Agenda item

The Head of Development Management – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for extraction of sand and gravel from a new quarry and restoration of the site to agriculture and nature conservation using imported infill materials, together with the construction of a new site access road, site offices and weighbridge on land at Broach Road, Hensall, DN14 0BU on behalf of Darrington Quarries Ltd.

Members were reminded that this application had been initially reported to the committee for determination on 9 December 2025; however, the decision had been made to defer the application on the grounds of public amenity, specifically in relation to the soil bunds located adjacent to the nearest residential property, One Acre.

Members were advised that since the committee meeting on 9 December 2025, the applicant had reviewed the scheme and amended the position of the proposed subsoil bund south of One Acre. Two separate mounds were proposed in this area: a topsoil mound up to 3m high and a subsoil mound up to 5m high. The peak of the subsoil mound has been moved about 20m further into the site, away from One Acre, and its north‑eastern slope has been substantially reduced to lessen visual impact. A technical note from the original noise assessor confirmed that the revised design still met the required noise attenuation and complied with the previously set noise conditions. The resident of One Acre had confirmed in writing on 14 January 2026 that they remained unsatisfied with the proposed amendment and their objection still stood. They stated that they had expected the bund to be moved back into the site 30-40m, not the 20m as proposed. It was also confirmed that the possible installation of a dropped kerb to the north of the property onto Broach Road raised at the meeting on 9 December was not a material planning consideration and should not be given weight when determining the application.

Richard Kendall and Amy Kendall then both spoke objecting to the application, sharing the allotted five minutes.

The applicant’s agent, Sam Thistlethwaite, spoke in support of the application.

During their consideration of the officer report and presentation, members’ discussion centred on the following matters:

• Noise screening methodology. Members sought clarification on how the applicant determined the revised position of the bund and whether alternative distances (e.g., 30–35m) had been modelled. The applicant explained that noise protection was only effective when placed either at the source or the receptor, and that the revised design represented the farthest distance possible while still providing adequate mitigation.

• Objector concerns regarding slope stability and flooding. Members noted the objector’s concerns about the redesigned bund, particularly potential slope instability and flood risk. Officers advised that the bund would be seeded and planted to stabilise the slope and confirmed that the site was not within a flood zone.

• Mitigation for the most affected property. Members reiterated that the property nearest the site would experience the greatest impact and that mitigation remained important. Officers confirmed that the redesigned bund represented the most appropriate balance achievable.

• Highway access and dropped kerb. Members recalled that the applicant previously indicated willingness to contribute towards a new access arrangement for the affected resident. Officers confirmed discussions had taken place between the applicant and the resident. The applicant confirmed willingness to contribute if the separate highways approval process were successfully completed – this matter fell outside the planning process.

• Overall balance and recommendation. Members recognised that the applicant had responded to earlier concerns and made reasonable adjustments. While acknowledging the objector’s dissatisfaction, Members considered that the revised proposal provided suitable mitigation and that further adjustments may not be practical.

Decision:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions listed in the report and completion of a Deed of Unilateral Undertaking with terms as detailed in the report.

Voting record:

A vote was taken and the motion was declared carried with 13 for and 1 against.