Agenda item

Since the publication of the report the Planning Manager reported details of the revised National Planning Policy Framework which were detailed in the update to the Committee which was published on the Council's website and had been sent to Committee members before the meeting.

Graeme King, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

·    Sand and gravel operations had taken place for over 30 years at Norton Disney. Over this time the operation had extended in piecemeal fashion such that there was now a patchwork of separate planning permission blocks across the site containing different conditions, often with competing restoration requirements.

·    The application if approved would allow an additional release of 7m tonnes of minerals to be worked over an additional 14 years.

·    It was also proposed to consolidate all the older planning consents across the site into a single permission with a holistic, nature conservation themed scheme of restoration being progressively delivered.

·    The planning application had evolved over the past 4 years or so following pre-submission engagement and then feedback received from the communities of Norton Disney and Stapleford. Following feedback from these communities the working plans had been modified such that these adverse effects had been "designed out" of the working schemes and these changes were reflected in the application.

·    Should the application be approved this would ensure the protection of 37 employees and 20 employees not directly employed at the plant; rescind all old planning permissions across the site and deliver a new sustainable, nature conservation themed restoration scheme including rich biodiverse habitats with enhanced public access rights.

Graeme King responded to questions from the Committee as follows:-

·         He stated that the consultation exercise carried out had raised concerns about how long the bunds would remain in place and that they should be removed as soon as possible. The applicant had stated that the bunds would provide screening of the site and would also prevent the spread of dust. He stated that the visual impact of the bunds had been addressed by reducing their gradient. The new application would ensure that the operation would move away from the village of Stapleford.

·         The nearest residential property to the extraction site was 125 metres away.

·         The noise from the site would be below the recognised threshold and during the construction of the bunds the noise would be above the threshold but only for a short period of time.

·         The diversion of the Public Right of Way (PROW) through the proposed site would only be temporary and would be restored on the restoration of the site. It was the intention of the applicant to provide more Permissive access following restoration of the site.

Officers stated that the noise levels arising from the application were outlined in the report and were within planning guidance. Officers stated that higher noise levels were only permitted for a temporary period.

Comments by the Committee and the responses of officers, where appropriate, included:-

·         Clarification was sought about noise levels from the site? Officers stated that it was difficult to explain the level of noise generated from the site. However, it would be quieter than that generated by an aeroplane.

·         The public consultation carried out by the applicant was welcomed.

·         Could the local Member be kept informed when the PROW was restored so that local residents could be informed? Officers stated that the PROW would be reinstated following the completion of Phase 3 of the development and therefore it would be 7 years before the PROW was reinstated.

·         The applicant's routing of his vehicles to avoid local villages was welcomed. Officers stated that the applicant had previously entered into a routeing agreement for his vehicles for this site.

·         The applicant had already provided a haulage road to the A46 which meant his HGVs avoiding to have to use the local roads.

·         It was noted that a lot of the applicant's material was transported nationwide.

·         It was noted that dust would be kept to a minimum.

On a motion by Councillor Mrs M J Overton MBE, seconded by Councillor D Brailsford, it was –

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That planning permission be granted subject to:-

(a) The applicant entering into a S106 Planning Obligation to cover the following matters:

• to secure the revocation of all existing permissions that relate to Norton

Bottoms Quarry without compensation;

• to continue to route all HGVs travelling to and from the site to the A46(T)

and not to use the C195 (Newark Road) except to for local deliveries;

• to secure the implementation of the Bird Hazard Management Plan in

perpetuity or until such time as RAF Waddington ceases to operate;

• to provide a Long Term Management Plan to ensure continuous

aftercare of the restored site and maintenance of permissive paths,

watercourse crossing points and bird hides.

(b) That, subject to the completion of the Planning Obligation referred to above, the Executive Director of Environment and Economy be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(c) Agree to the report forming part of the Council's Statement pursuant to Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 which required the Council to make available for public inspection at the District Council's Offices specified information regarding the decision. Pursuant to Regulation 24(1)(c) the Council must make available for public inspection a statement which contains:

• content of decision and any conditions attached to it;

• main reasons and considerations on which decision is based;

• including if relevant, information about the participation of the public;

• a description, when necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce

and if possible offset the major adverse effects of the development;

• information recording the right to challenge the validity of the decision

and procedure for doing so.