Agenda item

Oliver Craven, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

·    He referred to the close vote when the application had last been considered by the Committee in 2016.

·    At the meeting in 2016 a number of questions had been asked by the Committee and the applicant wished to respond to these comments and submit further information on why his application should be approved.

·    No technical issues had been raised about the application submitted in 2016 and the development complied with all relevant policies within the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies of the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (CSDMP).

·    The application would have no impact on the local environment.

·    The quarrying operation at the current site comprised the main part of the applicant's business operations and if the application was not approved then 29 jobs were at risk of being lost.

·    The landbank detailed in the CSDMP was out of date and had been reduced to 20 million tons due to a number of issues including the determination of numerous planning applications, the re-opening of quarries and the general improvement in the economy.

·    While the application was small it would secure employment and recycling facilities at the quarry.

The applicant's representative responded to questions from the Committee as follows:-

·    The figures detailed in the CSDMP for the landbank had been verified by the Council. How had the applicant arrived at his figures? The applicant stated that the figures in Policy M5 of the CSDMP had been prepared in 2012/13 and took in the years when there was a recession. Since that time reserves had been worked and there had been a 30% increase in demand for limestone which had not been reflected in the CSDMP.

·    What was the evidence that jobs would be lost if the application was not approved? The applicant stated that many jobs relied on the quarrying operations and the recycling operation also relied on the success of the quarrying operation. The applicant's site off Whisby Road, near Lincoln, would also close.

·    If the application proceeded this would lead to a surplus of limestone and would not this bring down the cost of the product? The applicant stated that the closure of the Whisby site would have a significant impact on local builders because currently they did not have far to travel and therefore kept their costs down.

·    The policies in the CSDMP had not changed since its approval by the Council and had the applicant responded to the consultation about the CSDMP? The applicant stated that Policy M5 was out of date and since the CSDMP was prepared the industry had come out of recession.

Officers stated that they accepted that the landbank reserve figure cited in the CSDMP was out of date as it was based on figures available in 2013 and had changed as a consequence of planning decisions taken since the CSDMP was prepared and more likely to be within the region of 20m tonnes. However, despite the landbank figure cited in the CSDMP being out of date given the size of the current landbank there were still substantial reserves and production and demand for aggregate would continue to be monitored.

Officers stated that with regard to the comments made by the applicant in connection with the loss of jobs the recycling business within the applicant's site was permitted to remain within the site until 2025 and therefore, if the applicant chose to, this business could still provide employment.

Comments by the Committee and the responses of officers included:-

·    Clarification was sought about the statistics relating to the reserves in the landbank? Officers stated that the figure of 20m tons in the landbank was from sites in operation and additional reserves existed in dormant sites which could be activated if necessary.

·    It was noted that the landbank figure was out of date but at what point would this figure require to be re-examined? Officers stated that production rates and changes to the landbank would continue to be monitored and in the event of any shortfall in supply this would trigger a review of the CSDMP.

·    It was considered that as economic growth had taken place since 2013 the application should be approved in view of the change in circumstances.

On a motion by Councillor L A Cawrey, seconded by Councillor P A Skinner, it was –

RESOLVED (12 votes for and 2 votes against)

That the planning application be refused for the reason detailed in the report.