Agenda item

Restoration of Cambrian Quarry by the Importation and Recycling of Inert Materials at Cambrian Quarry, Gwernymynydd (050695)

Decision:

That planning permission be granted subject to:-

· the condition detailed in the late observations;

· the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning; and

· the applicant entering into a legal agreement under the terms of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Section 106 to:-

- surrender the old mineral and waste planning permissions

- 15 year management post restoration as set out in the outline management plan with periodic review

- control of operations within the quarry but outside of the application site in terms of hours of operation and no artificial lighting activities not related to the application

If the Section 106 Agreement (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application.

Minutes:

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 13 January 2014. The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.

The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that there was a long history of quarrying at the site which had existing and extant planning permissions. Operations ceased in 2000 and there was no restoration scheme currently in place for the quarry. The application involved the importation of inert waste materials for use in the restoration of Cambrian Quarry in order to make the quarry faces stable and safe. The application also involved the recycling of inert waste materials which would be exported off site for reuse elsewhere. Access to the site would be facilitated by the construction of a new internal access road, the widening of Glynd?r Road, and the removal and restoration of the existing quarry access. It was proposed that the work would be undertaken in five phases, with the first four phases being to shore up the quarry slopes and the final phase would be required for landscape reasons . The proposed restoration would take between 6.5 and nine years. It was anticipated that the total quantity of material to be transported into Cambrian Quarry would be between 145,000 and 200,000 tonnes per annum. Approximately 30% of the material (45,000 to 60,000 tonnes) would be recycled and exported off site and 70% of the materials imported would be used in the restoration of the site. The proposal included locating the recycling plant within the quarry void initially during phase one at the most southerly location and then subsequently moving it to the north of the site but no higher than 287m AOD within the quarry void; this was below the quarry rim.

A new internal access road would be constructed which would run parallel with Glynd?r Road and would then rejoin the existing access. The existing access was very steep and on a blind bend and Glynd?r Road was very narrow. The officer explained that part of the bank would be removed on Glynd?r Road to widen the road to up to 10 metres in width which would allow two HGVs to pass and advanced planting would be undertaken of any trees lost as a result of the new access. The applicant was offering to manage the site for a total period of 15 years after completion of restoration which would ensure that the aspirations of the restoration were successful; this would be secured by a section 106 agreement. There were a number of constraints on the site such as it being in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the trees in the northern part of the site were covered by a Tree Protection Order (TPO). The north eastern part of the site was a concern due to it containing a bat habitatbut no HGVs would track over the underground silica mine workings to ensure protection of the bats. As a result of the proposal, a number of trees would be lost which would be removed under licence from Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and under reasonable avoidance measures that would be conditioned. Three mine entrances were not in the quarry void and these would be protected to provide bat mitigation; this would also be done under a licence. A brick building currently on site would be restored to provide a bat roost which NRW felt would provide a beneficial habitat for the bats. As there was evidence of great crested newts on the site, surveys would be undertaken prior to commencement of the development and the creation of ponds in the north of the site would be required to provide habitats for the newts and other amphibians. The nearest properties to the quarry void were between 80 and 125 metres from the eastern quarry boundary and were 20 to 40 metres below the height quarry boundary.

The restoration would create a shallow valley landform that would be used for agriculture and nature conservation once restored. The officer explained that there were no safety benches within the quarry development. Consequently, there was evidence of rock falls which was a concern, along with possible landslips which could be a risk for any trespassers. If the application was not approved, the owners would be served with a prohibition notice as the site had not been quarried for more than two years. Restoration secured through the prohibition process would not enable any importation of materials and it was therefore considered that the proposals would secure a higher quality restoration than if the site was left to regenerate naturally.

In conclusion, the officer said that national policy on waste indicated that landfill was not acceptable but as this was a recovery operation, it was considered that the proposals complied with draft Technical Advice Note (TAN) 21 regarding exceptional circumstances and the applicant had demonstrated that there was a need to infill the site to phase four for stability reasons and phase five for landscape reasons. With regard to the recycling element, UDP policy supported the re-use and recycling of inert waste and the proposals accorded with the waste hierarchy. There would be no HGVs in the majority of Glynd?r Road, and even though the site was in the AONB, SSSI and had TPOs on some trees, the assessments which had been undertaken provided evidence that the proposal would provide a better habitat for wildlife. The officer explained that there had been a large number of objections from residents but none had been received from statutory consultees. Noise, dust and vibration would be monitored and controlled by conditions and any crushers used on the site would be permitted under a separate Environmental Permit issued by NRW but would be subject to conditions to ensure that any emissions would be minimised.

Mr. C. Bradshaw spoke against the application. He said that there were many reasons for concern about the application but the main one was the junction between the A494 and Glynd?r Road. He felt that this was a hazardous junction which could not cope with up to 150 32 tonne lorries travelling to and from Cambrian Quarry. It was was not fit for purpose and could not accommodate the vehicles safely. He referred to paragraph 7.92 where it was indicated that there had been no reported accidents at the junction in the past five years. Mr. Bradshaw said that he was aware of two accidents including a very serious one in 2008 ¼ mile down Gwernymynydd Hill which had been life changing for the person involved. As a result, Gwernymynydd Community Council and local residents had formed an action group which had put forward seventeen proposals to Flintshire County Council and the Trunk Road Agency to improve road safety in the community. Of these, fifteen had been implemented by the Agency such as raised hatchings in the road and the provision of bollards. Mr. Bradshaw said that some of the people proactively involved in implementing these safety features were now saying that this proposal was very dangerous. He asked the Committee to refuse the application to put the safety of the community first.

Mr. Neil Hassall, for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He said that it was vitally important for the future of the business that the application be approved and that Cambrian Quarry would provide the operators with a much needed site to recycle materials. He referred to the recent restoration at the Bryn y Gaer quarry near Llay which had been the subject of objections prior to the start of the project but once it was underway, there had been no complaints. An Environmental Impact Assessment had been undertaken; the company had listened to the objections made and had amended the Assessment to take account of the concerns raised. He concurred that statutory consultees had not objected to the proposals. It seemed that the main concern was the traffic and the recycling element to the application. A new junction and new internal road were proposed and as a result, Glynd?r Road would not be used by traffic going to Cambrian Quarry. The recycling plant was not a major operation, consisting of one crusher and one screener which would be removed by the end of phase four, and it would be 45 feet below the level of the quarry. The company currently operated at Deeside but as this was a time limited consent, this proposal would enable ASH to use the Cambrian Quarry site which was ideal for their requirements and would restore the natural landform. There was a proven and urgent need for the site.

Councillor K. Hughes from Gwernymynydd Community Council spoke against the application explaining that it would be the community of Gwernymynydd that would have to live with the consequences if the application was approved. He referred to a significant number of houses on a nearby estate who had not been consulted on the proposals as it was not felt that they would be affected by the application. However, a number of those residents had responded in writing. A traffic survey had not been carried out on the A494 by Flintshire County Council and Councillor Hughes felt that the report did not reflect the true nature of this stretch of road. He referred to the bus stop which was close to the junction of Glynd?r Road and remarked that its location might contribute to an accident occurring The community had been fighting for road improvements and a reduction in the speed limit. Councillor Hughes referred to the Gwernymynydd Development Plan, a Welsh Government initiative, which had been developed to help with such issues and concerns raised by the community. The document had been identified as an example of good practice but the applicant argued that it was not a statutory document and therefore had no bearing on the application. If that was so, Councillor Hughes felt that the document might as well be ignored.

Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded. He said that the Quarry had been an industrial site for many years and that the hazards that had been identified were being addressed in a beneficial way for the community. He queried the timescale for the completion of phase four and commented that the proposed conditions would be better than those which applied when the site operated as a quarry.

Councillor Ron Hampson said that he could understand the passion of the protestors but that their main concern about the access was being addressed by widening it by three metres. The Trunk Road Agency had not put forward any objections, the bats were to be protected, the site would be stabilised, and it would become a pleasant environment once the works were completed. He did not consider that the development would result in the disruption claimed and if the application was refused then the applicant would appeal and the Council would lose and have costs awarded against it.

The Local Member, Councillor Nancy Matthews, spoke against the application. She referred to the draft TAN 21 where it was reported that infill of quarries was only acceptable in exceptional circumstances; she queried what these were. She felt that even after the restoration had been completed, the land would still be unstable and highlighted paragraph 7.30 where it was reported that the Gwernymynydd Community Development Plan opposed any use of redundant quarries for landfill. On the issue of the access, she said that the applicant had made significant efforts to address concerns but it was still insufficient. Councillor Matthews referred to UDP Policy AC13 which indicated that access roads should be adequate without compromising health and safety; she did not feel that the proposed access complied with the policy. She asked that the application be refused but if it was allowed, that extra conditions be included to require a Liaison Committee to be established and that there be no working on a Saturday, and for the section 106 obligation to include provision for projects in the community.

Councillor Mike Peers felt that there were three parts to the application – filling of the void; recycling works; and the road junction and its implications. He asked for further information about the road improvements as it was clear that what was currently in place was inadequate. He felt that condition nine should be reworded to reflect that the existing access should be closed if the application was approved, although the consenus was that infilling the site was itself an issue. He said that some of the objections referred to the proposal being unacceptable in a rural location but this was an old industrial site. Objectors also talked of devaluation of their properties but this was not a material consideration in the determination of the application. It was reported that 70% of the inert material would be used to fill the void but residents had indicated that this would only be 5%. Councillor Peers highlighted paragraph 5.06 where it was reported that previous applications had been refused on highway safety grounds and queried why this was no longer the case. He sought more clarity on the details of the amount of 477,000m³ that would be required to infill the quarry void, whether further materials would be required, and more detail about that to be exported. In highlighting paragraph 7.21, he said that ensuring that the site was restored to a suitable landform would enable the quarry to be made safe. Councillor Peers asked what weight was to be afforded to the draft TAN 21 and said that even though the bus stop near the junction with Glynd?r Road was used very infrequently, it could still create a problem if a bus stopped and a lorry was waiting to turn to access the quarry. He suggested that a layby be considered for the bus stop.

Councillor Carolyn Thomas queried what the exceptional circumstances were to permit this application based on the draft TAN 21. She referred to the AONB, SSSI and TPO and said that the AONB Joint Advisory Committee was concerned about the impact on the community and queried whether there was a spatial plan in place. The AONB had been designated because of the tranquillity of the area which would be harmed by the noise and traffic from the proposal. She queried why the proposal was not being suggested for an urban environment and asked why the Robin Jones site at Parry’s Quarry was not being used for the recycling. As the quarry had been allowed to restore naturally up to now, Councillor Thomas queried why this could not continue and added that biodiversity was better if it was left, as nature could not be forced. She referred of the newts on the site and, in commenting that she did not think that the proposal could be classed as an exceptional circumstance, added that there were better areas for recycling.

Councillor Owen Thomas said that the access to the Glynd?r Road was dangerous and there had been a number of accidents in the area. He could not understand why the ledges had not been made safe when the quarry closed and asked whether restoration formed part of any previous planning permissions. He queried why the recycling plant was proposed for a site that did not have good access and said that vehicles to the site would have to travel through Mold. He referred to the recycling plant in Ewloe and queried whether there was a need for a further site. He added that the Welsh Government had said that each county should look after its own waste but he felt that waste from other counties would be brought to this site. He felt that the conditions did not safeguard the public in relation to the operating hours of the quarry and he raised concern that the proposal would destroy part of the SSSI.

Councillor Ian Dunbar hoped that the amendments to the road junction and access were satisfactory for HGVs if the application was approved. He asked whether there was any public access to the area around the quarry which he felt was dangerous. He concurred with Councillor Matthews that the needs of the community should be looked at if the application was approved.

In referring to quarries in Buckley, Councillor Neville Phillips said that he had objected to each application and would also vote against this application on highway grounds. He referred to the five pages in the report on highways issues and said that he could not remember a time when an officer had spent so much time trying to convince Members in respect of a single issue. He said that there were two bus stops close by the junction which could create significant problems for lorries needing to access the quarry and that the passing place referred to in paragraph 7.93 would only be put in place if the application was approved. He also referred to the one way system used by Eagles and Crawford on their site which had been requested due to the dangerous nature of the road.

Councillor Richard Jones sought clarity on the need for the proposal and said that even when phase five was completed, the void would not be full. He felt that the principles of landfill were not supported by national policy and that some of the materials not needed in this quarry would be taken to other quarries which he felt was unacceptable. He raised concern at the number of conditions proposed and said that he felt that this indicated that there was a problem with the application. He suggested that further detail should have been included for conditions 34 onwards and added that, in his opinion, some of the conditions were hardly enforceable. Councillor Jones highlighted three areas of concern which were whether the infilling was necessary; the recycling; and the number of conditions on the application.

Councillor Gareth Roberts congratulated the officer for her report. He said that, as there was an extant permission on the site, there was nothing to prevent the applicant starting up the quarry again if a suitable Environmental Statement was submitted, and this would mean that the existing junction and access could be used. If the application was refused on highway grounds and the applicant appealed the decision, he asked how this could be substantiated as the Inspector would look at the application which indicated that the junction was to be improved. Councillor Roberts could understand the residents’ concerns but said that there did not appear to be any valid reasons to refuse the application and any appeal would be successful with costs being awarded against the Council.

In response to the comments made the officer provided the following answers:-

- timeframe for phases one to four would be six to eight years and the fifth phase would take an additional year

- paragraph 7.05 provided clarity on the amount of materials to be transported into and exported from the quarry (145,000 to 200,000 tonnes per annum and approximately 30% would be recycled and exported off site) so the figure of 5% infill was incorrectly quoted by some residents of which there was no evidence within the report

- there was no difference between the adopted and draft TAN 21 with regards to policy support for recycling of inert materials.

- the draft TAN introduced the wording on exceptional circumstances regarding inert landfill/disposal which would be included if the draft TAN was adopted

- the bus stop had been in place for a number of years (comments reported in late observations) and was used by approximately two to three people per day

- there were red hatched areas on the road which were a traffic improvement

- Parry’s Quarry could not be used as it was not available to the applicant

- previous applications had been refused on highway grounds but this application proposed the introduction of a new access to the site to avoid the use of Glynd?r Road and a section of the road would be widened. There had been no objections from Highways or the Trunk Road Agency

- The conditions on the quarry permission were imposed in 1951, were therefore out of date and should this application be approved, new conditions would be imposed. The site commenced operating in the 1800s when there were no rules and regulations about safety and modern quarries had safety benches in place which did not exist at this site.

- this was a complex application which required many conditions with some schemes needing to be in place before the development could commence

- proposed operating hours were reported in paragraphs 7.07 to 7.10

- the issue of need for, and capacity of, the landfill was also reported

- specialists felt that the shoring up of the quarry walls was the minimum required to make the site safe but the infilling was not up to the top of the void

- the SSSI had been designated because of the bats which used the underground mine workings. The majority of the habitat would remain untouched and NRW had indicated that reasonable avoidance measures and other mitigation would be put in place. Works would not be able to commence until a licence had been secured

- NRW suggested replacement planting was acceptable

- Most of the old quarry now comprised woodland, scrubland and calcareous grassland. The majority of this area was outside the application site and would not be affected by the proposed development.

- regarding the issue of the underground silica workings, no vehicles would go on that area of the site so there would be no risk of vibration to the bat habitat; mitigation measures had been put in place which would be beneficial for the habitat

- it was felt that the proposal would not harm residential amenity

- condition 9 had been worded as it had because the existing access would need to be used to allow for the construction of the new access but would be closed once the new access was in use

- there was no public access on the site

- the one way system used by Eagles and Crawford were reported in paragraph 7.94

- any materials not reused in this quarry would not be taken to other quarries but would be taken off site for re-use elsewhere

- regular and ad hoc monitoring of the site would take place to ensure that the conditions were enforced.

The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control confirmed that Flintshire County Council and the Trunk Road Agency did not have any objections to the application subject to conditions. The proposal would improve the width of part of Glynd?r Road and would lead to a better junction formation. The data on accidents was based on information logged by the Police and for this area, none had been reported. The proposed new access to the site would be closer to the A494 and the highway improvements that would be put in place prior to the use of the site would lead to the permanent closure of the existing access. When a bus was stationary at the bus stop, it would partially interfere with visibility but it would be the responsibility of the driver to decide whether to overtake the bus to proceed on his journey. She also explained that there were red hatched areas on the road to highlight that there was a need to proceed with caution.

Councillor Richard Lloyd queried whether there was a condition about the operating hours for the site and whether the public would be given access to the site once the work had been completed. The officer confirmed that condition 35 in the report (condition 46 in the draft conditions available to Members) provided a condition to control hours of operation. She explained that at this stage there was no offer from the applicant to open up the site for public access but with the proposed implementation of a Liaison Committee, this could be something to be discussed and explored in the future.

In response to a question from Councillor Peers about TAN 21, the officer confirmed that the wording that such a proposal was acceptable in exceptional circumstances was not included in the adopted TAN but was included in the draft document. The Principal Solicitor said that it was a matter for the Committee to decide how much weight to give to the draft document. He referred to the request from Councillor Matthews for a Liaison Committee, no Saturday working and a section 106 agreement for community benefits. The Liaison Committee scheme was addressed in condition 26, and paragraphs 7.07 and 7.09 indicated that works would take place on Saturdays, so this would need addressing specifically by the Committee if they felt that this was inappropriate. So far as possible community benefits were concerned, the Principal Solicitor said that there was nothing in the report about any such funding by way of a Section 106 agreement. He reminded Members that requirements in such agreements had to be directly related to the development.

In summing up, Councillor Butler thanked the officer for the very comprehensive report and reiterated his proposal of approval. He said that the NRW had answered all the questions on ecology issues. Following on from the comments of Councillor Matthews, he felt that the Liaison Committee should be established before the works commenced and suggested that the operators could consider altering the start time of operating to later than 7am. Councillor Butler also felt that, through the medium of the Liaison Committee, discussions with the operators might identify some community benefits.

Councillor Richard Jones requested a recorded vote and was supported by the requisite five other Members. On being put to the vote, planning permission was granted by 12 votes to 8 with no abstentions. The voting being as follows:-

FOR – GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

Councillors: Derek Butler, David Cox, Ian Dunbar, David Evans, Jim Falshaw, Ron Hampson, Ray Hughes, Christine Jones, Richard Lloyd, Mike Lowe, Gareth Roberts and David Wisinger

AGAINST – GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

Councillors: Marion Bateman, Alison Halford, Richard Jones, Brian Lloyd, Mike Peers, Neville Phillips, Carolyn Thomas and Owen Thomas

RESOLVED: