(Item 8) Application No. 2-06-9020 New Cowper Sand Quarry
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1.0 RECOMMENDATION 1.1 That planning permission is granted for the reasons stated in Appendix 1 and subject to the conditions within Appendix 2. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Sand extraction has taken place in the New Cowper area for over 50 years. Planning permission for the current processing area at New Cowper was renewed in 1988. This was followed by a series of consents for a bagging plant and hopper and other buildings in 1991. In 2000 these were consolidated into a single planning permission, reference 2/00/9002, that expired on 30 September 2006. The submitted planning application seeks to vary Conditions 1 and 5 of that planning permission. 2.2 Operations on site involve processing of sand and gravel and its dispatch to customers either as bulk loads or in large bags. As well as sand and gravel, crushed rock is imported to the site for bagging as back loads on vehicles coming to collect material from the site. This enables the applicant to supply mixed loads of crushed rock and sand which would typically go to builders’ merchants. 2.3 Condition 1 limited the life of the planning permission to an expiry date of 30 September 2006. By that date all buildings, plant and machinery were to have been removed from the site and the land restored to an agricultural after use. This application seeks to extend the completion date to 31 December 2008 to allow the retention of the plant on site for a further two year period. This expiry date would coincide with the expiry date of the permission for the current New Cowper Quarry, reference 2/03/9022, from which material is transported to the plant using an internal access haul road. 2.4 Condition 5 of the current consent states: ‘Only sand and gravel from Overby Quarry (planning permission 2/95/9007, due to expire on 31 October 2010), New Cowper Farm (planning permission 2/99/9007 and 2/98/9011, both now completed and restored) and Bullgill Quarry (planning permission 2/98/9026 expected to be exhausted by July 2007) shall be processed on the site.’ This application seeks to either delete this condition or update the wording so that it reflects the current situation, in relation to also process material from the current New Cowper Permission, reference 2/03/9022. 2.5 Whilst this application relates to two conditions the fact that the time period has expired enables the County Council to consider both the principle of the continued use of the site and to review all the conditions on any new planning permission. 3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 Allerdale Borough Council has no objections to the extension of the life of the plant to 31 December 2008 and the continuation of material extracted from the New Cowper, Overby and Bullgill Quarries to be processed and bagged on site. The council does object to the continued processing and bagging of other imported materials which they believe should be carried out in a more suitable industrial location. 3.2 Holme St Cuthbert Parish Council make the following comments: • There is no objection to the continuation of sand extraction until 31 December 2008 and the new consent should have all the previously agreed conditions placed on it and the applicant should comply with the requirement to remove all the buildings and restore the site to agriculture • This is not an extension to an existing consent because it expired on 30 September 2006. This should be considered as a new application and importation of materials should be excluded • Importing coloured chippings and slate chippings for bagging is not legal and should have been fully discussed and a planning application required • The vehicle sizes, the number of empty wagons, those travelling unsheeted and in convoys have not been adequately controlled and they are causing damage to the road surface, destroying verges and affecting wildlife • The council does not agree with the retention of the building on site which they believe is asbestos. They believe it was erected and then was granted consent retrospectively. It was second hand when it was erected and the Parish Council had always been told that it would be removed and the land returned to agriculture. It is the owner’s responsibility to remove it. • If permission is granted the vehicles should be regularly monitored 3.3 Westnewton Parish Council which is the neighbouring Parish Council have referred to the joint document in their consultation response and they make the following detailed comments: • The information submitted with the application indicates that a fair proportion of the quarried minerals will be going outside Cumbria and is not for local use • The proposed level of extraction seems to exceed the allocation for Cumbria • The applicant is importing minerals for mixing and this is not part of the planning consent • The above points lead to more traffic being generated than is necessary, there is a higher level of vehicles than is permitted already accessing the site, the applicant does not adhere to the restrictions on vehicle numbers imposed and this is not monitored adequately by the Local Planning Authority • The vehicles are getting larger, carry more weight and there are increased numbers of journeys on inappropriate roads. • If consent is granted the roads would become more damaged and more dangerous • The lorries intimidate other road users including cars, pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. For the reasons above they recommend that the application should be declined. Westnewton and Holme St Cuthbert Parish Councils submitted a joint detailed objection to the Local Planning Authority in January 2006, in advance of this application and the application for an extension at Overby Quarry (2/06/9033). This is the document that Westnewton refer to above. A copy of this report was included with the Briefing Note that accompanied the site visit attended by members on 8 December 2006 and a full copy will be circulated to members separately before Committee. 3.4 The Highway Authority has no objections to the proposed extension of time. They state that the highway is in bad condition leading from the Processing Plant in both directions. They require the applicant to contact Cumbria Highways to discuss making good the extraordinary damage to the highway under Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980, as a result of the quarry operations. This would include cleaning of the carriageway surface, verges and ditches, carriageway repairs, the removal of the two gates forming the crossing point over the U2039, the reinstatement of the highway verge and the removal of signs associated with the plant. 3.5 The Environment Agency are concerned that if any of the redundant plant is suspected of containing asbestos it should be subject to suitable testing and if necessary should be dealt with by an Asbestos Removal Contractor. Any asbestos material should be taken to a waste management facility that is suitably licensed. 3.6 Natural England: Geology, Landscapes and Soils Team confirm that they do not wish to raise an objection and comment that agriculture is the preferred after use due to the Predictive Agricultural Land Classification Map indicating a high likelihood (ie > 60%) of the land in this area being classified as ‘best and most versatile’ (namely Grades 1, 2 and 3a) if surveyed at field scale. They confirm that they have concerns about the soil handling and replacement strategy on this site and that only the topsoil has been stripped and stored for restoration purposes. An Aftercare Scheme that addresses these concerns is required. Also in order to ensure that restoration works are carried out under favourable conditions, soil replacement, cultivation and seeding need to be completed by a deadline of no later than 30 September rather than 31 December as proposed. 3.7 They state that the proposal to retain and re-use the building in the countryside should be determined in accordance with Para 17 of PPS 7; taking account of sustainable development objectives, including an assessment of the potential impact on the countryside, landscapes and wildlife, specific need and suitability for re-use. 3.8 The local Member Mr A Markley has been notified. 3.9 Representations have been received from seven individuals. One resident has written four times to support the objections raised in the joint document from the Parish Councils and raised the following points. The stockpiling and bagging of imported material has not been included within any planning application and has been allowed to continue without any formal consent. When this was raised with the previous case officer it was stated that there was no condition preventing it from happening and that the total number of laden vehicles leaving the site would still be controlled by the relevant condition. 3.10 He states that the county council does not have the means to police a condition controlling vehicle numbers because they do not have access to weighbridge records and this results in the quarry owner dictating the total number of lorry movements. The writer states that the LPA should apply Policy 69 and seek a planning obligation or other legal agreement rather than rely on conditions alone. He disagrees with the applicant being permitted to import materials for bagging to make up mixed orders because this suits the quarry owner but causes nuisance to residents through increased traffic movements. He believes the site should deal with the indigenous material alone. He states that the planning authority should seek to minimise impacts of minerals developments on climate change and secure sound working practices, both objectives of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework, by preventing the importation of materials and controlling vehicle numbers effectively.