Meeting documents

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning regarding applications which proposed changes to the Raymond Brown Sand and Gravel operations at Binnegar Quarry. 

A detailed overview, and presentation, were provided in respect of the proposal to relocate both the processing plant and silt lagoons from the north side of Puddletown Road to the south side. The impacts would be that dumpers would no longer need to cross the road, and that HGV delivery vehicles would access the site on the south side of the road rather than the north side as at present. The application also proposed revised restoration levels in area "B1" for the silt lagoons, which would be "capped" and restored to original ground levels. It was clarified that the application was supported by an Environmental Statement and no changes to the amount, duration, or extent of the extraction operations were proposed.  An extensive summary (including plans and photographs of the site, the relocated plant, battery bank and phasing of restoration to include a mix of biodiversity including dry humid and wet heathland) was provided.

The citing of the plant was explained as it would be at a low elevation below the rim of the extracted area at ‘B2’, and would be screened, which would minimise any visual or noise intrusion for local residents and the public.  Officers explained that the proposed restoration would bring improvements in providing ground levels close to existing levels rather than the currently approved bowl shape and improvements to the setting of the battery bank.  Historic England identified short-term harm to the setting of battery bank but considered this would be outweighed by the long-term improvement.

A description of the operational benefits was also provided which would improve highway safety by removing dumpers crossing Puddletown Road; introduce a legal agreement for the integrated management plan arrangements, specifically regarding restoration; landscape benefits to improve the long-term setting of the battery bank supported by Historic England; and common land improvements post restoration.

One public statement was received at the meeting from Mr Rob Westelon behalf of the applicant, in relation to the application in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).  A summary of the statement is attached to these minutes as an annexure.

As a neighbouring local member to the area being considered, Cllr Beryl Ezzard asked about any impact of HGV use of the site, to which it was confirmed that there were no highway liaison officer objections and given that there would be no dumpers using the road this would result in a big highway improvement.  She also asked about consultation with Arne Parish Council, to which it was confirmed that consultation had been undertaken and the report should have stated that no response was received.

The use of imported inert waste was discussed by the Committee, with questions asked about the definition of what waste would be used for restoration.  It was explained that the waste would consist of largely construction and demolition waste including materials from site preparations. The waste would not normally go to landfill and would not comprise domestic waste. The use of inert waste was covered by an Environment Agency (EA) Site Licence, the principle was established in the original site consent, and the EA would provide advice and checking of records.  A request was made for the EA to provide more information about procedures to the Committee in due course, however, as this was not a material consideration for the applications it would be addressed outside of the meeting.

Clarification was provided regarding the locations of nearby residential properties which were more than 200m from the proposed plant compound. There were no envisaged noise issues raised within the noise assessment, which would be no more than the existing noise from operations that had already been previously consented.

A concern was expressed that no response had been received from Natural England in respect of heathland mitigation as part of the restoration arrangements, and that there should be at the very least a response to say that no concerns were raised.  It was confirmed by officers that the Natural Environment Team had discussed the applications with Natural England but as Natural England was content with the Natural Environment Team’s response no formal response from Natural England was received.  The process for responses was not a material consideration for the applications, but would be considered outside of the meeting.

In respect of the legal obligations and agreement for the restoration and long-term management of the site and aftercare, information about contingency arrangements was requested, to which it was confirmed that the operators were members of the Mineral Products Association which provided a restoration fall-back position.  The future management of the site would also be effectively secured through a legal agreement which would tie present operators and any future owners to the agreement for 25 years after extraction had ceased.

Following debate, the recommendation in the report were proposed by Cllr Beryl Ezzard and seconded by Cllr Nick Ireland. On being put to the vote the recommendation was agreed.

Resolved

That planning permissions 6/2017/0685 and 6/2017/0687, be granted subject to the completion of a legal agreement, the heads of terms of which are set out in paragraph 8.2 of the Service Director’s report; and the conditions set out in the condition schedules found in paragraphs 8.3 and 8.4 of the report.

Reasons for Decisions

The reasons for granting planning permission are summarised in paragraphs 6.32 of the report.