safe and acceptable restoration. It is also of note that the imported material, clays and soils, is the residual fraction from construction and demolition projects that cannot be recycled and therefore cannot be moved up the waste hierarchy. Disposal is therefore the only remaining option.
113. There is existing landfill capacity within the region that could be utilised for the disposal of these waste types. The extension would share an access with the existing quarry and once this is restored the extension would be isolated and if not restored to level then it would be a relatively inaccessible void surrounded by agricultural land. This is not considered to be the best use of the land. Returning the site to level would allow it to be brought back into productive agricultural use.
Residential Amenity
114. The quarry lies immediately to the north of the village of Bishop Middleham and the closest properties along High Road are approximately 450m from the site access and approximately 290m from the nearest working phase of the existing quarry and 650m from the nearest phase of the proposed extension. Six properties are located to the north east of the boundary the closest being Highland House some 150m from the existing quarry boundary and 300m from the nearest phase of the proposed extension. Farnless Farm lies some 70m to the east of the original quarry and 650m to the east of the proposed extension. MLP Policy M37 seeks to protect groups of 10 or more residential properties from the effects of mineral development, including blasting, by setting a stand-off distance of 500 metres. In the case of the proposed extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry there are no groups of properties or individual properties within 500 metres of the site and the proposal would therefore accord with Policy M37. Notwithstanding the proposed extension having an acceptable stand-off distance it is important to consider the potential impacts of noise, dust and blasting.
Noise
115. Government guidance (as contained in the NPPG, which reaffirms advice contained in the now withdrawn Technical Guidance to the NPPF) advises that during normal working hours (0700 – 1900) and subject to a maximum of 55dB(A) L Aeq 1h (free field), mineral planning authorities should aim to establish a noise limit, through a planning condition, at noise sensitive properties that does not exceed the background level by more than 10bB(A). It is recognised, however, that where this will be difficult to achieve without imposing unreasonable burdens on the mineral operator, the limit set should be as near to that level as practicable. During the evening (1900 – 2200) limits should not exceed background level by 10dB(A). During the night limits should be set to reduce to a minimum any adverse impacts, without imposing any unreasonable burdens on the mineral operator, but should not exceed 42dB(A) L Aeq 1h (free field) at noise sensitive properties. Page 64
116. The NPPG also recognises that mineral operations will have some particularly noisy short term activities that cannot meet the limits set for normal operations. These include soil stripping, the construction and removal of baffle mounds, soil storage mounds and spoil heaps, construction of new permanent landforms and aspects of site road construction and maintenance. NPPG advice is that increased temporary daytime noise limits of up to 70dB(A) L Aeq 1h (free field) for periods of up to 8 weeks in a year at specified noise sensitive properties should be considered in order to facilitate essential site preparation and restoration work and construction of baffle mounds where it is clear that this will bring longer-term environmental benefits to the site or its environs. Where work is expected to take longer than 8 weeks a lower limit over a longer period should be considered and in wholly exceptional cases, where there is no viable alternative, a higher limit for a very limited period may be appropriate in order to attain the environmental benefits.
117. A noise assessment has been carried out as part of the proposals the results of which are contained in the ES. The assessment has identified the types of plant to be used on site, the operations that would be carried out and the predicted noise levels associated. The assessment has also identified that the nearest sensitive properties are at Highland House, Farnless Farm, High Road Avenue at Bishop Middleham and Westfield Terrace at Bishop Middleham.
118. The recorded background noise level for Highland House was 39dB, 41dB for Farness Farm, 38dB at High Road Avenue and 38dB at Westfield Terrace. Noise generated from the development would vary as operations progress across the site. Predictions have therefore been made at the three proposed working phases. Predicted noise levels (based on a ‘worst case scenario’) indicate that normal site operations would not exceed the nominal limits of 55dB(A) L Aeq 1h and would not be 10dB(A) above measured background levels.
119. The predicted level for normal operations at Highland House is 44dB (potential increase in noise levels of 5dB), 44dB for Farness Farm (potential increase in noise levels of 3dB), 42dB at High Road Avenue (potential increase in noise levels of 4dB) and 40dB at Westfield Terrace (potential increase in noise levels of 38dB).
120. The noise conditions for the existing site state that noise emitted from operations on the site shall not result in ambient noise levels greater than 55dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield), 70dB(A)L MAX as measured at Highland House and 56dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield) at the agreed monitoring point on the site boundary. This level would be imposed for both developments should planning permission be granted. Noise mitigation measures are incorporated into the design of the proposed extension as well as specific measures. The proposed working method would involve the top benches being extracted with a 360 excavator and the bottom bench blasted, thereby reducing noise from blasting at surface level. Baffle mounds would be constructed along the southern and western boundaries of Phase 1A, haul road surfaces would be regularly graded and maintained to allow efficient use and minimise vehicle noise, vehicles and plant would be used in the most efficient way with regular maintenance to ensure that noise reduction measures continue to operate effectively.
121. The existing noise condition allows a higher noise level of 70dB(A)L MAX measured at Highland House for temporary operations such as soil stripping. The noise assessment has identified that this higher limit would not be required for the extension area as all operations are expected to be well within the 55dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield) at noise sensitive properties. However, the applicant has requested that the higher level limit be maintained be maintained in the noise conditions for both the existing site and the extension. The Environmental Health and Consumer Protection Team has viewed Page 65 the submitted noise assessment and consider the predicted levels, monitoring points and mitigation measures to be acceptable but have recommended that a condition be imposed requiring that noise emitted from on-site operations shall not result in ambient noise levels greater than 55dB L Aeq 1hour as measured at the noise monitoring locations identified. Additionally, restrictions would continue to be imposed on working hours to ensure that operations are only carried out during daytime hours of 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 12pm on Saturdays.
122. The NPPG does not provide guidance on appropriate noise levels for recreation areas. Previous Government Guidance (MPG11) recommended a noise level of 65dB Leq,1hr during the working day. The submitted noise assessment has not compared noise levels on the footpaths and bridleway around the site to this limit. However, given there is no limit specified in the NPPG and measures would be put in place to mitigate noise levels from the site, it has not therefore considered necessary for such an assessment to be undertaken. It is therefore considered that the impact of noise from the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the recreational value of the countryside, and the proposal would not conflict with MLP Policy M35.
123. There have not been complaints relating to noise from the existing quarry in the last 3 years. It is considered that the proposed noise predictions are reasonable and the recommended conditions afford a good level of protection to neighbouring residents in relation to both the extension and the existing site in accordance with the requirements of MLP Policy M36.
Dust
124. Mineral sites give rise to dust issues and it is accepted that the generation of dust can only be minimised and controlled rather than eradicated. The impact would depend on wind speed, the degree of rainfall and surface topography. The National Planning Practice Guidance sets out 5 stages for carrying out a dust assessment that would provide useful ways of mitigating dust from mineral development. These are to establish baseline conditions, identify activities that could lead to dust emissions, identify site parameters that may increase potential impacts.
125. A dust assessment has been carried out as part of the proposals the results of which are contained in the ES. The assessment has identified baseline conditions including potentially sensitive receptors, existing dust sources, typical dust levels, topography of the site and meteorological conditions; the potential impacts including soil stripping, drilling and blasting, mineral extraction, on site haulage, crushing and screening, erosion from bare ground and stockpiles and loading and off site haulage; evaluation of the impacts on upon the nearest receptors, and; mitigation proposals.
126. The assessment concludes that operations carried out within the proposed extension area would remain essentially the same as those carried out under the current permission with the same rate of extraction and hours of working. It is anticipated that the size of dust particles generated by soil working is likely to be between 1 and 70 µm with the majority over 30 µm in size. It is stated that the larger fractions of dust would be deposited with 100m of the release point, and therefore the dust would not reach the nearest receptors even with the prevailing wind blowing directly toward them. The extraction of stone from the operational area would move further away from the potentially sensitive receptors and beyond the threshold where dust deposition would likely cause an impact, particularly with the workings screened by the quarry faces.
127. The existing dust conditions would be amended to reflect the recent assessment and proposed new monitoring points and applied to both the proposed extension and Page 66 existing site. The conditions would continue to seek dust suppression through the use of water bowsers and reducing the speed of vehicles on site to prevent dust being raised. The applicant has also proposed to retain the existing dust management conditions that require water suppression and monitoring. Pollution Control has not requested any additional conditions and welcomes the submission of a revised dust management scheme for the site. In addition, a condition has been recommended to ensure that HGVs leaving the site sheet any loads with stone less than 200mm diameter.
128. It is noted that objectors to the submission have referred to concerns relating to dust. However, having considered the impact of the proposed extension and variation to the existing site on residential amenity in terms of dust it is considered that the impacts could be controlled through requirements to mitigate any adverse effects on the nearest properties as the proposed conditions do thus according with MLP Policy M36.
Blasting
129. Blasting takes place at the existing quarry and is proposed for the extension. The three effects associated with blasting, are ground vibration, air overpressure (or air blast wave) and projected rock particles (flyrock). The extent of disturbance is dependent on a number of factors including type and quantity of explosive, degree of confinement, distance to nearest buildings, the geology and topography of the site and atmospheric conditions.
130. A blasting assessment has been carried out as part of the proposals the results of which are contained in the ES. The blasting assessment concludes that all blasts at Bishop Middleham Quarry, both in the proposed extension and in the existing site shall be designed in order to comply to a vibration criteria of 3mm/s peak particle velocity at a 95% confidence level as measured in any plane (longitudinal, vertical and transverse). The blasting assessment also considers the cumulative impact of blasting in the proposed Bishop Middleham Extension and Thrislington Quarry Eastern Extension and identifies that the 2 operators will liaise to ensure that blasts are not carried out simultaneously.
131. Blasting of rock is only required to extract the low benches of material that would be used for aggregate. Blasts would be required approximately once every 3 to 5 weeks, amounting to 15 to 20 blasts per annum. Conditions attached to the existing site limit blasting to between 10am and 4pm Monday to Friday and not more than once each day. A top limit on ground vibrations is set at 6mm/sec in any plane at the nearest occupied dwelling to such operations with 95% of all blasts generating ground vibrations of less than 3mm/sec in any 12 month period. It is considered that these conditions should be repeated for the proposed extension with the modification that measured period should be 6 months to ensure that the operator designs blasts in such a manner that would reduce ground vibrations to an acceptable level in accordance with MLP Policy M36 and Paragraph 144 of the NPPF.
Landscape and visual impact
132. The County Durham Landscape Character Assessment (2008) shows the site as lying within the East Durham Limestone Plateau County Character Area which forms part of the larger East Durham Magnesian Limestone Plateau National Character Area. It lies in an area belonging to the Limestone Escarpment broad landscape type in the Limestone Escarpment Ridge broad character area.
133. The site lies on the gently sloping dip-slope of the escarpment ridge and is made up of open arable farmland divided by low hawthorn hedges of early post medieval origins Page 67 with occasional hedgerow ash. The boundary network has been heavily fragmented by field amalgamations. The site is bounded to the north and east by the active Bishop Middleham Extension quarry and beyond that the flatter land of the ridgetop which will be worked as Thrislington Extension. To the south lies arable farmland of similar character falling towards the village of Bishop Middleham. The A1 (M) crosses the escarpment immediately to the west.
134. The site lies in an area identified in the County Durham Landscape Strategy (2008) as a Landscape Improvement Priority Area where the strategy is to enhance landscape character. This reflects the fragmented character of the field boundary network in that area.
135. The landscape of the site itself is in moderate condition. The field boundary network is fragmented but it retains some mature features. It is of moderate scenic quality being reasonably attractive open countryside. It has little recreational value in itself being arable farmland but is bordered by minor lanes and public footpaths serving the village of Bishop Middleham.
136. Impacts on the topography of the site would be transformative during the working period. The area disturbed is gently sloping land without any complex natural landforms that would be difficult to replicate. The site would be restored broadly to existing levels and character in around 20 years. The working method has been designed to minimise adverse effects on the topography should there be a shortfall in imported materials in future by leaving the potential for a residual void with stable slopes in the lower eastern part of the site.
137. The proposed extension would entail the removal of some sections of hedgerow and some individual ash trees. The hedges are not particularly species rich or difficult to replace. The advanced planting and restoration proposals provide for the reinstatement of field boundaries to a pattern similar to that which previously existed, locally strengthened with some small linear woodland features.
138. It is proposed to retain a number of trees on the site's boundaries. As noted in the LVIA it would be essential to avoid damaging operations within the RPAs of these trees, and particularly those that are skyline features in views from the south. Should the proposals be approved, a detailed scheme for the protection of retained trees based on BS5837 would need to be required by condition.
139. The proposed restoration back to existing levels and landuse would be in keeping with the character of the dip-slope and would not be inappropriate. It would not offer any significant long term benefits in respect of landscape character or biodiversity that might offset short and medium term harm.
140. The effects of the proposals would be localised. High ground of the escarpment ridge restricts visibility to the north, and views from the south tend to be screened by intervening features or are shallow in nature. The overall effect on the landscape of the wider character area both in respect of the loss of features within the site and the visual intrusion of engineering operations would be low.
141. The effects on the character of the landscape in the immediate vicinity of the site - within - around 500m would be generally of a medium magnitude during the operational period. Soil mounds would be visible along the southern and western perimeter of the site and on the ridgeline north of the Phase 2 area during Phase 1. Extraction faces and activities in the upper parts of the void including vehicle movements would be locally visible in shallow views over these mounds at times.
Page 68 142. It is proposed to place graded material on the western top bench of Phase 1 and the northern top bench of Phase 2 and to progressively green these areas up to reduce impacts in views from the south and east.
143. Advance planting of a hedge along the southern site boundary is proposed which would be beneficial in screening or assimilating the perimeter soil mound. Should the proposals be approved this should be secured by condition.
144. The visual effects of the proposals would vary in magnitude throughout the operational period. They would be temporary but relatively long term (up to 35 years). On restoration the site would return progressively to something close to its current character. The proposed minor improvements in tree and hedge planting would lead to a minor positive effect.
145. The proposed enhancement of the landscape of the site albeit modest in scale would be consistent with the Landscape Strategy for the area which is to enhance its character. The proposed extension would be consistent with Policy M24 in that respect.
146. The restoration of the site as a whole, both the extension and existing quarry, would provide a natural and well screened habitat and it is considered this would accord with MLP Policies M46, M47 and M52.
Public Rights of Way
147. There are no public rights of way that would be directly affected by the proposed extension, however, there are several footpaths in the vicinity; Footpath No. 13 (Bishop Middleham Parish) runs to the north, Footpaths No’s. 2, 3 and 16 (Bishop Middleham Parish) run to the eastern side of the site and Footpaths 1 and 15 (Bishop Middleham Parish) are situated to the south of the site and these run northwards from the houses in Bishop Middleham to the C26 road where they meet and terminate.
148. There is a section of disused highway from the C46 that heads north east toward the embankment of the A1(M). Although this section of road is normally closed off with a gate it is still frequently used by walkers. The applicant does not have control of this land but has proposed a link route between the (diverted) Footpath No.13 and the disused road in order to create a circular route around the quarry. This would be a permissive path for the life of the site and is included on the site plans.
149. It is proposed to reinstate Footpath No.3 into the original quarry void as part of the final restoration. The additional loop included would be a permissive path but could be upgraded at a later date.
150. The Access and Rights of Way Team have considered the proposals and have raised no objections. It is considered that no Public Rights of Way would be harmed by the proposal and additional permissive routes for the life of the site would be created. Any adverse impact on users of the routes would be for the duration which they use the route and measures would be put in place to ensure that any potential impacts would be mininised. Impacts such as noise, dust and visual impact are addressed elsewhere in the report. It is therefore considered that the development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the recreational value of the countryside. The proposals would therefore accord with MLP Policy M35
Page 69 Biodiversity interests
151. Within 2km of the application site lies the Bishop Middleham Quarry SSSI, the Thrislington Plantation Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Carrs SSSI to the west and Raisby Hill Grassland SSSI to the north east. A number of Local Wildlife Sites are also located within 2km of the application site. These being Garmondsway Moor to the east alongside the A177 and Garmondsway Triangle near Harap Road to the east. In addition County Geological sites exist close by at Bishop Middleham Quarry, at Rough Furze Quarry and at Thrislington Quarry.
152. An ecological assessment has been submitted with the application and is contained in the ES. This includes an extended Phase 1 habitat survey and a breeding bird survey. The breeding bird survey identified a large number of bird species present within the area but also noted that the loss of the arable field habitat would have a low significance and the breeding birds would be displaced to the surrounding fields. The extended phase 1 survey indicated that the land is of low value to wildlife dominated by two fields which contain arable monocultures. The boundary hedgerows are species poor, generally dense to heights of two metres and feature predominantly hawthorn and elder. The resultant protected species survey identified that a very small number of relatively common bat species may be on site, the risk to Great Crested Newts and Badger in the application area is negligible and as both otter and water vole are intrinsically linked to aquatic habitats both species are considered absent from the site and it is considered highly unlikely that either species will frequent the site. The survey states that no other protected species are considered to be affected by the proposals. The identified mitigation measures include ensuring that all tree, hedgerow and vegetation clearance is undertaken outside of the bird breeding season, full tree risk assessment carried out to demonstrate that roosting or breeding bats are absent, the cliff face in the north west corner of the existing site is to be made unsuitable for Sand Martin breeding prior to the commencement of works, hedgerow habitats to be retained where possible and works to remove scrub and rubble piles should be carried out in accordance with reptile method statement to protect any potential reptiles on site.
153. Natural England has advised that the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse effect in respect of protected species provided that the development is carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the extended phase 1 habit survey but do note that there is a risk of disturbance to the bat population and recommend that a licence may be required to carry out the mitigation work. The Council’s Ecology officer has also considered the submitted details and has not raised any objections provided that the mitigation strategy is adhered but has also stated that the proposed restoration of the application site should be changed from agriculture to magnesian grassland.
154. Whilst allowing a lower level restoration of the site to magnesian grassland rather than agriculture would provide a biodiversity gain it is not considered appropriate in this remote area that is surrounded by arable fields that are not part of the quarry. The extension area is disparate from the existing Bishop Middleham Quarry SSSI and would not be viewed as an extension to this, nor would it be easily accessible. It is considered in this visible location it is preferable to return the site to the surrounding ground level through infilling and bring it back into use as arable fields. This would not provide any direct biodiversity gains but as the land has been identified as having a low habitat value there would be no loss either. The proposals include a reduction in the volume of infilling in the existing site to the east as part of the variation and increase the amount of magnesian grassland in this area. In order to ensure the long term maintenance of the Magnesian Grassland it is recommended that a Section 39 (Wildlife and Countryside Act) be entered into. It is therefore considered that when Page 70 examining the site holistically there would be a net biodiversity gain. MLP Policy M29 requires the incorporation of measures to ensure any adverse impact on nature conservation interest is minimised but also requires that regard is given to opportunities for the creation of new areas of conservation interest as well as the need to conserve local features of nature conservation value. It is considered that the proposal would accord with MLP Policy M29 and Paragraphs 109 and 118 of the NPPF.
Access and traffic
155. Access to the site would be via the existing access road to the C26 Road that joins the A177 approximately 750m to the east. Vehicles exiting the site pass one property before reaching the junction with the A177, which is East House farm. Vehicle movements are not currently controlled and currently average 120 in and 120 out. It is not envisaged that there would be an increase in movements from the existing quarry as a result of the proposed extension.
156. A Transport Statement has been submitted and is included within the ES. The statement identifies baseline conditions and existing traffic flows and assesses this against the proposed extension. The statement also considers highway safety in relation to the existing quarry and proposed extension. The statement concludes that the surrounding highway infrastructure can accommodate the predicted development traffic with no material impact on highway safety or the operational capacity of the road network.
157. The primary issue raised by those residents objecting to the extension and variation is in relation to highways, specifically the condition and cleanliness of the C46 road. Objectors have stated that flooding of the field to the north of the C46 has caused the road to be dirty and that this has been exacerbated by quarry traffic, that is not being appropriately cleaned or sheeted, eroding the highway verge and creating holes and stones that are thrown up at cars.
158. The Highway Authority has considered the issues raised by objectors and investigated the condition of the C46 road. It was found that there had been encroachement, verge overrun and loss of the edge of carriageway white line over a significant section of the road between the site entrance and the junction with the A177. The loss of the continuous edge of carriageway white line would, in particular, be deeemed to be a highway safety issue requiring mitigation works. The County Highways Authority have recommended that a 125mm faced road kerb edge restraint is introduced along a section of approximately 390m of the northern verge of the C46.
159. The applicant has agreed to carry out the necessary improvement works to the C46 stated above. In order to ensure that the works are carried out a condition is recommended to require a scheme to be submitted and agreed within 3 months and implemented 6 months of planning permission being granted. The applicant has also supplied a Transport Statement that suggests a range of mitigation measures to ensure that highway safety is not impacted by the development including wheel washing, sheeting of vehicles, road sweeping when necessary, appropriate means of transporting plant to the site and operating a code of conduct for drivers working out of the site.
160. The Highways Agency and Highway Authority have raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions being imposed to ensure the above mitigation measures are adhered to and that the improvements to the C46 highway verge are carried out. It is therefore conisdered that the proposed development would accord with MLP Policies 36, 42 and 43 in terms of control of pollution (dust and mud related to Page 71 highway traffic), access, highway safety, amenity of roadside communities and improvements to the highway network.
Hydrology
161. A water resources assessment has been carried out as part of the proposals the results of which are contained in the ES. The assessment has identified baseline conditions for the site in relation to hydrogeology, hydrology, flood risk, groundwater levels and flow and groundwater quality. The assessment concludes that the working and restoration of the site would, through appropriate management and mitigation, present a negligible or minor impact upon the identified receptors, including the Magnesian Limestone Principal Aquifer.
162. The existing quarry and proposed extension are not within the vicinity of any controlled watercourses, or within Flood Risk Zones 2 or 3. The Environment Agency has considered the proposal and commented that water levels within the Magnesian Limestone aquifer underlying the site are known to be variable and rose to a record level in early 2013. The rapid rise in water levels is thought to be the result of prolonged rainfall and snow melt and reduced leakage of groundwater to the underlying Coal Measures. The Environment Agency is unable to predict when and at what level groundwater is likely to stabilise.
163. Ground water levels are highest in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Phase 1 of the proposed extension. Levels in this area have historically been between 87m and 100m AOD but in order to precisely determine the depth of excavations the operator would need to demonstrate that a sufficient unsaturated zone is present that would ensure that the landfill does not become sub-water table at any time. This is likely to be most difficult for Phase 1C, which would excavate stone from the Raisby Formation in the north and west of the site. The eastern extension to Thrislington is expected to encounter the water table as development progresses and dewatering activities will be undertaken with groundwater recharged to ‘recharge features’, some of which are to be located within the vicinity of the proposed extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry. This may temporarily raise the water levels at the northern boundary of the proposed extension, which would limit the depth of excavations.
164. In order to ensure that the risks to groundwater resources remain low the Environment Agency have recommended a condition to require submission of a scheme to monitor groundwater levels and use the date to determine the depth of excavation within each phase of the extension. A further condition is recommended to ensure that no dewatering occurs on the site and that the base of excavations during each phase of works should be a minimum of 4 metres above the height of the groundwater table within the Magnesian Limestone aquifer. Finally, a condition is recommended to ensure that any oils, fuels and chemicals are appropriately stored in bunded tanks on impervious bases
165. Provided that the above conditions are complied with it is considered that the proposed extension to the quarry and subsequent restoration through landfilling would not cause or contribute to any pollution of groundwater resources in accordance with MLP Policy M38, WLP Policy W27 and Paragraph 109 of the NPPF.
Cultural Heritage and Archaeology
166. Bishop Middleham Conservation Area is located just over 1km to the south of the site but there is not visual relationship between the conservation area and the quarry extension. There are 3 listed buildings within 1km of the site; the Manor House, the Dun Cow Public House and associated mounting blocks, and The Cottage (12 High Page 72 Street), all of which are in Bishop Middleham to the south of the application site and all Grade II. In addition to the listed buildings there are 3 Scheduled Monuments within 5km of the application site; Middleham Castle located 1.3km to the south, Garmondsway Village 2.5km to the north east and Coxhoe medieval settlement 3.1km to the north.
167. A desk based heritage assessment is included in the ES. The assessment considers the designated and non-designated heritage assets around the site, historic maps and previous archaeological work. Following initial comments from Archaeological Officers a geophysical survey was carried out in 2013 and evaluation trenching carried out in 2014 of Phase 1. The assessment work concludes that there are no designated or non-designated heritage assets that would present a constraint to the proposed extension but does identify that there is a moderate to high potential for sub-surface prehistoric remains to be found on the extension area.
168. The Archaeology Team have raised no objections to the proposal as assessment work has concluded that remains do not appear to be of regional, or higher, importance. Conditions have been recommended to ensure that archaeological excavation and recording are carried out in each phase of working.
169. It is considered that due to the distance and topography of the area the listed buildings and monuments are sufficiently separated from the quarry so as not to be impacted. The Design and Conservation Team have raised no objections to the proposal and have commented that the restoration is respectful of the historic field boundaries.
170. It is considered that the proposal would accord with MLP Policy M30 in relation to listed buildings and conservation areas and MLP Policies M31, 32 and 33 in relation to Archaeological evaluation, remains and recording, and Paragraph 132 of the NPPF.
Soils and Agriculture
171. A soils and agriculture assessment is included in the ES. The assessment provides baseline data in relation to field units, soil characteristics, drainage and agricultural land classification (ALC). The proposed extension area is comprised of three field units; two arable fields supporting winter wheat and one set aside field. The soils are free draining and no evidence of underdrainage or surface drainage systems were recorded. The ALC for the extension area is recorded as being Grade 2 / Grade 3a (best and most versatile).
172. The assessment provides a mitigation strategy for the protection of the soils during handling and storage including ensuring that soils are only moved when dry, subsoil and topsoil are stored separately, mounds are appropriately seeded and measures taken to reduce compaction. The assessment concludes that the proposed extension would result in the temporary loss of 12.8 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land, however, this would be replaced through the restoration of the site and, provided that mitigation measures are employed, there would be a low negative impact upon topsoil quality.
173. Natural England have considered the soils and agriculture assessment and are satisfied that the site working and reclamation proposals provided in support of the application meet the requirements for sustainable minerals development. In particular it is noted that it is demonstrated in the ES that an area of the best and most versatile land disturbed as a result of the development should be capable of being reinstated to a similar quality, suited to an agricultural after use. Natural England consider the conditions for the existing quarry to be of a suitable standard for handling soils but
Page 73 have recommended 2 additional conditions relating to aftercare and protection of breeding birds.
174. Although the proposed extension would result in the temporary loss of best and most versatile agricultural land it is considered that this can be replaced to an equivalent standard. It is therefore considered that the proposed extension accords with MLP Policy M34.
Cumulative Impact
175. Paragraphs 143 and 144 of the NPPF and Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Practice Guidance recognises that some areas may have been subject to successive mineral development over a number of years. It is recommended that development plans and when determining planning applications local planning authorities should take into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality. It is stated that the cumulative impact of mineral development is capable of being a material consideration when determining individual planning applications.
176. Bishop Middleham Quarry is one of several mineral developments on the Magnesian Limestone escarpment. The other key sites within close proximity are Thrislington Quarry to the west and Thrislington Quarry Extension directly to the north, Cornforth Quarry (East and West) straddling the A1(M) approximately 1.8km to the north, Coxhoe Quarry approximately 3.3km to the north east and Old Quarrington Quarry located approximately 5.2km to the north. All of these sites have an extant planning permission, however, Cornforth Quarry is not currently operational. A former limestone quarry restored by waste disposal in 1995 is located at Highland Farm immediately to the south of the site.
177. The cumulative impacts of multiple quarries working in close proximity primarily relate to the landscape character and visual amenity of the area and also the combined impacts of noise, dust, ground vibrations from blasting, hydrology and traffic movements. The ES contains a Cumulative Impact assessment that considers landscape, visual amenity, noise, dust and traffic (cumulative effects of blasting and hydrology are considered separately). The assessment concludes that although there are a number of other quarries in the area it is only the recently permitted Eastern Extension to Thrislington Quarry that might result in an overall adverse cumulative impact on the amenity of surrounding land users. Through assessing the impacts it is demonstrated that the proposed extension to Bishop Middleh Quarry and the Eastern Extension to Thrislington Quarry would not result in an adverse cumulative impact.
178. The cumulative effect of quarrying activities in this local character area including those of Thrislington Quarry, Thrislington Extension, and Bishop Middleham is already substantial. This is a dynamic picture which is difficult to quantify due to the varied effects of different sites at different times. The proposal extension would add to those effects. However, each existing operation has its own conditions to control and mitigate the environmental effects. The proposals would extend the landscape and visual effects of quarrying activities further into the otherwise undisturbed parts of the character area, and would add to the effects of approved operations in sequential views as people travel around local roads and footpaths. The longer term restoration of the site to existing levels would limit this effect to within the operational extraction and infilling period. Landscape officers have stated that given the relatively high existing and emerging effect of quarrying activity in the locality it is considered that the additional impacts, although modest in themselves, are of some significance.
Page 74 179. The impacts of noise and dust have been considered in relation to the surrounding area and other workings and it is considered that there is adequate mitigation proposed, as detailed above, and conditions would be imposed to set maximum levels that would need to be adhered to. The frequency of blasting at Bishop Middleham would be low (once every 3 to 5 weeks) and would be designed to ensure that ground vibrations are below the threshold level of 3mm/sec. In relation to impacts from traffic, HGV’s use the C46 from Ferryhill to get to the A177 and A688, which is the main link to the A1(M). The A177 and A688 are also used by HGV’s from Coxhoe and Thrislington Quarries. Traffic movements from the site would not increase as a result of the proposed extension but would remain at the same level for an extended period of time so the impact would be prolonged rather than intensified.
180. There has been a succession of mineral and waste operations within the vicinity of the application site that have affected the environmental character and quality of the local area and perceptions of it. This has heightened sensitivities about continued working within some local communities and its impacts on the quality of life. These concerns have some justification and it is accepted that any large-scale excavation will give rise to cumulative environmental effects on its own and in combination with nearby sites regardless of appropriate mitigation measures. Nevertheless, having assessed the likely environmental effects of the proposed development and the relationship of the site to neighbouring quarries, settlements and the closest properties, it is considered that the known programme of working in the area and its impacts would not give rise to unacceptable cumulative effects of an adverse nature.
181. The combined effects of working any large-scale excavation may in itself also have some cumulative impacts on environmental and living conditions and the perceptions of the those within the vicinity of the area. Whilst these have some weight, sufficient information has been provided in this instance and considered in this report, to show that the effects can be effectively mitigated and would not raise material conflict with MLP Policy M45 and concerning cumulative effects.
182. It is therefore considered that although the cumulative impacts of landscape, noise, dust, blasting and traffic are of some significance they do not constitute a degree of harm that would substantiate a refusal under the criteria set out in any of the relevant policies from the MLP. It is therefore considered that the proposal would accord with MLP Policy M45 and Paragraph 144 of the NPPF.
Policy Monitoring
183. To enable monitoring and assist the Minerals Planning Authority in the forward planning of mineral resource the applicant has agreed to a condition requiring the submission of details of sales and reserves until workable reserves are exhausted.
CONCLUSION
184. Bishop Middleham Quarry is an established minerals site with a planning history dating from 1948 and a current permission that extends until 2015 for mineral extraction and 2021 for restoration. The quarry directly employs 30 people, many of which live within the immediate locality.
185. The key planning issues in the determination of this application were the need for the stone and the restoration of the site through importation of waste soils and clay. The applicant has demonstrated that a core element, and in fact the founding element, of their business is the production and sale of agricultural lime. Whilst there is no specific policy for considering agricultural lime separately from crushed aggregate it is noted
Page 75 that the material from Bishop Middleham is of a high standard and is a nationally desirable product, as has been shown through the wide degree of support for the proposal from agricultural contractors and farmers. The agricultural lime element of the of the proposed extension accounts for the majority of material to be extracted with the remainder being suitable for use as a crushed rock aggregate. In addition, it is recognised that a significant portion of the crushed rock landbank in County Durham is bound up in sites operated by a single operator, many of which are mothballed or producing very small quantities of material. W & M Thompsons (Quarries) Ltd (the applicant) are a privately owned company and the continued operation of Bishop Middleham Quarry would assist in ensuring that crushed rock market in County Durham remains competitive and is not monopolised by single operator.
186. The importation and landfilling of waste soils and clay to restore the proposed extension would be a departure from policy which seeks to minimise the amount of waste that is disposed of. However, in approximately 10 years, based on current planning permissions, Bishop Middleham Quarry would be the only site in County Durham with a void capacity for inert waste. It is considered that there is likely to always be a fraction of waste that cannot be fully recovered through reuse or recycling and capacity will be required to dispose of this. Furthermore, it is considered in the case of the proposed extension to Bishop Middleham that infilling the site to level in order to return the site to agriculture would be the most visually appropriate form of restoration and also necessary to ensure that the best and most versatile agricultural land is lost.
187. The proposed extension to Bishop Middleham Quarry would add to the scale of mineral extraction in the immediate locality and there is the possibility that three sites to the east of the A1(M) between Bishop Middleham and West Cornforth could operate simultaneously at some point. The cumulative impact of quarrying on the area is therefore a valid planning consideration. These combinations would reinforce the adverse effects of working to an extent, but active working areas within the sites would not generally converge towards the small number of residential properties close by at the same time. Within the phasing programmes and in agreement between the operators, activities such as blasting can also be staggered to maintain a reasonable degree of spacing to help reduce potential disturbance. Although there are some uncertainties about the timing of future working at Cornforth East in particular, it is considered that the proposed extension can co-exist with existing workings in terms of environmental impacts over the life of the development.
188. The proposals have generated some public interest with representations reflecting the issues and concerns of local residents affected by the proposed developments. Careful consideration was given to the concerns raised throughout the consideration process and these have been taken into account and addressed within the body of the report. Potential impacts on local amenity associated with matters such as noise, dust and visual impact, blasting and access and traffic matters can be controlled through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and planning conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
That the applications for the proposed western extension for the extraction of 5.5 million tonnes of magnesian limestone over a 14 year period with restoration to agriculture through landfilling of clay and soils over a 20 year period and the variation to Conditions 1 and 7 of Planning Permission T/APP/H1345/A/96/267255 as amended by Planning Permission No’s. 7/98/58CM and 7/2003/0045CM in order to extend the date for completion of mineral extraction, revise the method of mineral extraction and revise phasing of inert landfill
Page 76 operations both be APPROVED subject to the following conditions and completion of a Section 39 (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) legal agreement.
Proposed western extension for the extraction of 5.5 million tonnes of magnesian limestone over a 14 year period with restoration to agriculture through landfilling of clay and soils over a 20 year period
Approved documents
1. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the following documents (subject to matters subsequently agreed under Condition 3 or unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority):
Planning Application Form and Environmental Statement submitted February 2013 and: i) Drawing No. NT10961-106 – ‘BM/5/1 Composite Phasing Plan’ ii) Drawing No. NT10961-106 – ‘BM/5/2 Phase 1A Excavation’ iii) Drawing No. NT10961-107 – ‘BM/5/3 Phase 1B Excavation’ iv) Drawing No. NT10961-108 – ‘BM/5/4 Phase 1C Excavation’ v) Drawing No. NT10961-108 – ‘BM/5/5 Phase 2 Excavation’ vi) Drawing No. NT10961-108 – ‘BM/5/6 Phase 3 Excavation’ vii) Drawing No. NT10961-112 – ‘BM/5/7 Cross Section through Western Boundary’ viii)Drawing No. NT10961-126 – ‘BM/5/8 Advance Planting Proposals’ ix) Drawing No. NT10961-111 – ‘BM/6/2 Restoration Masterplan’ x) Drawing No. NT10961/Figure 5 – ‘BM/13/3 Proposed Noise and Dust Monitoring Points’
2. From the date of this permission until completion of the development, a copy of this permission including all documents hereby approved and any other documents subsequently approved in accordance with this permission, shall be permanently maintained available for inspection at the site office. (1)
Matters requiring subsequent approval
3. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with a scheme or schemes to be agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority which shall include provision for;
a) The existing hedgerow, tree and shrub planting which has been carried out on the screening mounds around the edge of the site shall be maintained for the life of this permission. Such maintenance shall include any cutting and weeding of the planting area and, repairing of any damaged fencing and the replacement of any plants that die. (2)
b) the aftercare of the restored land for five years, after the replacement of soils or other surface material to bring the land to a condition where it is fit for the approved after-use. (3, 17)
c) details of the restoration of the site, which shall include;
i) the drainage of the restored site to include full provision for dealing with run- off from the restored landform. (3,8) ii) the erection of fences. (3,10,13) iii) the planting of trees and hedges and their subsequent maintenance for five years. (3) Page 77 iv) the seeding mix to be used on the area proposed to be restored to arable agricultural land. (3, 15) v) the treatment of the arable agricultural area following sowing to include rate and type of fertiliser to be applied, cutting rates, works to prevent scrub colonisation and weeds. (3,15) vi) the works to be undertaken to form scree slopes and ledges in accordance with the approved restoration plan to include blasting and grading of overburden material, and details of the works to and around the County Geological Site in the north face of the existing quarry void. (3) vii) the respreading of soils in, and the treatment of areas to be restored to Magnesian Limestone grassland, to include the seeding mix to be used and the scrub colonisation prevention and other aftercare provisions as may be necessary. (3) viii) the design and layout of footpaths and tracks crossing the restored site. (3, 7, 10, 13) ix) any works to the underpass. (3) x) a subsequent maintenance and management programme during the aftercare period once any hedgerow, tree, and shrub planting has been carried out, which shall include the weeding of the planted area, repairing of any damaged fencing, and the replacement of any plants which die or are seriously affected by disease and a detailed schedule as to when the aftercare period commences. (3)
d) The aftercare of the land for five years, after the replacement of topsoil in accordance with Condition 74. (17)
e) The Dust Suppression Scheme approved under Planning Permission CMA/7/64 shall be reviewed and updated and any necessary alterations submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of this permission. The dust suppression measures to be employed shall include: (i) the provision of mobile water bowsers. (5) (ii) the use of dust filters on all fixed plant and machinery. (5) (iii) a speed limit of 15 mph on all internal haul roads. (5) (iv) all haul roads and areas used for the storage or quarried material shall be watered during dry windy conditions. (5) (iv) a static dust suppression system along the 400m length of the haul road. (5)
f) Within 3 months of planning permission being granted details of the northern verge protection works, between the eastern limit of the birdsmouth fence to the existing agricultural field access opposite East House Farm, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved northern verge protection works must be completed within 6 months of planning permission being granted. (9)
4. Those details required by Condition 3 above shall be submitted within 12 months of the date of this permission and be implemented in accordance with the timescales detailed in the scheme as approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority. (3, 4)
Commencement
5. The development hereby approved must commence not later than three years from the date of this certificate, commencement being the removal of topsoil and/or subsoil for the purpose of winning and working of minerals in any part of the site. (22) Page 78
6. At least seven days advance notice of the date of commencement of the development shall be given, in writing, to the Minerals Planning Authority. (1)
Completion
7. No further mineral extraction shall take place after 30 th June 2029. (1, 4)
8. The site shall be restored in terms of the replacement of all soils in accordance with Drawing No. NT10961-111 – ‘Restoration Masterplan’, not later than the 30 th June 2052. (1, 3, 4)
9. An annual review of operations at the site shall be prepared by the operator and submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority no later than 31st August each year. The report of the annual review shall include the following information (i) a drawing showing an up to date survey of the whole site at a scale not less than 1:2500 showing the location of quarry faces, the extent of progressive restoration showing contours at 2 metres intervals, position of haul roads, temporary fencing, the location and size of any stockpiles of soil or overburden, details of the remaining void space should also be provided; (ii) the results of all blast monitoring; (iii) the results of all noise monitoring; (iv) the results of all dust monitoring; (v) proposals for improvement or other amendments the company may wish to make to the agreed monitoring regimes; (vi) suitable reversing alarms used/to be used onsite; (vii) identification of any difficulties with operations and/or of complying with the planning requirements which may have been encountered at the site during the relevant period, and (viii) details of any complaints received and details of how they were dealt with.
A review meeting will be held before the end of November each year between the Minerals Planning Authority and the site operator to discuss the content of the report. (1,2,3)
10. In the event of insufficient waste being available to achieve the approved restoration contours at the time of the expiry of each phase of infilling as shown in table 1 ( contained within the Environmental Statement submitted as part of the 2013 application), the operator shall review the approved restoration plan in consultation with the MPA and if deemed necessary and alternative restoration proposals should be agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority within 12 months of the expiry of the phase so as to provide an alternative restoration scheme for the site if deemed necessary by the Minerals Planning Authority. (3, 4)
Works required for Site Preparation
11. Before further soil stripping operations take place, the following works shall be carried out:
i) The installation of drainage arrangements appropriate to the area to be stripped. (3, 8) ii) Perimeter stockproof fencing as necessary. (3, 11)
Working Times
12. No operations shall take place outside the hours of: Page 79
07.00 hrs to 19.00 hrs Monday to Friday 07.00 hrs to 12.00 hrs Saturday
or at any time on Sundays, Bank or other public holidays, save in cases of essential maintenance or emergency when life limb or property are in danger. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be notified as soon as is practical after the occurrence of any such emergency. (1, 5)
Water Resources
13. Notwithstanding the details submitted for the proposed development of the site, there shall be no active de-watering of the site. The base of excavations during each phase of works should be a minimum of 4 metres above the height of the groundwater table within the Magnesian Limestone aquifer. ( 19)
14. Prior to commencement of Phase 1 details of a scheme to monitor groundwater levels and method to use the data to determine the depth of excavation within each phase of the extension shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority. Details of the depth of the excavations should be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for agreement prior to commencement of each phase of works. (19)
15. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels and chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points and vents must be located within the bund. The drainage system for the bund should be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed and discharge downwards into the bund. (20)
Access and Protection of the Public Highway
16. There shall be no vehicular access to and from the site except for the for site dump trucks using the approved access through the tunnel. Road wagons shall remain on metalled surface and shall only use the access road C16. (9)
17. No vehicle shall exit the site onto the public highway unless the wheel cleaning equipment installed in accordance with the Condition 11 iii) has been used to ensure that they are thoroughly cleansed of mud. (5, 9)
18. No vehicle shall leave the site unless the load is fully covered by sheeting. (9)
19. The total number of HGV’s entering and leaving the site shall not exceed a daily maximum of 150 in and 150 out. A record of all vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be maintained by the operator and a copy of this record shall be afforded to the Waste Planning Authority within 2 working days of such a request. (9)
Archaeological Interest
Page 80 20. No development within Phase 1 area shall take place until a programme of archaeological mitigation in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) document that has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include details of the following: i) Measures to ensure the preservation by record of archaeological features of identified importance within the area identified on submitted plans as Phase 1 by means of a ¿strip, map and record¿ strategy. ii) Methodologies for the recording and recovery of archaeological remains including artefacts and ecofacts. iii) Postfieldwork methodologies for assessment and analyses. iv) Report content and arrangements for dissemination, and publication proposals. v) Archive preparation and deposition with recognised repositories. vi) A timetable of works in relation to the proposed development, including sufficient notification and allowance of time to ensure that the site work is undertaken and completed in accordance with the strategy. vii) Monitoring arrangements, including the notification in writing to the County Durham Principal Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works. viii)A list of all staff involved in the implementation of the strategy, including subcontractors and specialists, their responsibilities and qualifications.
The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details. (21)
21. Prior to the commencement of Phase 2, a copy of any postexcavation assessment, analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the Phase 1 mitigation strategy shall be deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record. This may include full analysis and final publication. (22)
22. No development within the Phase 2 area shall take place until a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall provide for: i) The proper evaluation of the extent, character and significance of archaeological remains within the Phase 2 area in accordance with a written scheme of investigation agreed in advance with the Mineral Planning Authority; ii) An assessment of the impact of the proposed development on any archaeological remains identified in Phase 2; iii) Proposals for the preservation in situ, or for the investigation, recording and recovery of archaeological remains in accordance with a written scheme of investigation agreed in advance with the Mineral Planning Authority iv) Sufficient notification and allowance of time to archaeological contractors nominated by the developer to ensure that archaeological fieldwork as proposed in pursuance of (i) and (iii) above is completed prior to the commencement of permitted development in the area of archaeological interest; and v) Notification in writing to the County Durham and Darlington County Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works.
The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details. (21)
Page 81 23. Prior to the commencement of Phase 3, a copy of any post excavation assessment, analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the Phase 2 mitigation strategy shall be deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record. This may include full analysis and final publication. (22)
24. No development within the Phase 3 area shall take place until a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall provide for: i) The proper evaluation of the extent, character and significance of archaeological remains within the Phase 2 area in accordance with a written scheme of investigation agreed in advance with the Mineral Planning Authority; ii) An assessment of the impact of the proposed development on any archaeological remains identified in Phase 2; iii) Proposals for the preservation in situ, or for the investigation, recording and recovery of archaeological remains in accordance with a written scheme of investigation agreed in advance with the Mineral Planning Authority iv) Sufficient notification and allowance of time to archaeological contractors nominated by the developer to ensure that archaeological fieldwork as proposed in pursuance of (i) and (iii) above is completed prior to the commencement of permitted development in the area of archaeological interest; and v) Notification in writing to the County Durham and Darlington County Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works.
The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details. (21)
25. Within 12 months of Phase 3 archaeological fieldwork, a copy of any post excavation assessment, analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the Phase 3 mitigation strategy shall be deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record.
In addition, a final full analysis report drawing together the results of all three phases of work will be submitted to the County Durham Historic Environment Record.This may require publication into a wider academic outlet in order to ensure that the full public benefit test of the NPPF is met. (22)
Soil Stripping
26. No topsoil or subsoil stripping shall take place unless the Minerals Planning Authority has been given at least seven days notice (excluding Sundays), of any such works which shall proceed only when agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority. (2, 5)
27. No areas shall be excavated, or used for the stationing of plant and buildings, the storage of subsoils and overburden, haul roads and other areas to be traversed by heavy machinery until the topsoil has been stripped from these areas and it shall then be stored until required for restoration. (1, 2, 3)
28. No plant or vehicles shall cross any areas of unstripped topsoil except for the purpose of stripping operations. (1, 2)
Page 82 29. No stripping and movement of topsoil and subsoil shall be carried out except by the use of an excavator and a dump truck and under sufficiently dry conditions, when the topsoil has a sufficiently friable consistency to avoid smearing and compaction, and to ensure that all available soil resources are recovered without any unnecessary damage or loss. (1, 2)
30. Topsoil, subsoils and other soil making materials shall be stored according to their quality on separate heaps in accordance with figures 6.4 – 6.5 of Document CD2 of Planning Permission CMA/7/64 and which do not overlap, unless otherwise requested by the Minerals Planning Authority. (1)
31. Once formed, all topsoil heaps shall be treated, seeded and planted in accordance with Approved Drawing No. 1252/3/3008 Rev D ‘Advanced Planting Scheme’ of Planning Permission CMA/7/64 and kept free from injurious weeds. (1)
32. No topsoil or subsoil shall be removed from the site without the prior agreement of the Minerals Planning Authority. (2)
Site Working
33. No extraction or infilling operations including restoration shall be carried out except in accordance with the approved documents in Condition 1 and schemes subsequently agreed to in accordance with Condition 3. (1)
34. Scrub and vegetation removal, soil stripping and replacement, drainage works, or any other activity on land which has lain undisturbed for some time, shall be avoided during the main bird breeding period (1st March to 15th July inclusive), unless the area concerned had been shown to be free of nesting birds, following a robust survey by a suitably qualified person, immediately prior to such works commencing. (13)
Site Maintenance
35. From the commencement of the development until restoration of the site, the following shall be carried out: (a) fences between any areas used for development and any adjoining agricultural land shall be maintained in a stockproof condition. (18) (b) the maintenance of all haul roads and areas within the site, over which licensed road vehicles operate, clean from mud. (9) (c) the treatment of trees affected by disease, in accordance with the principles of good aboricultural practice. (10, 13) (d) all areas including stacks of soil and overburden to be kept free of injurious weeds, and necessary steps to be taken to destroy such weeds at an early stage of growth to prevent seeding. (13)
Buildings, Fixed Plant and Machinery
36. No plant or machinery on the site shall be used to process, treat or otherwise refine materials other than those extracted from the site. (1)
37. On completion of extraction, all fixed equipment, machinery, buildings and access roads not required for the infilling of the quarry void shall be removed from the site unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority. (1,3)
Environmental Protection – Noise
Page 83 38. Except when soil stripping or soil replacement operations are taking place, the noise emitted from operations on the site shall not result in ambient noise levels greater than 55dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield), 70dB(A)L MAX as measured at Highland House and 56dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield) as measured at the noise monitoring locations identified on figure BM13/3. (1, 5)
39. Noise emitted from the following operations shall not at any time result in ambient noise levels greater than 70dBLAeq.1hour (freefield) when measured at the point(s) agreed in accordance with Condition 28: (a) the stripping and respreading of all topsoil and subsoil mounds. (1, 5) (b) the construction of all perimeter topsoil and subsoil mounds. (1, 5)
40. Noise monitoring at the locations set out in Figure BM13/3 shall take place every calendar month. On request, the operator shall furnish the Minerals Planning Authority with the particulars of the measurements recorded and the plant and equipment operating on the site at the time. (5)
Blasting
41. No blasting operations shall be carried out except in accordance with the document titeld Blast Action Plan for Bishop Middleham Quarry received February 2013 by the Local Planning Authority. In particular no blasting operations shall be carried out except in accordance with the following criteria:
(a) No blasting shall take place on site except between the following times:
ten minutes either side of the hour between 10.00 hrs and 16.00 hrs Monday to Friday. (5)
(b) There shall be no blasting on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays. (5)
(c) No more than one blast shall take place each day (Monday to Friday). (5)
42. No blasting operations shall take place which would result in ground vibrations with a peak particle velocity greater than 6mm/sec in any plane at the nearest occupied dwelling to such operations, and 95% of all blasts within any 12 month period shall generate less than 3mm/sec, with the first being submitted 12 months from the date of this permission. (5, 10)
43. Except for reasons of safety, all blasts shall be prepared and fixed with adequate stemming and covering to ensure that noise from blasting is minimised. (5, 10)
44. All blasts undertaken at the quarry shall be monitored by the operator for peak particle velocity in the vertical, horizontal and transverse planes at the noise and dust monitoring locations shown on Figure BM13/3. The operator shall make the results of the blast monitoring available to the Mineral Planning Authority upon their request. (5)
Dust
45. No operations shall be carried out on the site unless the dust control equipment provided in accordance with Condition 3(e) is used to suppress the dust arising from operations including vehicular movements, excavation operations and mineral and overburden stockpiling arrangements. At any time when the equipment provided is
Page 84 not sufficient to suppress the dust arising from the site, operations shall cease until additional equipment is provided and found to be adequate. (1, 5)
46. Monitoring of existing dust levels at locations identified in the document entitled ‘Dust Action Plan’ dated January 1998 shall be carried out on the basis of the approved monitoring scheme and any subsequent scheme agreed under Condition 3(e). On request, the operator shall furnish the MPA with particulars of the measurements recorded by the equipment. (1, 5)
Surface Water Drainage and Pollution Control
47. No water from the site shall be discharged into any ditch, stream, watercourse or culvert outside the site except through approved settlement ponds provided in accordance with the scheme agreed under Condition 3(b). (8)
48. All approved measures shall be taken to ensure that no flooding and no silting, pollution or erosion of any watercourse or adjoining land is caused by any operations on the site. (8)
49. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank it contains plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund. The bund shall be sealed with no drain for removal of contained liquids. Any bund contents shall be bailed or pumped out under manual control and disposed of safely. (8)
Restoration
50. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority, restoration of the site shall be in complete accordance with the details approved in Conditions 1 and 3. (1, 2, 3)
Removal of Site Compound and the Access and Haul Roads
51. Upon cessation of infilling operations in accordance with the details approved under Condition 1, all areas of hardstanding, including site compounds, access roads and haul roads shall be broken up and removed from the site. (1, 2, 3)
Removal of Settlement Ponds
52. Upon cessation of infilling operations in accordance with the details approved under the terms of Condition 1, all settlement ponds shall, unless to be retained in accordance with the approved plans, be emptied of slurry, filled with inert material and restored. (1, 3)
Soil Replacement
53. Where a soil material to be used for restoration in accordance with Condition 3 has been imported into the site and has not previously been inspected by an officer of the Minerals Planning Authority, at least 48 hours notice of the intention to carry out
Page 85 soil spreading operations shall be given to the MPA and the opportunity given to the Authority to inspect the material prior to its placement. (3)
Replacement of Subsoil – Arable Agriculture
54. The material stripped and stored in accordance with Condition 18 shall be progressively respread in accordance with the restoration scheme required in accordance with Condition 3(c). Such scheme shall provide where practicable and in accordance with the restoration scheme for the replacement of soils by loose tipping methods as described in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of document CD2 when it, and the ground on which it is to be placed, are in a sufficiently dry condition, and the rooting of each layer to its full depth and the removal from the surface and non-burial within the respread subsoil of any non-subsoil type material or rock, boulder or stone larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with a spacing of 0.3 metres. (3)
55. All area of exposed subsoil not previously excavated, shall be rooted to a depth of 450mm at 600 mm spacings to relieve compaction and surface picked to remove any obstructions to cultivation as defined in Condition 54. (3)
56. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity to inspect each phase of restoration as defined in the agreed scheme. (3)
57. Following compliance with Conditions 55 and 56, the subsoil surface shall be graded using low ground pressure equipment approved by the Minerals Planning Authority to ensure that after replacement of topsoil in accordance with Condition 53 the contours of the land conform with the restoration contours shown on drawing no. 7/1252/3 – ‘Restoration Masterplan’. (3)
Restoration of Topsoil – Arable Agriculture
58. The respreading of topsoil, to a uniform depth over the whole area stripped, shall only be carried out when the material and the ground on which it is to be placed are in a suitable dry condition. In those areas to be restored to agriculture, soils and soil resources, shall be replaced using loose tipping methods to minimise compaction. (3, 15)
59. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity to inspect any topsoil respread prior to further cultivations being prescribed and carried out. (3, 15)
Soils Replacement – Magnesian Limestone Grassland
60. The respreading of soils in areas to be restored to Magnesian Limestone grassland shall only take place in accordance with the scheme agreed under Condition 3(g). (3)
Aftercare Preamble
The aftercare period referred to in the following conditions is a period of five years after compliance with Condition 59 and the fulfilment of the requirements of the scheme to be carried out under Condition 60.
Annual Review
61. Before 31 August of every year during the aftercare period, a report shall be submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority recording the operations carried out on
Page 86 the land during the previous 12 months and setting out the intended operations for the next 12 months. (3, 17)
62. Every year during the aftercare period, the developer shall arrange a site meeting to be held before 30 November, to discuss the report prepared in accordance with Condition 49 to which the following parties shall be invited: (a) the Minerals Planning Authority, (b) Natural England, (c) all owners of the land within the site, (d) all occupiers of land within the site, (e) the Durham Wildlife Trust (3, 17)
No later than 6 months prior to the target date for completion of aftercare, the developer shall prepare a report on the Physical Characteristics for the site, and incorporating proposals to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the MPA (in consultation with Natural England), that by the end of the Aftercare Period, these will be restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when the land was last used for agriculture. (3, 17)
Cultivation after Replacement of Topsoil – Arable Agriculture
63. As soon as the ground is sufficiently dry after compliance with Condition 59, all disturbed land shall be subsoiled using an agricultural winged tined subsoiler, operating at a minimum depth of 450 mm and tine spacings of 600mm. (3, 15)
64. At least seven days notice of the intention to carry out the works required by Condition 63 shall be given to the Minerals Planning Authority and such works shall only proceed subject to their approval. (3, 15)
65. Any stones lying on the surface after compliance with Condition 63, which are larger than would pass through a wire mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation, shall be removed from the site. (15)
66. Following compliance with Condition 6553, the land shall be worked to prepare a seedbed suitable for the sowing of grass seed. During the cultivation process, any stones lying on the surface which are larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation, shall be removed from the site. (15)
67. No later than the end of September following compliance with Condition 54, the land shall be sown with a seed mixture, the detail of which shall have been agreed beforehand under Condition 3(g). (15)
68. Where adverse weather conditions or other delays prevent compliance with Condition 67, alternative treatment of the restored soils shall be agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority, to stabilise them over the winter period. No livestock shall be kept, nor machinery travel, on the land during the months of November – March, unless otherwise approved by the Minerals Planning Authority. (3)
Provision of Surface Features
69. Hedges and trees shall be planted in accordance with the approved restoration scheme, and to a detailed specification agreed beforehand with the Minerals Planning Authority, during the first planting season (which runs between 1 November and 31 March) after the seeding of the site in accordance with the approved restoration strategy. (1, 17)
Page 87 Drainage and Water Supply
70. During the aftercare period, temporary drainage works (eg ditches, watercourses, settling lagoons) shall be provided as necessary to prevent soil erosion, flooding of land within or outside the site, or the erosion or silting up of existing drainage channels within or outside the site. (8, 17)
71. Within the first two years of the aftercare period, a field water supply system shall be installed in the arable agriculture area. (8, 17)
72. A comprehensive agricultural field drainage system, conforming to the normal design criteria for restored land, and in accordance with the scheme agreed beforehand under Condition 3(g), shall be installed at a time no earlier than the first annual aftercare meeting, and no later than 24 months following compliance with Condition 71. (18, 17)
73. At least seven days notice of the intention to carry out drainage works shall be given to the Minerals Planning Authority and such works shall only proceed subject to their approval.
74. Within three months following the installation of the approved underdrainage, two copies of both the final drainage record plan and the up-to-date site survey plan (showing final restoration contours at 2 metre intervals), shall be forwarded to the Minerals Planning Authority (one of each being for Natural England). (1, 17)
Cultivation after the Installation of Field Drainage – Arable Agriculture
75. As soon as the ground is sufficiently dry after compliance with Condition 72, the land shall be subsoiled, using an agricultural winged tined subsoiler, operating at a depth and tine spacing agreed beforehand with the Minerals Planning Authority. (15)
76. At least seven days notice of the intention to carry out the works required by Condition 63 shall be given to the Minerals Planning Authority, and objects which are larger than would pass through a wire mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation shall be removed from the site. (15)
77. Following compliance with Condition 76, the land shall be worked to prepare a seedbed suitable for the sowing of grass seed. During the cultivation process, any stones lying on the surface which are larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation, shall be removed from the site. (15)
78. By no later than the end of August following compliance with Condition 77, the land shall be sown with the seed mix agreed under Condition 3(g). (15)
Areas to be Restored to Magnesian Limestone Grassland
79. Hedges and trees planted in accordance with Condition 69 shall be maintained during the aftercare period in accordance with good forestry practices. Such maintenance shall include the following:
(a) replacing plants which die or are lost. (3, 17) (b) weeding early in the growing season, and as necessary thereafter to prevent the growth of plants being retarded. (3, 17)
Page 88 (c) maintaining any fences around planted areas in a stock and rabbit proof condition; fence lines to be a minimum of 1.5 metres from the planted hedgeline. (3, 17) (d) appropriate measures to combat all other pest and/or diseases which significantly reduce the viability of the planting scheme. (17)
80. Where the Minerals Planning Authority agrees in writing with the persons responsible for undertaking the site working, restoration and aftercare, that there shall be variations to these conditions, then the relevant works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed variation. (3, 17)
81. Details of annual sales and remaining permitted reserves of minerals from the site shall be submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority. The period provided for shall be from 1 January to 31 December each year and the information shall be provided by 31 March for the preceding period. (23)
Page 89 Variation to Conditions 1 and 7 of Planning Permission T/APP/H1345/A/96/267255 as amended by Planning Permission No’s. 7/98/58CM and 7/2003/0045CM in order to extend the date for completion of mineral extraction, revise the method of mineral extraction and revise phasing of inert landfill operations
Approved documents
1. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the following documents (subject to matters subsequently agreed under Condition 3 or unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority):
Planning Permission T/APP/H1345/A/96/267255/P5 dated 18 th July 1997 and:
i) Drawing No. 7/1252/3 – ‘Restoration Masterplan’ ii) Drawing No. 8/1252/3 – ‘Proposed main underdrainage’ iii) Drawing No. 16a/1252/4 – ‘Landfill gas and leachate monitoring points iv) Drawing No. 17/1252/4 – ‘Permanent and Temporary Screen Mounding’ v) Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of Document CD2 (Soils and Agriculture – mitigation and residual impact) and figures 6.4 and 6.5 (Soil Storage) vi) Drawing No. 1252/3/010 – ‘Restoration planting’ vii) Drawing No. 1252/3/009 – ‘Proposed screen mound’ viii)Drawing No. 1252/3/3/008 Rev D – ‘Advance planting Scheme’ ix) Drawing No. 1252/3/3/020 Rev D – ‘Proposed Extension Phase 1 – Fencing and Soil Storage’ iix) ‘Bishop Middleham Quarry, County Durham An Archaeological Survey’ dated August 1998 iiix)‘W&M Thompson (Quarries) Ltd, Bishop Middleham Quarry, Co Durham, Dust Action Plan’ dated January 1998
Planning Permission CMA/7/21 dated 22 nd April 2003 and:
i) Drawing No. NT02891/011 (A-A) ii) Drawing No. NT02891/012 (B-B)
Planning Application Form dated 22 nd May 2007, supporting statement and subsequent letter from Blackett Hart & Pratt dated 3 rd September 2007 and email dated 6 th September 2007 and:
i) Drawing No. NT03833/002 – ‘Figure 2 Site Boundary’, dated November 2006 ii) Drawing No. NT03833/003 – ‘Figure 3 Mineral Extraction Phasing’ dated May 2007 iii) Drawing No. NT03833/002 – ‘Inert Landfill Phasing’, dated May 2007 iv) Project Development Chart – ‘Mineral Extraction Phasing’, dated February 2007 v) Project Development Chart – ‘ Landfill Phasing’, dated February 2007
Planning Application Form dated 4 February 2014, supporting statement and: i) Drawing No. NT10961-102 – ‘Application Boundary for Variation to CMA/7/64’ ii) Drawing No. NT10961-111 – ‘Figure BM5/6 Phase 10 Landfill Area (25 years)’ iii) Drawing No. NT10961-110 – ‘Figure BM5/5 Limestone Extraction Complete (20 years)’ iv) Drawing No. NT10961-0109 – ‘Figure BM5/4 Phase 2 and 3 Excavation (15 years)’ v) Drawing No. NT10961-107– ‘Figure BM5/3 Phase 1B and 1C Excavation (10 years)’ Page 90 vi) Drawing No. NT10961-106 – ‘Figure BM5/2 Phase 1A Excavation C (5 years)’ vii) Drawing No. NT10961-127 – ‘Restoration Contours’
2. From the date of this permission until completion of the development, a copy of this permission including all documents hereby approved and any other documents subsequently approved in accordance with this permission, shall be permanently maintained available for inspection at the site office. (1)
Matters requiring subsequent approval
3. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with a scheme or schemes to be agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority which shall include provision for;
a) The existing hedgerow, tree and shrub planting which has been carried out on the screening mounds around the edge of the site shall be maintained for the life of this permission. Such maintenance shall include any cutting and weeding of the planting area and, repairing of any damaged fencing and the replacement of any plants that die. (2)
b) the aftercare of the restored land for five years, after the replacement of soils or other surface material to bring the land to a condition where it is fit for the approved after-use. (3, 17)
c) details of the restoration of the site, which shall include;
i) the drainage of the restored site to include full provision for dealing with run- off from the restored landform. (3,8) ii) the erection of fences. (3,10,13) iii) the planting of trees and hedges and their subsequent maintenance for five years. (3) iv) the seeding mix to be used on the area proposed to be restored to arable agricultural land. (3, 15) v) the treatment of the arable agricultural area following sowing to include rate and type of fertiliser to be applied, cutting rates, works to prevent scrub colonisation and weeds. (3,15) vi) the works to be undertaken to form scree slopes and ledges in accordance with the approved restoration plan to include blasting and grading of overburden material, and details of the works to and around the County Geological Site in the north face of the existing quarry void. (3) vii) the respreading of soils in, and the treatment of areas to be restored to Magnesian Limestone grassland, to include the seeding mix to be used and the scrub colonisation prevention and other aftercare provisions as may be necessary. (3) viii) the design and layout of footpaths and tracks crossing the restored site. (3, 7, 10, 13) ix) any works to the underpass. (3) x) a subsequent maintenance and management programme during the aftercare period once any hedgerow, tree, and shrub planting has been carried out, which shall include the weeding of the planted area, repairing of any damaged fencing, and the replacement of any plants which die or are seriously affected by disease and a detailed schedule as to when the aftercare period commences. (3)
d) The aftercare of the land for five years, after the replacement of topsoil in accordance with Condition 74. (17) Page 91
e) The Dust Suppression Scheme approved under Planning Permission CMA/7/64 shall be reviewed and updated and any necessary alterations submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of this permission. The dust suppression measures to be employed shall include: (i) the provision of mobile water bowsers. (5) (ii) the use of dust filters on all fixed plant and machinery. (5) (iii) a speed limit of 15 mph on all internal haul roads. (5) (v) all haul roads and areas used for the storage or quarried material shall be watered during dry windy conditions. (5) (v) a static dust suppression system along the 400m length of the haul road. (5)
4. Those details required by Condition 3 above shall be submitted within 12 months of the date of this permission and be implemented in accordance with the timescales detailed in the scheme as approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority. (3, 4)
Completion
5. No further mineral extraction shall take place after 30 th June 2029. (1, 4)
6. The site shall be restored in terms of the replacement of all soils in accordance with Drawing No. NT10961-111 – ‘Restoration Masterplan’, not later than the 30 th June 2052. (1, 3, 4)
7. An annual review of operations at the site shall be prepared by the operator and submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority no later than 31st August each year. The report of the annual review shall include the following information (ix) a drawing showing an up to date survey of the whole site at a scale not less than 1:2500 showing the location of quarry faces, the extent of progressive restoration showing contours at 2 metres intervals, position of haul roads, temporary fencing, the location and size of any stockpiles of soil or overburden, details of the remaining void space should also be provided; (x) the results of all blast monitoring; (xi) the results of all noise monitoring; (xii) the results of all dust monitoring; (xiii) proposals for improvement or other amendments the company may wish to make to the agreed monitoring regimes; (xiv) suitable reversing alarms used/to be used onsite; (xv) identification of any difficulties with operations and/or of complying with the planning requirements which may have been encountered at the site during the relevant period, and (xvi) details of any complaints received and details of how they were dealt with.
A review meeting will be held before the end of November each year between the Minerals Planning Authority and the site operator to discuss the content of the report. (1,2,3)
8. In the event of insufficient waste being available to achieve the approved restoration contours at the time of the expiry of each phase of infilling as shown in table 1 ( contained within the Environmental Statement submitted as part of the 2013 application), the operator shall review the approved restoration plan in consultation with the MPA and if deemed necessary and alternative restoration proposals should be agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority within 12 months of the expiry of the Page 92 phase so as to provide an alternative restoration scheme for the site if deemed necessary by the Minerals Planning Authority. (3, 4)
Works required for Site Preparation
9. Before further soil stripping operations take place, the following works shall be carried out:
i) The installation of drainage arrangements appropriate to the area to be stripped. (3, 8) ii) Perimeter stockproof fencing as necessary. (3, 11)
Working Times
10. No operations shall take place outside the hours of:
07.00 hrs to 19.00 hrs Monday to Friday 07.00 hrs to 12.00 hrs Saturday
or at any time on Sundays, Bank or other public holidays, save in cases of essential maintenance or emergency when life limb or property are in danger. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be notified as soon as is practical after the occurrence of any such emergency. (1, 5)
Access and Protection of the Public Highway
11. There shall be no vehicular access to and from the site except for the for site dump trucks using the approved access through the tunnel. Road wagons shall remain on metalled surface and shall only use the access road C16. (9)
12. No vehicle shall exit the site onto the public highway unless the wheel cleaning equipment installed in accordance with the Condition 11 iii) has been used to ensure that they are thoroughly cleansed of mud. (5, 9)
13. No vehicle shall leave the site unless the load is fully covered by sheeting. (9)
Soil Stripping
14. No topsoil or subsoil stripping shall take place unless the Minerals Planning Authority has been given at least seven days notice (excluding Sundays), of any such works which shall proceed only when agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority. (2, 5)
15. No areas shall be excavated, or used for the stationing of plant and buildings, the storage of subsoils and overburden, haul roads and other areas to be traversed by heavy machinery until the topsoil has been stripped from these areas and it shall then be stored until required for restoration. (1, 2, 3)
16. No plant or vehicles shall cross any areas of unstripped topsoil except for the purpose of stripping operations. (1, 2)
17. No stripping and movement of topsoil and subsoil shall be carried out except by the use of an excavator and a dump truck and under sufficiently dry conditions, when the topsoil has a sufficiently friable consistency to avoid smearing and compaction, and
Page 93 to ensure that all available soil resources are recovered without any unnecessary damage or loss. (1, 2)
18. Topsoil, subsoils and other soil making materials shall be stored according to their quality on separate heaps in accordance with figures 6.4 – 6.5 of Document CD2 of Planning Permission CMA/7/64 and which do not overlap, unless otherwise requested by the Minerals Planning Authority. (1)
19. Once formed, all topsoil heaps shall be treated, seeded and planted in accordance with Approved Drawing No. 1252/3/3008 Rev D ‘Advanced Planting Scheme’ of Planning Permission CMA/7/64 and kept free from injurious weeds. (1)
20. No topsoil or subsoil shall be removed from the site without the prior agreement of the Minerals Planning Authority. (2)
Site Working
21. No extraction or infilling operations including restoration shall be carried out except in accordance with the approved documents in Condition 1 and schemes subsequently agreed to in accordance with Condition 3. (1)
22. Scrub and vegetation removal, soil stripping and replacement, drainage works, or any other activity on land which has lain undisturbed for some time, shall be avoided during the main bird breeding period (1st March to 15th July inclusive), unless the area concerned had been shown to be free of nesting birds, following a robust survey by a suitably qualified person, immediately prior to such works commencing. (13)
Site Maintenance
23. From the commencement of the development until restoration of the site, the following shall be carried out: (a) fences between any areas used for development and any adjoining agricultural land shall be maintained in a stockproof condition. (18) (b) the maintenance of all haul roads and areas within the site, over which licensed road vehicles operate, clean from mud. (9) (c) the treatment of trees affected by disease, in accordance with the principles of good aboricultural practice. (10, 13) (d) all areas including stacks of soil and overburden to be kept free of injurious weeds, and necessary steps to be taken to destroy such weeds at an early stage of growth to prevent seeding. (13)
Buildings, Fixed Plant and Machinery
24. No plant or machinery on the site shall be used to process, treat or otherwise refine materials other than those extracted from the site. (1)
25. On completion of extraction, all fixed equipment, machinery, buildings and access roads not required for the infilling of the quarry void shall be removed from the site unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority. (1,3)
Environmental Protection – Noise
26. Except when soil stripping or soil replacement operations are taking place, the noise emitted from operations on the site shall not result in ambient noise levels greater than 55dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield), 70dB(A)L MAX as measured at Highland House and Page 94 56dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield) as measured at the noise monitoring locations identified on figure BM13/3. (1, 5)
27. Noise emitted from the following operations shall not at any time result in ambient noise levels greater than 70dBL Aeq.1hour (freefield) when measured at the point(s) agreed in accordance with Condition 28: (a) the stripping and respreading of all topsoil and subsoil mounds. (1, 5) (c) the construction of all perimeter topsoil and subsoil mounds. (1, 5)
28. Noise monitoring at the locations set out in Figure BM13/3 shall take place every calendar month. On request, the operator shall furnish the Minerals Planning Authority with the particulars of the measurements recorded and the plant and equipment operating on the site at the time. (5)
Blasting
29. No blasting operations shall be carried out except in accordance with the document titeld Blast Action Plan for Bishop Middleham Quarry received February 2013 by the Local Planning Authority. In particular no blasting operations shall be carried out except in accordance with the following criteria:
(a) No blasting shall take place on site except between the following times:
ten minutes either side of the hour between 10.00 hrs and 16.00 hrs Monday to Friday. (5)
(b) There shall be no blasting on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays. (5)
(c) No more than one blast shall take place each day (Monday to Friday). (5)
30. No blasting operations shall take place which would result in ground vibrations with a peak particle velocity greater than 6mm/sec in any plane at the nearest occupied dwelling to such operations, and 95% of all blasts within any 12 month period shall generate less than 3mm/sec, with the first being submitted 12 months from the date of this permission. (5, 10)
31. Except for reasons of safety, all blasts shall be prepared and fixed with adequate stemming and covering to ensure that noise from blasting is minimised. (5, 10)
32. All blasts undertaken at the quarry shall be monitored by the operator for peak particle velocity in the vertical, horizontal and transverse planes at the noise and dust monitoring locations shown on Figure BM13/3. The operator shall make the results of the blast monitoring available to the Mineral Planning Authority upon their request. (5)
Dust
33. No operations shall be carried out on the site unless the dust control equipment provided in accordance with Condition 3(e) is used to suppress the dust arising from operations including vehicular movements, excavation operations and mineral and overburden stockpiling arrangements. At any time when the equipment provided is not sufficient to suppress the dust arising from the site, operations shall cease until additional equipment is provided and found to be adequate. (1, 5)
Page 95 34. Monitoring of existing dust levels at locations identified in the document entitled ‘Dust Action Plan’ dated January 1998 shall be carried out on the basis of the approved monitoring scheme and any subsequent scheme agreed under Condition 3(e). On request, the operator shall furnish the MPA with particulars of the measurements recorded by the equipment. (1, 5)
Surface Water Drainage and Pollution Control
35. No water from the site shall be discharged into any ditch, stream, watercourse or culvert outside the site except through approved settlement ponds provided in accordance with the scheme agreed under Condition 3(b). (8)
36. All approved measures shall be taken to ensure that no flooding and no silting, pollution or erosion of any watercourse or adjoining land is caused by any operations on the site. (8)
37. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank it contains plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund. The bund shall be sealed with no drain for removal of contained liquids. Any bund contents shall be bailed or pumped out under manual control and disposed of safely. (8)
Restoration
38. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority, restoration of the site shall be in complete accordance with the details approved in Conditions 1 and 3. (1, 2, 3)
Removal of Site Compound and the Access and Haul Roads
39. Upon cessation of infilling operations in accordance with the details approved under Condition 1, all areas of hardstanding, including site compounds, access roads and haul roads shall be broken up and removed from the site. (1, 2, 3)
Removal of Settlement Ponds
40. Upon cessation of infilling operations in accordance with the details approved under the terms of Condition 1, all settlement ponds shall, unless to be retained in accordance with the approved plans, be emptied of slurry, filled with inert material and restored. (1, 3)
Soil Replacement
41. Where a soil material to be used for restoration in accordance with Condition 3 has been imported into the site and has not previously been inspected by an officer of the Minerals Planning Authority, at least 48 hours notice of the intention to carry out soil spreading operations shall be given to the MPA and the opportunity given to the Authority to inspect the material prior to its placement. (3)
Replacement of Subsoil – Arable Agriculture Page 96
42. The material stripped and stored in accordance with Condition 18 shall be progressively respread in accordance with the restoration scheme required in accordance with Condition 3(c). Such scheme shall provide where practicable and in accordance with the restoration scheme for the replacement of soils by loose tipping methods as described in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of document CD2 when it, and the ground on which it is to be placed, are in a sufficiently dry condition, and the rooting of each layer to its full depth and the removal from the surface and non-burial within the respread subsoil of any non-subsoil type material or rock, boulder or stone larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with a spacing of 0.3 metres. (3)
43. All area of exposed subsoil not previously excavated, shall be rooted to a depth of 450mm at 600 mm spacings to relieve compaction and surface picked to remove any obstructions to cultivation as defined in Condition 42. (3)
44. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity to inspect each phase of restoration as defined in the agreed scheme. (3)
45. Following compliance with Conditions 43 and 44, the subsoil surface shall be graded using low ground pressure equipment approved by the Minerals Planning Authority to ensure that after replacement of topsoil in accordance with Condition 53 the contours of the land conform with the restoration contours shown on drawing no. 7/1252/3 – ‘Restoration Masterplan’. (3)
Restoration of Topsoil – Arable Agriculture
46. The respreading of topsoil, to a uniform depth over the whole area stripped, shall only be carried out when the material and the ground on which it is to be placed are in a suitable dry condition. In those areas to be restored to agriculture, soils and soil resources, shall be replaced using loose tipping methods to minimise compaction. (3, 15)
47. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity to inspect any topsoil respread prior to further cultivations being prescribed and carried out. (3, 15)
Soils Replacement – Magnesian Limestone Grassland
48. The respreading of soils in areas to be restored to Magnesian Limestone grassland shall only take place in accordance with the scheme agreed under Condition 3(g). (3)
Aftercare Preamble
The aftercare period referred to in the following conditions is a period of five years after compliance with Condition 47 and the fulfilment of the requirements of the scheme to be carried out under Condition 48.
Annual Review
49. Before 31 August of every year during the aftercare period, a report shall be submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority recording the operations carried out on the land during the previous 12 months and setting out the intended operations for the next 12 months. (3, 17)
50. Every year during the aftercare period, the developer shall arrange a site meeting to be held before 30 November, to discuss the report prepared in accordance with Condition 49 to which the following parties shall be invited: Page 97 (a) the Minerals Planning Authority, (b) Natural England, (c) all owners of the land within the site, (d) all occupiers of land within the site, (e) the Durham Wildlife Trust (3, 17)
No later than 6 months prior to the target date for completion of aftercare, the developer shall prepare a report on the Physical Characteristics for the site, and incorporating proposals to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the MPA (in consultation with Natural England), that by the end of the Aftercare Period, these will be restored, so far as it is practicable to do so, to what they were when the land was last used for agriculture. (3, 17)
Cultivation after Replacement of Topsoil – Arable Agriculture
51. As soon as the ground is sufficiently dry after compliance with Condition 47, all disturbed land shall be subsoiled using an agricultural winged tined subsoiler, operating at a minimum depth of 450 mm and tine spacings of 600mm. (3, 15)
52. At least seven days notice of the intention to carry out the works required by Condition 51 shall be given to the Minerals Planning Authority and such works shall only proceed subject to their approval. (3, 15)
53. Any stones lying on the surface after compliance with Condition 51, which are larger than would pass through a wire mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation, shall be removed from the site. (15)
54. Following compliance with Condition 53, the land shall be worked to prepare a seedbed suitable for the sowing of grass seed. During the cultivation process, any stones lying on the surface which are larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation, shall be removed from the site. (15)
55. No later than the end of September following compliance with Condition 54, the land shall be sown with a seed mixture, the detail of which shall have been agreed beforehand under Condition 3(g). (15)
56. Where adverse weather conditions or other delays prevent compliance with Condition 55, alternative treatment of the restored soils shall be agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority, to stabilise them over the winter period. No livestock shall be kept, nor machinery travel, on the land during the months of November – March, unless otherwise approved by the Minerals Planning Authority. (3)
Provision of Surface Features
57. Hedges and trees shall be planted in accordance with the approved restoration scheme, and to a detailed specification agreed beforehand with the Minerals Planning Authority, during the first planting season (which runs between 1 November and 31 March) after the seeding of the site in accordance with the approved restoration strategy. (1, 17)
Drainage and Water Supply
58. During the aftercare period, temporary drainage works (eg ditches, watercourses, settling lagoons) shall be provided as necessary to prevent soil erosion, flooding of land within or outside the site, or the erosion or silting up of existing drainage channels within or outside the site. (8, 17) Page 98
59. Within the first two years of the aftercare period, a field water supply system shall be installed in the arable agriculture area. (8, 17)
60. A comprehensive agricultural field drainage system, conforming to the normal design criteria for restored land, and in accordance with the scheme agreed beforehand under Condition 3(g), shall be installed at a time no earlier than the first annual aftercare meeting, and no later than 24 months following compliance with Condition 59. (18, 17)
61. At least seven days notice of the intention to carry out drainage works shall be given to the Minerals Planning Authority and such works shall only proceed subject to their approval.
62. Within three months following the installation of the approved underdrainage, two copies of both the final drainage record plan and the up-to-date site survey plan (showing final restoration contours at 2 metre intervals), shall be forwarded to the Minerals Planning Authority (one of each being for Natural England). (1, 17)
Cultivation after the Installation of Field Drainage – Arable Agriculture
63. As soon as the ground is sufficiently dry after compliance with Condition 60, the land shall be subsoiled, using an agricultural winged tined subsoiler, operating at a depth and tine spacing agreed beforehand with the Minerals Planning Authority. (15)
64. At least seven days notice of the intention to carry out the works required by Condition 63 shall be given to the Minerals Planning Authority, and objects which are larger than would pass through a wire mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation shall be removed from the site. (15)
65. Following compliance with Condition 64, the land shall be worked to prepare a seedbed suitable for the sowing of grass seed. During the cultivation process, any stones lying on the surface which are larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with any other objects likely to obstruct future cultivation, shall be removed from the site. (15)
66. By no later than the end of August following compliance with Condition 65, the land shall be sown with the seed mix agreed under Condition 3(g). (15)
Areas to be Restored to Magnesian Limestone Grassland
67. Hedges and trees planted in accordance with Condition 57 shall be maintained during the aftercare period in accordance with good forestry practices. Such maintenance shall include the following:
(a) replacing plants which die or are lost. (3, 17) (b) weeding early in the growing season, and as necessary thereafter to prevent the growth of plants being retarded. (3, 17) (c) maintaining any fences around planted areas in a stock and rabbit proof condition; fence lines to be a minimum of 1.5 metres from the planted hedgeline. (3, 17) (d) appropriate measures to combat all other pest and/or diseases which significantly reduce the viability of the planting scheme. (17)
Page 99 68. Where the Minerals Planning Authority agrees in writing with the persons responsible for undertaking the site working, restoration and aftercare, that there shall be variations to these conditions, then the relevant works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed variation. (3, 17)
69. Details of annual sales and remaining permitted reserves of minerals from the site shall be submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority. The period provided for shall be from 1 January to 31 December each year and the information shall be provided by 31 March for the preceding period. (23)
Page 100 REASONS FOR CONDITIONS
1. To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents.
2. To ensure the development is carried out in an orderly manner. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W33 Protecting Local Amenity). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting local amenity).
3. To ensure the site is satisfactorily restored. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policy W54 Reclamation Conditions). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M46 Restoration Conditions).
4. To avoid unnecessary delay in the restoration of the site. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policy W54 Reclamation Conditions ). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M46 Restoration Conditions).
5. In the interests of residential amenity. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W33 Protecting Local Amenity, W31 Environmental Impact of Traffic, W32 Planning obligations for controlling environmental impact of road traffic). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M36 Protecting local amenity, M43 Road traffic).
6. In the interests of visual amenity. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W33 Protecting Local Amenity, W54 Reclamation Conditions). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting local amenity).
7. To protect land outside the site. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W33 Protecting Local Amenity, W54 Reclamation Conditions). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M36 Protecting local amenity, M38 Water Resources).
8. To prevent adversely affecting watercourses passing through or outside the site. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W33 Protecting Local Amenity, W54 Reclamation Conditions). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M38 Water Resources).
9. In the interests of highway safety. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W24 Rights of Way and Countryside Recreation, W32 Planning Obligations for Controlling Environmental Impact of Road Traffic, W33 Protecting Local Amenity, W54 Reclamation Conditions). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M35 Recreational areas and PROW, M43 Road Traffic).
10. In the interests of visitors to the countryside. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W24 Rights of Way and Countryside Recreation, W33 Protecting Local Amenity). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M35 Recreational areas and PROW, M36 Protecting Local Amenity).
Page 101 11. To ensure the stability of the land concerned. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policy W33 Protecting Local Amenity). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting Local Amenity).
12. In the interests of archaeology. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policy W23 Archaeology). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M33 Archaeology).
13. In the interests of nature conservation. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policy W17 Nature Conservation). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M29 Nature Conservation).
14. To enable the local planning authority to consider the implications of any proposal to expand the activities which take place within the site. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policy W33 Protecting Local Amenity). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting Local Amenity).
15. In the interests of agriculture. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W33 Protecting Local Amenity, W54 Reclamation Conditions). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M36 Protecting Local Amenity, M46 Restoration Conditions).
16. In the interests of public safety. (Adopted County Durham Waste Local Plan (April 2005) Policies W24 Rights of Way and Countryside Recreation, W33 Protecting Local Amenity). (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M35 Recreational areas and PROW, M36 Protecting Local Amenity).
17. To ensure that the land is satisfactorily treated for an appropriate period after the initial restoration to bring it to a satisfactory standard as required by Schedule 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. (Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)
18. To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which places a time limit on when any permitted development may start by. (Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)
19. The operator has stated, within the Water Resources section of the Environmental Statement provided, that no dewatering within the extension area will be undertaken. Water levels within this area of the Magnesian Limestone aquifer, which underlies the site, are known to be variable and over the past year have risen to record levels (please see attached graph, sent separately via email, which depicts the rise in water levels). The rapid rise in water levels is thought to be the result of prolonged rainfall and snow melt and reduced leakage of groundwater to the underlying Coal Measures strata. As groundwater levels continue to rise we are unable to predict when and if levels are likely to stabilise and at what level, which could impact on the amount of mineral resource that can be excavated.
20. The Magnesian Limestone principal aquifer underlies the site and is an important source of water for numerous public and private water supplies and therefore requires protection. Removal of the overburden material above the rock will increase Page 102 the risk to the aquifer from any pollutants used on site. As such, suitable mitigation measures need to be implemented to minimise the risks and ensure protection of the groundwater.
21. To comply with saved Minerals Policy M33, and para. 135 and 141 of the NPPF.
22. To comply with paragraph 141 of NPPF to ensure that the developer records and advances understanding of the significance of the heritage asset to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to its importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible.
23. To enable monitoring and assist the Minerals Planning Authority in the forward planning of mineral resources.
24. To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which places a time limit on when any permitted development may start by as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to ensure that the development is carried out within a reasonable period of time.
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to support this application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised, and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)
BACKGROUND PAPERS
− Submitted application form and plans provided by the applicant. − National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) − National Planning Policy Guidance − County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000). − Emerging County Durham Plan − Statutory, internal and public consultation responses.
Page 103
Proposed Extension Area
CMA/7/102
Planning Services This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date September 2014 Scale Not to scale
Committee Report - Version 6 – Effective 1.02.13 Page 104