Meeting documents

            Meeting: Planning Committee (County Hall, Durham - Committee Room 2 - 20/08/2008 11:00:00 AM)

                  Item: A1 Minutes of the meetings held on 22 July 2008 and 24 July 2008

         

---

At a Meeting of the Planning Committee held at the County Hall, Durham on Tuesday 22 July 2008 at 11.15 a.m.


PRESENT
Members:
Councillors Alderson*, B Bainbridge*, Barnett*, A Bell*, Cordon*, Fergus*, Holroyd*, Liddle*, Maddison*, Moran*, B Myers*, Plews*, Richardson*, Shield , Allen Turner*, Walker*, and R Young.*

Members shown with an asterisk* attended the site visit

Apologies: Councillors E Bell, Potts, Stoker, Temple and Zair


A1 Applications to be determined by the County Council


Teesdale District: Proposed consolidation of future operations at Stainton Quarry including a proposed extension for the disposal of mineral waste generated by the cutting and dressing of stone on site, at Stainton Quarry, Stainton for Ennstone Building Products Limited.

Following a site visit the Head of Environment and Planning presented a report on the application (for copy see file of Minutes).

During the presentation the Head of Environment and Planning highlighted the representations that had been received in respect of the application, including an objection from Stainton and Streatlam Parish Council. Barnard Castle Town Council had objected to the application based on the proposed new route but this has since been removed from the proposal. Objections and comments from members of the public were also highlighted.

The Head of Environment and Planning informed the Committee that a new access and lorry route through Barnard Castle had originally been proposed but the Head of Highways Management had objected to it, preferring the retention of the existing access although he acknowledged the difficulties this caused.

The Committee heard representations from Mr Peter Wilkinson on behalf of the Parish Council and as a resident of Hesley Rise.

He informed the Committee that the Parish Council and many residents of the village have serious concerns regarding the application. The Officer’s report shows that little or no stone has been extracted from the quarry for in excess of six years. The main operations have been the processing of stone from other Northern Quarries and the production of reconstituted blocks. This is an uneconomic process, a fact that has been confirmed by Marshalls at several liaison meetings. The main selling point of the Company’s original application was the proposed new access road which would have removed HGV traffic from the village and this has now been withdrawn.

He told the Committee that the Company has a history of failing to meet its obligations under planning agreements and this was also confirmed in the Officer’s report. No restoration plan has been submitted by the required date and no enforcement action has been taken by Durham County Council against the Company.

The Parish Council also has concerns that extending workings to the north and south west along with the removal of both woodland and pasture land will seriously affect visual amenity as well as removing prime pastureland from use for decades. This is confirmed in the Officer’s report.

The current application presents totally inadequate restoration plans in that the proposal is for spoil to be spread and allowed to regenerate naturally. This is an attempt at abrogation of restoration duties by the Company and the Parish Council is surprised that the Officer’s report does not identify this as a major flaw in the application. The current uncertainty regarding the future operations of the quarry should be regarded as a reason for not granting permission. It is three months since Members first had sight of the application and in the intervening period the current lessee Marshalls plc (trading as Stancliffe Stone) has effectively ceased operations on 30 June 2008 and will terminate their lease agreement on 30 November 2008. Virtually all staff have either been redeployed or made redundant. There seems to be no operation talking place at the quarry and appears little prospect of an operator re-commencing work. A recent liaison meeting with the Parish Council and DCC staff was cancelled by Ennstone in the absence of progress made towards establishing a new operator.

The Company’s claim as to reserves of stone within this quarry are grossly exaggerated which was a significant factor in Marshall’s terminating the current lease. The Officer’s report indicates that the use of the site as a central hub for processing inbound stone has been the primary operation for many years. The fact that Marshall’s now intend to process this stone in situ clearly indicates that the quarry is no longer a viable operation. The report also indicates that there is no evidence of alternative markets nor of the production of alternative processing equipment to the site by the applicant. Part of Stancliffe’s background reasons for withdrawing from the lease has been the cost of transporting dimension stone to Stainton from other quarries. This stone is now being processed at the point of extraction. As the vast majority of the processing equipment sited at Stainton Quarry has now been removed by Stancliffe, any new operator will have to incur significant capital expenditure in order to recommence processing stone.

The Officer’s report sets out the uncertainties surrounding operations and the Minerals Planning Authority should not be driven by the commercial and operational dilemmas faced by the Company. The report also confirms the Officer’s lack of faith in the Company’s ability or willingness to comply with future legal agreements given it’s poor past record in this respect.

In the light of all the concerns of the Parish Council and local residents, Mr Wilkinson asked the Committee to refuse the application.

The Committee next heard from Mr Colin D’Oyley, Head of Planning and Estates at Ennstone plc.

He said that commercial considerations were not relevant to planning and informed the meeting that there were a number of complex issues involved. He started by explaining the Company’s approach historically and stated that they were now attempting to resolve these issues and produce a blueprint for a way forward and to put a restoration programme in place. There are no proposals to increase the extraction area but simply to ensure that existing reserves are fully utilised. The proposal as presented will actually reduce the end of date from 2042 to 2021.

In respect of the change of operators, this was a commercial arrangement between Ennstone and Marshalls and Marshalls were never part of the long term future for the quarry. Reserves have been determined following detailed investigation at the quarry and the Company believes that it is a viable concern. Marshalls departure was not a significant issue and talks were presently proceeding with two other interested companies but these had not progressed to any great degree as Marshalls had not formally given notice that it wished to terminate the lease.

Mr D’Oyley stated that the liaison committee meeting had been deferred pending a resolution on the application. The quarry is covered by a number of planning permissions and this was an attempt to try and put some controlled working process in place and reduce the working life of the quarry from 2042 to 2021. This application would produce a positive scheme. If refused it would result in uncertainty as planning permission would remain until 2042 and would revert to no comprehensive working and restoration scheme for the quarry.

Councillor Fergus, the Local Member said that after a period of relative calm this application had opened up a can of worms and she was concerned as to who would carry out proposal as Ennstone have a history of poor non-compliance with conditions imposed on them. Cllr Fergus proposed that the application be turned down or determined when it is known who the new operator will be. Councillor Richardson, also the Local member supported Councillor Fergus’s proposal.

Councillor Cordon noted the objections by the Parish Council and said that he had concerns regarding restoration and the lack of compliance with previous conditions and agreements. He said he had concerns about the dumping of waste on the village especially as there was no evidence that he scheme would work.

Councillor Myers supported the local members and said he was hesitant to grant permission at this stage and agreed that the application should be reconsidered at a later date when it is known who the operator will be.

Resolved:
that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. There is no need for an extension to the site except to accommodate waste generated from the method of working adopted at the site over the years and alternative uses for the waste stone have not been fully explored.

2. In accordance with MLP Policy M52 there are concerns regarding the ability and commitment of the applicant to the working and full restoration of the site in accordance with the requirements of any planning permission. The site is not at present operational and there is uncertainty as to what operations would be carried on.

AT A MEETING of the Planning Committee held at the County Hall, Durham on Thursday 24 July 2008 at 10.30 a.m.

PRESENT
Members:
Councillors Alderson*, Armstrong*, B Bainbridge*, Barnett*, A Bell*, Burnip*, Dixon*, Fergus, Holland*, Holroyd*, Liddle*, Maddison*, B Myers, Richardson*, Shield*, Taylor*, Allen Turner*, Walker, Williams*, and Young.*


Other Members:
Councillors: Blakey* and Morgan*


Apologies: Councillors Bell E, Stoker, Temple and Zair


Members shown with an asterisk* attended the site visits to Tursdale and Quarrington


A1 Minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 June 2008 were confirmed by the Committee as a correct record with the following amendment and signed by the Chairman.
Minute A6 - Easington Local Development Framework

“Councillor Burnip welcomed the report and not Councillor Richardson as recorded in the Minutes.”

The Head of Environment and Planning informed the Committee that agreement had been reached with Timothy Hackworth Primary School regarding the re-painting of the storage containers at the site.




A2 Applications to be determined by the County Council

a) City of Durham District: Change of use to Recycling Recovery Facility at the former National Coal Board building, Tursdale, for Greencycle Plc, (Retrospective Planning Application)

The Business Manager, Planning Development Control presented a report on the application (for copy see file of Minutes).

He told the Committee that no additional representations had been received since the meeting held on 18 June 2008. He added that the National Policy Framework and Local Plan supports recycling and that the development would support the need to meet the targets identified by Government. There was an established use and as a new business had created employment with over 120 full-time jobs. He informed the Committee that no objections had been received from local residents in Ramsey Street

Councillor Williams and Councillor Blakey, the Local Members thanked the Committee for holding a site visit and expressed their concerns relating to traffic on the A688 which they would refer to the Head of Highway Management for consideration.

Councillor Morgan expressed his concerns over the fire risk with the storage of paper and plastics and, whilst representatives at the site had explained that fire risks are limited due to the rapid turnover and throughput of materials, the operator would rely upon conventional fire fighting measures should such a situation arise. Councillor Morgan suggested that the Fire Authority be asked to increase the number of visits to the site as part of the precautionary measures in place.

Councillor Dixon said that it was important to visit the site and he now felt that the site was suitable for this type of operation.

Resolved:
(i) Planning permission be granted for the material Recycling Receiving Facility for the following reason:

The use of the building would not be unduly obtrusive or adversely impact on the local community or environment, nor would it negatively impact on the surrounding road network. The proposal accords with Policies W36, W38 and W33 of the County Durham Waste Local Plan relating to the location of material Recycling Receiving Facilities and appropriate environmental mitigation measures, and Policy EMP7 of the City of Durham District Local Plan in relation to Tursdale Business Park.

(ii) Greencycle Plc are advised of the Planning Committee’s concern that the change of use of the building commenced without the benefit of planning permission and are reminded of the need to clarify and follow planning requirements about developments it intends to carry out.


b) Wear Valley District: Composting of pre-shredded green waste at former Scoby Scaur Waste Disposal Site, Newfield, near Willington for Premier Waste Management Ltd

The Business Manager, Planning Development Control presented a report on the application (for copy see file of Minutes).

He informed the Committee that Wear Valley District Council had no objection and that the Environment Agency had asked for a risk assessment to address any environmental concerns within their remit but was satisfied with the proposals, subject to conditions to be included regarding spreading of the material outside the flood plain.

Waste policies were generally supportive of outdoor composting and landfill sites have conditions relating to restoration. There were no issues relating to noise and smells due to the distance from local residences. The proposal also includes pro-active conditions for the control of vermin.

Councillor Burnip asked if this was similar to the Thornley operation and was informed that it was not the same. The material would be green waste and once composted spread on the land and not moved off the site.

Councillor A Bell asked if the waste would be monitored to ensure that it meets the criteria and also to monitor the effects on wildlife. It was explained that this was a 12 week operation which would be monitored by the applicant. There was no requirement for independent assessments under the terms of the licence exemption. Natural England’s advice concerning protected habitats and species would be attached as an informative to any planning permission.

Resolved:
that planning permission be granted for the proposed development subject to appropriate conditions to cover time limits and to mitigate any potential environmental effects, for the following reason: The proposals would contribute to targets associated with the recycling and re-use of waste materials in accordance with national and local strategies and given the scale, location, and nature of operations the proposals would not give rise to significant visual, amenity, highway or environmental concerns. The development would accord with Policies W9, W31, W33 and W42 of the County Durham Waste Local Plan.

As the development is intended to be temporary the applicant be advised that the Planning Committee expects that every reasonable effort is made to identify and develop suitable alternative sites for green waste composting within the period specified by this consent.


c) Teesdale District: Composting of pre-shredded green waste at Bolam Quarry, Bolam for Premier Waste Management Ltd

The Business manager, Planning Development Control presented a report on the application (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Business Manager, Planning Development Control advised that the views of Teesdale District Council had now been received and it had no comments to make. He clarified that the Bolam Parish Meeting had not specifically stated no objections in its comments and that 75 people from Bolam had signed the petition against the development. In relation to amenity issues, there should be no issues regarding noise and smell as the housing was some distance away. Vehicle movements should not be an issue as these were likely to be limited overall and there had been 3 recorded accidents in the last 10 years on the neighbouring ‘B’ road.

Councillor Fergus, the Local Member informed the Committee that local residents were unaware of the requirement to give prior notice if they wished to address the Committee, however, as their Local Member she wished to speak on their behalf. She said that Bolam Parish Meeting had never considered the application and one of the main issues during the election campaign was this proposed development. Local people did not want this development because of the number of lorries passing through on a daily basis. Local people believed that the level of consultations had been inappropriate.

Councillor Richardson, also a Local Member agreed with Councillor Fergus and explained that the petition signed by 75 people against the application represented the whole population of the village. He explained that what appears on the plan to be a simple crossroads was not so as this is an old Roman road and on approaching the junction it is actually a blind spot and that whilst there had only been three accidents there had been a number of near misses.

Councillor Fergus reiterated that no-one in Bolam wants this application to succeed and she was supported by Councillor Myers who said that it was clear by the number of Bolam residents present that were not happy with the application either. He supported the view that a decision should be deferred and a site visit held.

Resolved:
that consideration of the planning application be deferred for a site visit to be undertaken.


d) City of Durham District: Proposed facility for the anaerobic digestion of agricultural manure, agricultural crops and potato waste to produce energy for the National Grid and nutrient rich organic crop fertiliser on land at Quarrington Farm, Old Quarrington for Johnson Brothers

The Head of Environment and Planning presented a report on the application (for copy see file of Minutes). He reported that two additional letters of support had been received and concluded that:

Planning policy is generally supportive towards sustainable waste management initiatives and seeks to make provision for small scale anaerobic digestion facilities as part of farm diversification, where proposals would make use of existing farm buildings or hard standings and process waste by products.

Whilst the proposal would have some environmental benefits in terms of electricity production and soil improvements, the plant would be located on open, agricultural land, set away from the other farm buildings and would largely process imported crops and other waste materials generated off site. Although it would not be particularly prominent in distance views the scale, height, appearance and character of the structures are such that despite some screening, the proposal would have an adverse visual impact on the local rural landscape.

Accordingly the Head of Environment and Planning recommended refusal of the application.

The Committee heard representations from Mr Philip Johnson, the applicant, owner and farmer of the land at Quarrington Farm. (For copy see file of Minutes).

Councillor Armstrong stated that as there had recently been an election with a significant number of new Members elected he was astonished to hear the integrity of Members challenged in this way. He felt that the proposal had some merits but that it was in the wrong place. Other Members shared Councillor Armstrong’s views and stated that they looked on every application with an open mind.

Councillor Morgan stated that having being personally maligned with the suggestion he had bullied officers and members of the Committee to oppose the proposal was incorrect. He objected to this accusation and asked the applicant to withdraw the remarks. Local residents were against this proposal and he referred to the Environment Agency’s views in paragraph 13 of the officer’s report particularly in regard to local amenity. He asked that the application be refused.

Councillor Burnip said that as a new member he had no pre-conceived views on the proposal. Clearly it was a lovely location with beautiful views and from experience of the digester in his area he was of the opinion that although they have a role to play, this was not the place.

Councillor Dixon said that he would move to accept the application on the basis that there were contradictions relating to the import of materials. The new road currently being built was more of a scar on the landscape and he would support the applicant’s proposal. The Head of Environment and Planning said that most of the materials were coming from the applicant’s farms in various locations.

Councillor Alderson expressed his dissatisfaction with Mr Johnson’s comments. He had over 16 years experience on planning matters and he approached this application with an open mind. This application had many good points despite the concern about the visual impact.

The Chairman reminded Members that only those who had attended the site visit could vote on this matter.

Resolved:
that the application be permitted for the following reason

The proposed development would have waste recycling, re-use and renewable energy benefits in line with national planning guidance that would outweigh the requirements of Policy W44 of the Waste Local Plan and any adverse local, visual and amenity impacts arising from its size, location and appearance.


A3 Development by the County Council

a) Chester-le-Street District: Proposed erection of a waiting shelter and cycle storage shelter on land at Park View Community School, Lombard Drive Chester-le-Street (Regulation3)

The Head of Environment and Planning presented a report on a proposed erection of a waiting shelter and cycle storage shelter on land at Park View Community School, Lombard Drive, Chester-le-Street (for copy see file of Minutes)

Resolved:
that planning permission be granted for the following reason, subject to a relevant condition concerning the colour of the shelters. The proposed structures by reason of their purpose, scale, location and colour would not significantly detract from the appearance of the existing school buildings and grounds or the amenities of the surrounding residents.



Attachments

 Mins 24 July 2008.pdf;
 Mins 22 July 2008.pdf