Agenda item

Continued use of land for the importation of construction, demolition and excavation (C, D & E) waste and the siting of an aggregate recycling facility, involving the placement of mobile crushing and screening plant to enable the recovery of recycled aggregates for sale and export without compliance with Conditions 1, 2 and 9 of planning permission ref: RU.16/1960 dated 16 June 2017 in order to extend the time period of the development and for retention of bund on northern boundary. 

Officers:

Janine Wright, Principal Planning Officer

James Lehane, Principle Transport Development Planning Officer

Officer Introduction:

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report, and update sheet, and provided a brief summary. Members noted that the application was for the continued use of land for the importation of construction, demolition and excavation (C, D & E) waste and the siting of an aggregate recycling facility, involving the placement of mobile crushing and screening plant to enable the recovery of recycled aggregates for sale and export without compliance with Conditions 1, 2 and 9 of planning permission ref: RU.16/1960 dated 16 June 2017 in order to extend the time period of the development and for retention of bund on northern boundary. Full details of the application were outlined in the published agenda.

Speakers:

On behalf of applicant, Vilna Walsh (supported by Joe Hawkins) made the following points:

The speaker noted that the two applications were closely interconnected, with the need to fill the quarry being entirely dependent on the recycling facility. They reiterated the points made in their initial submission, adding that they wanted to emphasise the highly sustainable nature of the facility. They highlighted its significant contribution to aggregate supply in the wider area, as well as its role in filling the void and completing the site restoration.

Points of clarification:

A Member asked about the drainage plans and whether they were adequate to prevent flooding in nearby areas, particularly for neighbouring properties, especially given the increasing amount of rainfall. In response, the speaker explained that the drainage plans had been reviewed and assessed by the relevant officers and authorities, including the Environment Agency (EA). It was confirmed that the proposed drainage plans were considered acceptable.

A Member asked about noise testing and how it was monitored, noting that several properties had raised concerns about noise. They inquired about the methods used to test noise levels, how it was reported, and how residents would be reassured regarding the issue. In response, the speaker explained that noise impacts had been reassessed during the updated submission. Target noise levels were set for the nearest sensitive receptors, ensuring they would not be breached. The assessment was based on a worst-case scenario, where all equipment and extraction activities occurred simultaneously, despite being at different ends of the site. The noise measurements from this scenario were well below both the background levels and the target levels set in the conditions.

A Member asked whether there was a community liaison group in place to share information about the recycling facility, particularly regarding the 90% of material being sent out as recycling and the 10% staying in for infill. They inquired about how this information was tracked and whether it was shared with the community or only with the relevant authorities. In response, the speaker explained that there was no community liaison group in place. Further to this, the Member acknowledged the benefits of increased recycling but pointed out that it reduced the amount of material going into the restoration process, impacting the site's restoration timeline. While they understood the technological improvements and the drive for higher recycling, they highlighted the downside of less material being used for restoration. The Member suggested adding a condition to track and ensure a reasonable percentage of material was still being used for restoration, as opposed to the site becoming solely a waste processing facility, which would differ from the original purpose of the application. A Member added that the Ward councillor should also be kept informed which was agreed. The Planning Development Manager suggested that instead of proposing specific wording for the condition, if the committee was inclined to secure such a condition, the final wording could be agreed upon in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman after the meeting. The Committee supported the proposal. 

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Principal Transport Development Planning Officer acknowledged the condition limiting vehicle movements to 200 per day and noted a decline in HGV movements in the area. With the current conditions in place, the officer expressed confidence that there would be no material impact on highways. The officer also mentioned discussions with the case officer and recommended adjustments to the vehicle movement condition. The 200 movements per day limit would remain, but the wording would be revised to make it a strict limit, removing the reference to averages. Records would be collected using automatic traffic counters, ensuring reliable and regularly shareable data. Instead of being available on request, the data would be provided quarterly for ongoing monitoring and review.

2.    In response to a Member query, the Principal Planning Officer stated that the County's consultees had reviewed the information provided by the applicant regarding air quality and were satisfied there would be no impact. The officer also mentioned that conditions regarding dust management and control had been included in the decision notice.

3.    The Chairman moved the recommendation which received 8 votes for, 0 against, and 1 abstention.

Actions / Further information to be provided:

None.

Resolved:

The Committee agreed to permit application RU21/0085, subject to the conditions outlined in the report and update sheet, along with an additional condition requiring quarterly reporting of the volumes and breakdown of materials imported and recycled at the aggregates recycling facility. It was also agreed to notify the ward member of the information. The final wording of the condition would be agreed upon in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman after the meeting.