Agenda item

Section 73 application for variation of Condition 2 of approved application ref. 45408/APP/2009/340 (as amended by Condition 1 of approved application ref. 45408/APP/2014/1678) in order to extend the deadline for completion of permitted operations (extraction of sand and gravel as an extension to existing quarry at Wall Garden Farm, backfilling with inert waste and restoration to agricultural land) from the 5th of August 2017 to the 30th of September 2019.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application was approved subject to conditions.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum. The application was requesting an extension to the deadline for completion of permitted operations at Sipson Farm from 5 August 2017 to 30 September 2019. The addendum sought to revise condition 33 to allow additional vehicular movements of no more than 2,200 two-way heavy goods vehicles per week to enable the site to be restored within the extended time limit. Officers also drew attention to condition 32 which referred to a construction management plan previously submitted and approved in 2010. Said plan detailed traffic management arrangements and outlined the fact that there would be no additional impact at peak hours.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application stating that she lived on the boundary of the site and had been living with disruption, including both noise and air pollution, since the works commenced in 2009. The petitioner pointed out that it had originally been stated that the works would be completed in 5 years but an extension was requested in 2014. On visiting the site it appeared that very little was happening on the site at present. The petitioner was concerned that increased truck movement was being requested and stated that HGVs cut across Sipson Lane which was a main route for local people to use. There were no traffic lights in place so a man was employed to check this traffic flow. The petitioner also pointed out that people living in Raywood Close paid an enhanced Council tax as they had a field behind their houses and felt this was unfair since works were continually underway in the field which was now a quarry. The petitioner felt that residents would feel happier if it could be guaranteed that the works would be completed within the revised deadline and believed that they should be compensated if this did not prove to be the case.

The agent spoke in support of the application and explained that the company undertaking the works was Harleyford Aggregates who had taken over the operation of the quarry from Streeters. This in part accounted for the delay in completing the works. The agent stated that they had applied for the maximum amount of time required to complete the works with two months flexibility at the end of September if required. Pre-application advice had been sought from officers throughout the application process and, other than the extension of time, no other changes were proposed. The agent advised that inert waste only would be put into the site and, with regards to the highways issue, confirmed that both the original permission and subsequent extension had no limits at all on HGV movements whereas, under the new submission, a limit would be in place. The agent also confirmed that all other controls remained in place regarding noise, air quality and monitoring and environmental officers who had visited the site were satisfied and had no issues with it.

Members queried why such a dramatic increase in the maximum numbers of HGVs was proposed; from 1,500 to 2,200 per week and pointed out that this was an increase of nearly 50%. Members sought confirmation as to whether this increase was being requested because the originally assessments were incorrect and expressed concerns about pollution and air quality. The agent explained that there were no limits at present and this was a new condition proposed. The figures had been suggested by the Highways Officer and this number of HGVs would be required to enable the site to be restored within the two year timeframe. The agent further explained that this figure would be the absolute peak and numbers of HGVs would be much lower during quieter periods, for example during the summer months. Members also requested clarification regarding the raising in height of the ground to form a mound which was intended to improve drainage and asked what effect this would have on residential areas. The agent confirmed that this had been agreed at the time of the original application and no changes to the approved scheme were proposed. The Committee questioned why traffic movements were being controlled by an individual and the agent explained that this was an addition that the operator had put in place for safety reasons. Councillors then asked for confirmation that the work would definitely lead to a conclusion by 2019 and the agent confirmed that this was the case.

The Head of Planning and Enforcement referred to a previous application on Green Belt Land whereby an extension was requested to complete works and explained that an informative had been added delegated to the Head of Planning and the legal department explaining why the Council would not support further extensions of time. It was suggested that a similar informative could be put in place for the application in question. Members agreed that this would be a good idea and very helpful.

Members further sought clarification regarding the issue of HGVs using Sipson Lane as mentioned by the petitioner. It was understood that this should not be happening. Officers explained that there were conditions in place covering this so, if these conditions were not being observed by the operator, this would be an enforcement matter and should be reported to the Council.

The officer's recommendation, subject to the addition of the agreed informative was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed at a vote.

RESOLVED: That the application was approved subject to the conditions outlined and the additional informative.