|
C8/2022/1115/CPO - Removal of condition
no. 7 of planning permission ref. C8/2009/1066/CPO to allow
blasting in the Southern extension area land to the South of
existing quarry, Jackdaw Crag Quarry, Moor Lane, Sutton, Tadcaster,
LS24 9BE
Considered
The report of the
Assistant Director of Planning – Community Development
Services requesting Members to determine a planning application for
the removal of condition No.7 of Planning Permission Ref.
C8/2009/1066/CPO to allow blasting in the southern extension area
on land to the south of existing quarry, Jackdaw Crag Quarry, Moor
Lane,
Sutton, Tadcaster,
LS24 9BE.
This application
received objections, primarily on the grounds of disturbance to
amenity due to blasting, and therefore was reported to the
Committee for determination.
The Planning Officer
presented the Committee report highlighting the proposal; context
to the application; site location, outline and description; details
regarding the changes to the conditions; and the planning policy
considerations. The Officer recommendation was highlighted.
The Planning Officer
raised that two objections had been received since the publication
of the report and these were summarised as below.
·
A query relating to a typographical error. The Planning Officer
confirmed that the word ‘object’ in paragraph 2.4
should not be in italics.
·
A query regarding the frequency of blasts. The Planning Officer
confirmed that at paragraph 10.45 of the report, it is stated that
there would be ‘at most five blasts every month, with on
average one blast a week’.
·
A concern related to consultation with neighbours. The Planning
Officers informed Members that neighbour consultation had been
undertaken, despite there being no statutory requirement for
consultation on conditions.
·
A concern regarding the impact of blasting on livestock. The
Planning Officer confirmed that the impact on livestock was
considered minimal with the proposed conditions.
·
A concern regarding the impact of blasting on the aquifer. The
Planning Officer highlighted that the report covered the impact on
the aquifer, concluding that there would be no significant issues
from blasting.
Mr Peter Hunt, a
neighbouring objector, addressed the Committee and raised the
following points.
·
That when the application had been reviewed by the Secretary for
State, it was made clear that blasting with explosives would not
take place. Mr Hunt questioned what had changed since then.
·
Whether blasting, rather than other methods of extraction, was
necessary for accessing the remaining material. Mr Hunt queried how
the applicant had managed to operate without blasting.
·
Concerns that damage would be done to nearby properties and that
livestock would be negatively impacted.
·
Concerns regarding increased traffic movements were raised.
The agent for the
applicant, Alistair Hoyle, addressed the Committee highlighting the
following.
·
That hard or consolidated rock required blasting, rather than other
methods of extraction, and that without it there would be an impact
on site operations and all permitted limestone reserves may not be
extracted.
·
That blasting would only be done when necessary, would be
infrequent and that seven days prior to carrying out a blast,
details would be provided to the parish council and the closest
residents.
·
That aside from the use of blasting to extract the rock, there
would be no change to how the quarry operates.
·
Details regarding the assessment of vibrations, noise and air
quality were provided.
Members asked
Officers to clarify the following points.
·
That the proposed blasting would use a similar method to the
blasting previously carried out at the site, but that standards
have improved since and that there would be a greater level of
control provided with these conditions. Specifically, there would
be a maximum number of blasts.
·
That the specified blasting hours are 8.00am to 6.00pm as this is
what the applicant applied for, the Environmental Health Officer
had no concerns with the condition as worded, and there was no
policy reason for these to be reduced.
·
That the permission is valid until 1 June 2028 and that any
extension beyond that date would require an amendment to the
condition. If the material was not extracted within the permitted
period, a new application for the variation of condition 4 of the
permission would be required, and the blasting operations would be
reassessed.
·
That the Secretary of State's decision to approve the previous
application had not relied on the absence of blasting from the
application as the application did not have any analysis or
evidence supporting blasting.
·
It was reiterated that there were no concerns about the impact on
livestock from the blasting operations.
·
It was clarified that Warren House Cottage was the closest
property, approximately 25 metres from the site, and Condition 9
was explained to Members.
·
It was confirmed that some of the 6.9 million tonnes of material
had already been extracted since the start of operations in
2018.
Members considered
the application and the following issues were highlighted.
·
Members suggested that the proposed blasting is more controlled
than in the past and that the suggested controls would negate any
negative impacts.
·
Members hoped that the applicant would be mindful of the
community's concerns.
·
Members raised that the blasting and the impact of this on nearby
properties should be properly monitored.
A proposal to approve
the application, in line with the recommendation in the report,
subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Variation and the
published conditions was seconded, and voted upon.
Voting record
10 for
1 abstention
Resolved
That the application
be APPROVED, in line with the recommendation in the report,
subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Variation and the
published conditions.
|