Agenda item

Cllr Caroline Hainsworth, Chairperson of Colsterworth and District Parish Council, spoke against the application and commented as follows:-

·         Asked the Committee whether it was content that this application would withstand a legal challenge.

·         This application was controversial and had caused a great deal of concern to residents which were well documented in a public meeting and formal representations.

·         The fundamental objection was that there was no established need to quarry limestone in either quantity or of the quality from this application and this was in direct contravention of the Authority’s own Mineral and Waste Plan (2016) and Lincolnshire Aggregate Assessment 2018.

·         It was not sufficiently clear why this framework had specifically not been given the same “due weight” as the other National Policy Frameworks, current legislation, Local Plans, Neighbourhood Plans, etc.

·         It was not considered “appropriate or acceptable” that this framework had been ruled out when considering modern day standards and it was hoped that the Committee were satisfied that their own Mineral and Waste Plan should be legitimately excluded from the review?

·         We believed that the leases/permissions expired several years ago, and the ROMP should be rescinded. Had the Committee had sight of the original permission letters or at very least had assurances as to who holds the current and legitimate government licence for extraction from the areas in question so that this stood up to any legal challenge.

·         The content of a S106 Agreement should be agreed through the consultation period of the planning application with the relevant parties and planning officer and most specifically include the Parish Council. It was of particular concern that the Authority had not recommended this bearing in mind these were in place at operations such as South Witham. We understood that this was the only way conditions such as a Traffic Management plan could be enforced; it was therefore our contention that this Parish had been denied that opportunity.

·         We had hoped that with a commercial operation lasting 22 plus years we would have had at least entered into discussions that would offer some benefit to the community assets and amenities through a S106 Agreement. I understand that this could be recommended by Committee.

·         Whilst the applicant had withdrawn areas DA9 and DA11 from this application  the Committee was asked to ensure that the area east of the Skillington Road was properly and legally “struck out” so that it was clear that the properties within 15 metres of the “red line” and the Old Railway line Nature Trail were no longer at risk.

·         The report before you had made assumptions that there was no “fear and intimidation” from the traffic issues; I could assure that this was not what was being experienced on the ground. The Committee was urged to review the proposed traffic plan in the officer’s report (reference chapter 11) for all areas (not just the entrance and exit to the site and immediate rural lanes) to minimise the impact.

A Member sought clarity about the enforcement of a Traffic Management Plan by a S106 Agreement. Caroline Hainsworth stated that it was her understanding that a S106 Agreement would allow the County Council to enforce and monitor a Traffic Management Plan.

Robert Doughty, representing the applicant, indicated that he did not have a prepared speech but was prepared to respond to any questions by Members. There were no questions asked by Members.

Robert Doughty in response to the comments about a Traffic Management Plan stated that while no Plan was required to be submitted condition 30 in the recommendations in the report set out the parameters of any final Traffic Management Plan and would form part of any planning conditions which were just as enforceable as any S106 Agreement.

Officers reiterated their previous comments that the absence of an objection from the Council's Highways' officers or Highways England meant there was no justification or basis for seeking to restrict traffic from using routes in the area. Where routeing restrictions were necessary, such as at South Witham quarry site, these had been secured via a S106 Agreement. However, in this case the proposed routes were all deemed suitable and so a S106 Agreement was not necessary.

Comments and questions by Members and the responses of officers included:-

·         The concerns of residents were understood, however, permission for the extraction of minerals had been given many years ago.

·         Concern was expressed on highway safety if HGVs going south had to cross the A1 using the Crabtree Road access. There had been some very serious accidents, including fatalities, at a similar crossing further north on the A1 at Great Ponton. Officers stated that both Highways England and the local Highways Authority had no objections to the routeing of vehicles either on the local highway network or access to the A1. Officers stated that the Transport Management Plan could be examined to advise HGVs going south to use the B676 to the Colsterworth junction which had suitable access to the A1. Officers added that any Traffic Management Plan would give preferred routes and would not prevent the use of either Crabtree Road or the Colsterworth routes.

·         How was it proposed to enforce the clearance of mud on the road? Officers stated that this was covered by conditions in the report.

·         What was the timescale for the completion of the scheme as the decision made to approve this application had been made 60 years ago and there had been many changes to the area, including new housing? Officers stated that the timescale for the completion of the scheme was governed by legislation with an end date of 2042.

·         How was it proposed to restore the site? Officers stated that the importation of material to restore the site was not allowed and it was proposed to restore the site to low level agricultural use.

On a motion by Councillor T Ashton, seconded by Councillor P A Skinner, it was –

RESOLVED (12 for 0 against and 1 abstention)

(a)  That the amended schedule of conditions, as submitted on 3 June 2020, and detailed in the report, be approved.

(b)  That this report forms part of the Council's Statement pursuant to Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 which requires the Council to make available for public inspection 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 effect of the development, information recording the right to challenge the validity of the decision and procedure for doing so.