Agenda item

As both this application and the application at minute 31 were connected to the same site, with the consent of the Committee, it was agreed to use the same power point presentation for both applications.

Since the publication of the report the plan reference cited in recommended conditions 3, 17, 18 and 19 had been amended and the Main Modifications proposed in the emerging South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036 as detailed in the update which had been circulated to the Committee and published on the Council's website.

It was agreed that Graeme King's (representing the applicant) comments would apply to this application and the application at minute 31:-

·         The extension formed a phase of the overall scheme of working for the quarry. The approved Review of Old Minerals Permission (ROMP) area had an estimated extractive life of approximately 4 years. The extension block contained around 350,000 tonnes and would extend the life of the operations by an additional 18 months.

·         The applications also sought permission to allow for the transport and delivery of small volumes of silt materials, arising from the mineral processing off King Street for integration and use in the site’s restoration.

·         Both submissions were accompanied by Environmental Impact Assessments which concluded that the proposed developments could be carried out without giving rise to any significant adverse environmental impact.

·         Both applications did not propose to increase the current output levels or alteration of the existing hours of operation and the same processes would continue to take place.

·         The modest extension would be easily integrated into the overall phasing of mineral extraction and would ensure that mineral was not needlessly sterilised. From an operationally perspective it would be difficult to return to this small area and extract at a later date thus making the resource non-viable to work as an independent unit.

·         As was the current practice, all mineral extracted would be conveyed to the processing plant off King Street. The existing S106 Agreement was unaffected and would continue to control HGV routeing, archaeological investigation and long-term aftercare. Planning conditions were in place to mitigate potential environmental impacts. Additional requirements for restoration and aftercare had been secured as well as preserving features of ecological interest and the long-term management of the water environment.

·         The Company was committed to minimising any potential local effects whilst making a positive contribution to the local economy. Upon acquisition of the site back in 2017 Breedon had immediately established a liaison committee to engage with the local community and to keeping everyone informed on operations taking place and intentions for the future. The Committee met twice a year and the general consensus was that it had proved to be really useful.

·         The recommendations were supported and the Committee was requested to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions. The Company would continue to liaise and work with both the Council and the local community in maintaining mineral supplies from the quarry whilst properly controlling the operation of the site.

Questions by members to Graeme King, included:-

·         The local press had published an article about HGV routing in the area. A garden centre was located near the King Street junction and the use of King Street by HGVs was inappropriate. Graeme King stated that HGV traffic from his quarry was required to turn right when exiting the quarry and they did not use King Street. Officers stated that a Section 106 Agreement was in place which meant that traffic from the applicant's site was required to turn right and head in a southerly direction. Officers thought the press article might have been referring to information provided from an Exhibition in connection with the proposed "Greatford application" for the extraction of sand and gravel.

·         Was silt being transported out of the King Street entrance using the two exits? Graeme King stated that it was proposed to return a proportion of the residual materials from the processing plant (silt) at King Street and this would be incorporated into the restoration of agriculture. This involved up to 100 vehicles annually turning right at the cross roads and this was a modest movement of vehicles.

·         Why was the area proposed for extraction not included in the original application? Graeme King explained that when assembling land deals it was sometimes not possible to secure the area because of ownership issues.

On a motion by Councillor D Brailsford, seconded by Councillor R P H Reid, it was –

RESOLVED (unanimous)

(a)  That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report, taking into account the revisions identified in the Update.

(b)  That this report (including appendices) forms part of the Council’s Statement pursuant to Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 – which requires 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:-

·         the content of the decision and any conditions attached to it;

·         the main reasons and consideration on which the 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 the procedures for doing so.