Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Beaver, D C Hoyes MBE, M S Jones and C L Strange.

The Chief Executive reported that under the Local Government (Committee and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, he had appointed Councillor R A Renshaw, in place of Councillor G J Ellis, for this meeting only.

It was requested that a note should be made in the minutes that all members of the Committee had been lobbied by various bodies and individuals against the planning application including Paul Gibbons, Jas. Martin and Co (on behalf of the Hungerton Estate and GOLAG (Gorse Lane Quarry Action Group) (minute 44).

Councillor Mrs H N J Powell requested that a note should be made in the minutes that she knew a lady who was part of the protest group, but had not seen her in some time and would keep an open mind (minute 44).

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Planning and Regulation Committee held on 25 July 2016, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee received a report in connection with the position of all Traffic Regulation Orders and petitions received.

RESOLVED

That the report and the petitions received be noted.

The Committee had made a site visit before the meeting, stopping at various locations including Gorse Lane, Hill Top Farm, Stoney Track, The Drift SSSI and the village of Denton.

Since the publication of the report further correspondence had been received from Mick George Ltd (Applicant), South Kesteven District Council, Denton Parish Council, Gorse Lane Action Group (GOLAG), a representative of the Hungerton Estate, a member of the public and the Planning Manager's responses to the responses received. All of the responses were detailed in the update to the Committee and a record of the responses was kept on the Council's website.

Simon Curtin, an objector, commented as follows:-

1. He was speaking as a representative of the Gorse Lane Quarry Action Group (or GOLAG), which represented residents from across the local communities, including the views of over 500 local people who had signed a petition objecting to the proposed development and those who had sent over 230 detailed letters of objection. They reflected detailed knowledge of the area of the proposed development, including its flora and fauna. 

2. We welcomed the Planning Officer’s conclusions that based on the County Council's 2016 Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

3. There was no need for this aggregate quarry or for the landfill capacity the resultant hole would create. This development failed the crucial test of sustainability.

4. The proposed site formed part of a very beautiful and threatened Limestone Plateau and cherished by all who loved the countryside and visited the area.

5. By removing the limestone it would not only lose its special character but would also destroy an aquifer of high importance. Reports have been provided the Council by GOLAG from recognised independent hydrogeological experts in respect of the impact on the northern flows andunder submissions by JAS Martin in respect of the southern flows through the historic Hungerton Hall springs. This evidence clearly demonstrated that the applicant had not adequately assessed the risks to this aquifer. This was supported by the Canal and River Trust, which had submitted an objection for the same reason.

6. The risks of the proposed quarrying to the Willowbed Plantation Ancient Woodland had also been set out in detail. The Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust had echoed these concerns in its own submission.

7. The applicant had not submitted one single measurement of water quality or quantity within this Ancient Woodland. There had been no assessment of risk.

8. If the Committee endorsed the conclusions of the Planning Officer and refused this application, then these environmental risks would not be realised.

9. However, if, as the applicant had indicated, they intend to appeal such a decision or resubmit an amended proposal, the Committee was asked to ensure that all these environmental concerns were thoroughly investigated through appropriate agencies.

10. There had been much disquiet and anxiety created within the community by the persistent “threats” of the developer and land owner to invoke old mineral permissions even closer to people’s homes should the application be refused.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Comments by the Committee and responses by officers included:-

1. Had highways consulted the people living in properties immediately adjacent to the proposed application site? Officers stated that new properties to the east and west had been built since the highway's depot had been opened and added that they were not too sure if the residential properties to the south of the application site had been in existence before the highway's depot was constructed.

2. The application was similar to a salt barn at Thurlby although it was noted that this depot was more concealed.

3. It was noted that the proposed colour of the roof tiles was to be submitted and approved in writing by the Council. However, the Committee expressed a preference for heavy duty green tiles on the roof.

4. It was disappointing that the local Member had not responded to the consultation.

5. Care was needed to avoid contamination of ground water from the salt barn.

6. The proposal was less obtrusive than the salt barn at Thurlby.

7. Concerns about drainage from the application site. Officers stated that the proposed site was lower than nearby properties and was screened by trees which would prevent the salt barn from being viewed by occupants of these properties.

On a motion by Councillor D McNally, seconded by Councillor D Brailsford, it was:-

RESOLVED (11 votes for and 0 votes against)

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

The Committee received a report which gave details of a prosecution taken out by the Council with regard to non-compliance with a planning contravention notice (PCN).

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.