Agenda item

Considered

The report of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Service requesting Members to determine applications to extend Settrington Quarry with

restoration to nature conservation habitat on land at Settrington Quarry, Back Lane, Settrington, Malton, YO17 8NX.

The application related to a sizeable quarry operation that was subject to objections raised in respect of a range of material planning issues and was, therefore reported to the Committee for determination.

A Planning Officer presented the report, highlighting the proposals; the site location and description; the context to the application; planning guidance; and policy and planning considerations. The report also provided conclusions and recommendations.

It was noted that the application had been deferred from the meeting of the Committee held in December 2024 to allow further consultation, on the issues raised during consideration of the application, between the applicant and the local community, including elected representatives, to develop a solution that would take account of the health and wellbeing of those in the local area. This had resulted in alterations to some of the conditions in the initial report details of which were reported to Members.

It was outlined that this and the following item were linked, therefore, the registered public speakers had opted to address both items in one statement to the Committee and were provided with 6 minutes in which to do so.

Kenelm Storey a local resident objecting to the proposals addressed the Committee highlighting the following.

·        The additional consultation on the conditions had not developed as expected or hoped, and the conditions within the altered report remained unacceptable.

·        The Ryedale Local Plan and the Minerals and Waste Plan indicated that the extracted mineral should only be extracted when there were no other sources available but permission had recently been given to further extract this mineral from the nearby Whitewall Quarry.

·        The proposed HGV routing would cause damage to the local highway network and would continue to be detrimental to the neighbouring local communities.

·        The loss of amenity and the right to a peaceful life had not been addressed through the revised conditions.

·        The quarry was close to a number of sensitive areas, including an SSI, and Settrington was a conservation area.

·        The major concerns remained traffic and amenity.

Councillor Dean Wise the acting Chair of Settrington Parish Council addressed the Committee highlighting the following.

·        The Parish Council attempted to engage with the applicant and the local community together but this had not materialised.

·        A meeting had been held, following the deferral of the application, where the concerns of the local community had been outlined.

·        Details of the conditions that would be required to make the application acceptable to the local residents were outlined at that meeting.

·        When the papers for this meeting were published there had been very little change to the conditions considered previously, therefore, no recognition had been given to the issues outlined by the local community by either the applicant or NYC Planners.

Councillor Caroline Goodrick the Divisional Councillor addressed the Committee highlighting the following.

·        At the previous meeting the Committee gave clear guidance alongside the deferral of the application that further meaningful dialogue between the applicant and the local community was requires to address concerns regarding the operating practices and how these were conditioned.

·        The Ryedale Local Plan highlighted the need to protect residential amenity and ensure development did not have a major adverse impact on their lives.

·        Despite the deferral and the request for further consideration to be given to the conditions the operations in the quarry and the HGV movements still did not accord with the Local Plan.

·        The proposal for vehicle movements. In and out of the quarry, was still not sustainable and Route 3 utilised by HGVs was detrimental to the local communities it passes through.

·        Despite the various suggested alterations to the conditions it was apparent from the revised report that very little change had been made and, therefore, the application should be refused.

Dan Walker a Chartered Surveyor representing the applicant addressed the Committee highlighting the following.

·        Further discussion of the application was requested following the deferral in December and engagement had taken place.

·        Following the approval of the Whitewall Quarry application it was considered appropriate that similar conditions should be sought.

·        The quarry site was established, activities there were limited, it provided local employment and the proposed extension accorded with the relevant policies.

·        The supply of mineral from the site was important to a number of industries.

·        There was no intention of increasing the number of HGV movements, with concessions made to ensure there were no movements around school pick-up/drop-off times, to and from the site and every effort was been made to minimise the impact on the local community.

·        The applications had been subject to robust consultations.

·        There was a comprehensive list of conditions and these addressed the concerns outlined by the local community.

Members discussed the applications and the following issues were outlined.

·        It was asked what the implications would be in terms of HGV movements should the application be refused given that there was still an existing permission to remove the mineral from the quarry. In response it was noted that the existing permission expired in 2022, however, the IDO historic area of the quarry had permission until 2042. There was only a small amount of material left to extract in the current quarry, however, so HGV movements were unlikely to be extensive. A reasonable timescale would need to be established with the applicant for this scenario.

·        It was noted that there was nothing to prevent one of the routes outlined within the conditions from being the only one to be used by the HGVs.

·        The preferred conditions outlined by the local community and discussed with the applicant had subsequently been considered by the Planning Officer in conjunction with the applicant. It was noted that it would be for the applicant to determine whether they could continue with the proposals should these conditions be implemented. Reassurance was provided that account had been taken of the various representations received resulting in a balanced set of conditions having been developed, taking account of those views.

·        It was clarified that the hours of work previously identified in the now removed Condition 9 were included in the revised Condition 8.

·        It was noted that the Local Authority only had the power to impose a performance bond and financial sanctions in exceptional circumstances and it was unlikely that these would apply for this application.

·        It was stated that the vehicle movements per day, outlined in the conditions, did not accord with the Minerals and Waste Plan. In response it was stated that the Local Highways Authority deemed the numbers to be acceptable. The site had been in operation for a number of years prior to a vehicle movement condition being imposed and the limits set were considered to be acceptable. It was not expected that vehicle movements would reach the maximum levels indicated on a daily basis.

·        It was stated that no enforcement action was required in respect of the potential breach of conditions as the applications to be determined would take into account the issues stated.

·        It was noted that the quarry was operated on a campaign basis with the mineral only removed when required, therefore, vehicle movements would only reach the conditioned peak at those times.

·        A Member stated that the Divisional Councillor had suggested that route 3 should not be used and asked what would be the consequences of applying this. In response it was noted that the contribution for highway improvements at Scagglethorpe would be jeopardised as it had been indicated that the route was suitable to use and the S106 agreement may be affected by this. Members suggested that route 3 was not appropriate for HGVs.

·        Avoidance of school times for HGVs using the quarry was in the revised conditions and was enforceable.

·        Should this application for an extension to the quarry be refused the existing site extension of time application would require an appropriate scheme of conditions would be required for that to continue and a further deferral of the extension of time application would be required to allow that to happen.

Members debated the application and the following issues were highlighted.

·        There was disappointment that the issues relating to SP16 and SP20 had still not been addressed satisfactorily despite the deferral.

·        Members discussed the possibility of altering the conditions to try and address some of the concerns expressed by the local communities as it was recognised that this was an existing site and the principle for the proposal was in place. It was suggested, therefore, that the appropriate conditions be altered to reflect the following.

Hours of operation – Monday to Friday – 07:00 to 17:00/Saturday – 07:00 to 13:30 – No Sundays and no Bank Holidays

Blasting – 10:00 to 14:00 - Monday to Friday

Pecking – 09:00 to 16:00 - Monday to Friday

Vehicle Movements – 44 each way – 88 in total (in and out)

Route 3 be excluded from use.

The revisions would require alterations to be made to Conditions 8, 9,10 and 20 and to Table 1 related to the S106 agreement. The other aspects of those conditions and the table would remain the same.

Resolved

That that the application be GRANTED in accordance with the conditions listed in the report and the completion of a S106 agreement with terms as detailed in Table 1 in the report, subject to the alterations to Conditions 8, 9,10 and 20 and to Table 1 related to the S106 agreement as outlined above.

The voting on this resolution was unanimous.