Agenda item

The Committee considered a part-retrospective application for a proposed processing, stocking and bagging area at Wildmoor Quarry, Sandy Lane, Wildmoor, near Bromsgrove, Worcestershire.

 

The report set out the background of the proposal, the proposal itself, the relevant planning policy and details of the site, consultations and representations.

 

The report set out the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy’s comments in relation to Green Belt, Landscape character and visual impacts, Residential amenity (air quality, noise, dust, vibration and lighting), Traffic, highway safety and impact on Public Rights of Way, Water environment, Ecology and biodiversity, and Other matters – Economic impact, Heritage impacts, Infrastructure assets, and Monitoring and enforcement.

 

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy concluded that this application was part-retrospective as the hardstanding had been constructed, the new replacement site office, car parking, and relocated weighbridge had been installed and the existing stocking and bagging area and plant had been relocated. The mineral processing plant had not been erected at the site.

 

The proposed development would be located wholly within the West Midlands Green Belt. It was considered that the development as a whole would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

 

The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that the mineral processing plant would be ancillary plant and equipment to the existing and long established Wildmoor Quarry helping to maximise and improve the processing of sand, and enabling more of the sand from the quarry to be used for the production of mortar, either on site, should planning permission be granted for a mortar batching plant or off site, thereby improving the efficiency of the processing operations. The applicant had confirmed that the processing plant needed to be approximately 16 metres high, as that was the functional height of the plant in order for it to clean / process the sand. Furthermore, the bagging of minerals on site was an existing and lawful operation, relocated from elsewhere within the quarry, and was considered to represent an ancillary and 'added value' activity to the wider extraction operations at Wildmoor Quarry to the benefit of the local economy. The relocated weighbridge, replacement offices and new hardstanding were considered to be essential site infrastructure associated with the extraction of minerals on site, providing improved facilities and working environment for site personnel, and the fallback position was that the site office would be permitted development (falling under Part 17, Class A, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)), and the weighbridge was existing lawful plant and equipment relocated from elsewhere in the quarry.

 

Consequently, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that, on balance, the other considerations in this case outweighed the harm to the Green Belt. Considering the case as a whole, it was considered that very special circumstances existed which justified the development. The Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that should planning permission be granted, conditions should be imposed requiring the removal of the development within 12 months of cessation of extraction at Wildmoor Quarry; and given the Green Belt location, restrict the permitted development rights for the installation of fixed plant and equipment above 10 metres in height on site.

 

With regard to visual impacts and landscape character, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that given the location of the development, set back within the quarry void and being well screened by mature trees and hedgerows along the northern and eastern boundaries, and intervening structures and plant associated with the Top Yard from views from Sandy Lane (A491), the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the local area. Whilst localised views into the site were visible from land and farmsteads to the south and south-west of the proposal and along the Public Rights of Way (Footpaths BB-675 and BB-676), it was considered that these were distant views and seen in the context of an operational quarry. Furthermore, views form the Public Rights of Way would be transient as the receptors pass through the landscape. Localised views form along Footpath BB-684 were considered to have a greater adverse visual impact, but such views were also considered to be transient and seen in the context of the existing site.

 

The County Landscape Officer had been consulted and raised no objections to the proposal. In view of this, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable adverse or detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the local area.

 

Worcestershire Regulatory Services had been consulted and had raised no objections to the proposal, in terms of air quality, noise, vibration, dust impacts. Based on this advice, and due to the location of the application within the void of Wildmoor Quarry, it was considered that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions that there would be no adverse air quality, noise, vibration, dust or lighting impacts on residential amenity.

 

The applicant stated that the proposal would not generate additional HGV movements. The County Highways Officer and County Footpath Officer both raised no objections to the proposal. In view of this, the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy was satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon traffic, highway safety or users of the Public Right of Way, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

 

Based on the advice of the Environment Agency, North Worcestershire Water Management and Severn Trent Water Limited, it was considered that there would be no adverse effects on the water environment, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

 

Natural England and the County Ecologist had both raised no objections to the proposal. In view of this, it was considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on ecology and biodiversity at the site or on the surrounding area.

 

Taking into account the provisions of the Development Plan and in particular Policies BDP1, BDP4, BDP13, BDP15, BDP16, BDP19, BDP20, BDP21, BDP22 and BDP23 of the Adopted Bromsgrove District Plan, it was considered the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the interests intended to be protected by these policies or highway safety.

 

The representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy introduced the report and commented that members had visited the site observing the location of the nearby local quarries, the adjacent public footpath, the existing site access and the nearest properties to the site. Members were also shown a photograph of the view of the site from the Public Rights of Way adjacent to Orchard Farm.

 

Mr Danks, representing the Wildmoor Residents’ Association, an objector to the application addressed the Committee. He commented that the developer intentionally commenced construction of the processing plant without permission but was stopped on site by the Council’s Enforcement Officer in December 2018.

The proposed plant would have a finished height of 16 metres and an overall length of 104 metres – a considerable fixed structure in the landscape equivalent to more than the height of three double decker buses.

 

He added that paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identified that openness of the Green Belt was one of the essential characteristics of Green Belts, along with permanence. Paragraph 146 of the NPPF also stated that other forms of development were not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserved its openness. Mineral extraction was listed as a permissible development. However, this application was not centred on mineral extraction but the operation of a commercial mortar production plant. The existing plant and equipment so far constructed included the very large elevated concrete hardstanding area. The A491 main highway running past the site was at a level of approximately 170 metres A.O.D. Consequently, the proposed plant tower would project 6 metres above the adjacent highway and with lighting for operational and safety requirements would have the appearance of an illuminated ‘oil rig’ in the landscape.

 

He stated further that the applicant argued that the proposal generated economic benefit in terms of supporting an existing business and enabling the business to maximise efficiency and potential. The applicant suggested that the plant, whilst not in conformity with Section BDP 4.4, was necessary for the expansion of the existing use – a use that had not yet been granted planning approval. It was questioned how large the expansion would become. The applicant also stated that – ‘The plant would be set below the surrounding ground level and would therefore be less conspicuous in its location’ but then acknowledged that the structures would be ‘visible from viewpoints around the site’.

 

He indicated that the applicant also stated that the wash plant would allow more Wildmoor Quarry sand to be used in the production of mortar but failed to add that he would be required to make an application for an abstraction licence and a new bore hole into the aquifer to supplement the washing process. The applicant’s reasoning for the existence of very special circumstances was unsubstantiated and flawed. The proposed development was inappropriate development and would result in significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt and be in conflict with the fundamental aim of preserving the openness of it. These proposals would exacerbate the number and frequency of HGVs. arriving and departing from this site. The applicant’s transport policy had not been assessed, examined in detail and was flawed. This approach demonstrated a complacent and irresponsible attitude to residents near and far and to the impacts on the environment, public safety, noise, vibration and air pollution as a result of its combined vehicle movements.

 

He concluded that given the size of the development so far constructed and the ‘intended potential’ referred to, it was considered that this development would not be an ancillary operation to the extraction of sand but would be the dominant industrial operation on this site, and one that would be expanded commercially to meet demand.

 

In response to Mr Danks’ presentation, the following issues were raised:

 

·         In response to a query about his reference in his presentation to a local borehole, Mr Danks indicated that the FRA report included in the application documents indicated that the use of a borehole would be necessary to supplement the washing process on the site. This was in the context the protection zone for the local aquifer which supplied water to 19,000 homes in Bromsgrove

·         Had the residents group established any lines of communication with the applicant? Mr Danks responded that the applicant had not made any overt overtures to the group although he had requested more land from the parish council which had been refused

·         What was the basis for the contention that transport movements would increase, contrary to the views of the applicant? Mr Danks argued that the applicant was pinning his arguments on the basis that he would not be importing sand for the mortar batching process, however the quantity of sand at the site was diminishing and therefore this was a false premise as sand extraction at the site could not be sustained in the long term.

 

Mr Parton (applicant) and Mr Hume (agent) did not address the Committee but were available to answer questions. The following queries were raised with them:

 

·         The objector had stated that the mortar facility was not ancillary to the works on site and the supply of sand would run out in the short term. Mr Parton responded that the plan was to supply building sand to building sites in Worcestershire and the wider area either in a loose or bagged form. However, there was a greater call in the building industry to provide ready to use, quality assured processed sand. Therefore, the company was required to blend materials from other quarries to ensure that the mortar was of the required quality. This application would allow more of the sand from the site to be used without the need to blend with other materials. He hoped that further sand reserves would become available from extensions at this site or at Chadwich Lane Quarry. It was considered appropriate to submit this application in before proceeding with the quarry extension applications  

·         Why was the application part-retrospective and not submitted in a timely manner? Mr Parton responded that negotiations were taking place as to whether there was General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) rights for the processing plant. In his other quarries it had not been necessary to ask for planning permission to move machinery within a site. In wet conditions, this site became a quagmire and hardstanding was necessary for the operations to continue on the site. It was therefore decided to construct the hardstanding before requesting permission to move the processing plant. The representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy added that although the processing plant required planning permission, the hardstanding did not. The application was part retrospective because the applicant had framed his application as a consolidation application (including the hardstanding which had already been built together with the existing stocking and bagging operations),

·         Did the applicant have a licence to abstract the water from the borehole and if water was abstracted would it impact on the hardstanding which was already cracked on its edge? Mr Parton indicated that there was no need to use a borehole because rainfall was collected on site and recycled during the process. The crack in the hardstanding was not as a result of water extraction and he gave an assurance that the rest of the hardstanding was structurally stable

·         Would the applicant be prepared to accept a condition on the permission restricting the number of vehicle movements at the site? Mr Parton responded that observing the vehicles movements at the site over a limited period could give a false impression of overall vehicle movements. Overall vehicle movements averaged at 2 movements per hour. This was consistent for quarry sites across the country, even for much bigger quarries than this site. The County Highways Officer had indicated that the local transport network could cope with the proposed level of vehicle movements and he did not believe a further restriction was necessary

·         Local residents had expressed concerns about lighting proposals for the site. Would it be possible to position the lighting half way down the building rather than at the top? Mr Parton commented that the lights were not at the top of the building but on separate satellite towers on the ground. There was a condition proposed which would require further permission for any new lighting on site

·         In response to a concern about contamination of the local aquifer, Mr Parton commented that there was nothing in the processing of sand that could contaminate the land. There were also a number of regulatory restrictions to operations on site and furthermore the EA had not objected to this application

·         In response to a query about lines of communication with local residents, Mr Parton stated that he would welcome improved communications with the Wildmoor Residents Association and other local residents.

 

The local councillor commented that although she remained supportive of local businesses in Bromsgrove, she strongly objected to this planning application, due to the undoubtable damage it would cause to the local residents standard of living – both those in close proximity to the application and to those further afield.

 

She considered that this area was within the Green Belt, and as such should be protected. Paragraph 143 of the NPPF stated that inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF stated that when considering any planning application local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight was given to any harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposal was clearly outweighed by other considerations. It was also noted that Bromsgrove District Council objected to the application and recommended the imposition of a condition requiring a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan as recommended by the County Ecologist should planning permission be granted.

 

She added that the proposal would increase the number of HGVs using the already busy A491 Sandy Lane.  She was concerned about the construction of additional buildings to replace the existing plant, built without planning permission for the mortar production plant. It was noted that the operating hours were 7am until 7pm but there was no mention of lighting requirements during the winter months. If it was flood lit, it would cause the surrounding areas to be Illuminated, impacting on the local residents visibility in the surrounding areas.

 

She commented that this proposed development site was located directly within the Level 2 Water Protection Zone serving the Wildmoor Aquifer, which in turn supplied the Wildmoor Pumping Station being less than a 1,000 metres away on its southern boundary. The Pumping Station supplied fresh water to some 19,000 homes in Bromsgrove. The proposed treatments and washed residues from mortar production, already in operation, discharged to the ‘Fresh Water Lagoon’ on the quarries southern boundary at a depth of approximately 150 metres above ordnance datum, existing waste discharge pipe could be viewed from this southern quarry boundary. Mortar production on a large scale required the use of additives and retardants to improve plasticity and reduce the setting times whilst mortar was in transit. There was concern that these washed out residues (depending on the chemical composition of those applied) could eventually directly enter the ground water supply.

 

She indicated that Veolia Landfill site across the road from the Wildmoor Quarry had only recently been restored. This had taken the best part of twenty years to bring about with a high volume of transport movements throughout that time. Residents of this area were hoping that the final stage of sand extraction at Wildmoor Quarry would not be too long in coming and restoration of the site would follow. This mortar processing plant would cause the final restoration of this site to be pushed well into the next twenty years. These proposed fixed structures would be an alien feature on this Green Belt site and would cause harm to it and be 'inappropriate development'.

 

In the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:

 

·         Although the application site was in the Green Belt, it was considered that very special circumstances had been demonstrated due to the tremendous demand for sand in the building industry and the limited number of suitable quarry sites. This application would make little difference to the already limited number of vehicle movements at the site. In addition, the County Highways Officer had not objected to the application

·         At the site visit, an indication was given that the bagging plant would double production levels and therefore, it was difficult to understand how this application would not impact on the number of vehicle movements. The representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy responded that it was difficult to add a condition restricting vehicle movements because the importation of materials to the site from Chadwich Lane was lawful and it was difficult to fetter a lawful use of the site. The bagging plant was merely being relocated at the site. It was the minerals processing plant that would be increasing capacity. The representative of the County Highways Officer added that this application clearly stated that the processes that currently took place would be moved elsewhere on the site and therefore there would be no additional vehicle movements for this particular application

·         The public footpath running alongside the access track was in a terrible condition and the applicant should be required to improve its condition. The representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy responded that such a condition would fail the test of planning conditions as it was not necessary or relevant to the consideration of this application. It would be better controlled through a ROMP whereby every so often the conditions associated with a minerals site would be reviewed. It might also be appropriate for the applicant to voluntarily improve its condition 

·         The representative of the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy explained that the applicant was entitled to submit a retrospective application and the local planning authority would be able to consider it where it was felt appropriate to regularise activities on site. Although the local planning authority could invite such applications, it could not assume they would be granted and could not fetter its discretion prior to consideration. In relation to the weight that could be given to such applications, in 2015 the relevant Government Minister established that intentional authorised development could be a material planning consideration. However, officers had received advice from a barrister which indicated that this premise had not been included in the NPPF and therefore, the local planning authority needed to be careful about the amount of weight given to it. His advice was to give limited weight to the retrospective nature of this application

·         The local councillor indicated that from observing the site recently, there were more than 2 vehicle movements per hour at the site

·         The relevant water regulatory authorities had not expressed any concerns about water contamination at the site. The local councillor responded that this remained a concern for local residents

·         This application could have been approved under Permitted Development Regulations but for condition 14 of the existing planning permission. Although development in the Green Belt was a concern especially with so many SSSI in the local vicinity, quarrying operations were already taking place on site and this proposal to make operations more efficient was welcomed. It also kept jobs in the local rural area. Therefore, on balance the application should be approved.

 

RESOLVED thatplanning permission be granted for a proposed processing, stocking and bagging area (part-retrospective) at Wildmoor Quarry, Sandy Lane, Wildmoor, Near Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, subject to the following conditions:

 

Approved Plans

a)    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on submitted Drawings Numbered: M11.119(g).D.002, M11.119(g).D.003, M11.119(g).D.004, and M11.119(g).D.004, except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission;

 

Cessation

b)   Within 12 months of cessation of mineral extraction at Wildmoor Quarry, planning permissions ref: 107104 and 407219, the development hereby approved shall be removed from the site including all associated materials, infrastructure, plant and machinery and the land reinstated to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority;

 

Hours of Working

c)    Except in emergencies, no operations, including any repair and maintenance of vehicles, plant and equipment within the development hereby approved, shall take place outside the hours of 07:00 hours and 19:00 hours Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and between 07:00 to 13:00 hours on Saturdays with no operations on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. No machinery or equipment shall operate on the site outside these hours;

 

Construction Hours

d)   Construction works shall only be carried out on the site between 08:00 to 18:00 hours on Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and 08:00 to 13:00 hours on Saturdays, with no construction work on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays;

 

Noise

e)    All vehicles, plant and machinery operated within the site shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications at all times, and shall be fitted with and use fully operational silencers;

 

f)     The best practical means shall be employed to minimise the emission of noise beyond the boundary of the site;

 

Dust

g)   Within 3 months of the date of this permission, a Dust Management Plan shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

Lighting

h)   Details of any new lighting to be installed at the site shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to being erected.   These details shall include:

 

                     i.        Height of the lighting posts;

                    ii.        Intensity of the lights;

                   iii.        Spread of light (in metres);

                   iv.        Any measure proposed to minimise the impact of the lighting or disturbance through glare;

                    v.        Any measures to minimise the impact of lighting upon protected species and habitats, in particular the adjacent woodland; and

                   vi.        Times when the lighting would be illuminated;

 

Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

Storage Heights

i)     The height of any bagged aggregates shall not exceed 3 metres and a scheme for the setting up of a permanent marker that allows operatives and officers from the County Planning Authority a means of visually checking this height shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing within 3 months of the date of this permission. The agreed heightmarker shall be erected and maintained on site for the duration of the development hereby approved;

 

Design and Location

j)     Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the erection of the minerals processing plant hereby approved, drawings of the detailed design of the plant shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

k)    Notwithstanding the submitted details, within 3 months of the date of this permission, a scheme shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing, showing the position of the mineral processing and bagging plants. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

Pollution

l)     Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, vessel or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks or vessels plus 10%. All filling points, associated pipework, vents, gauges and site glasses must be located within the bund or have separate secondary containment. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank/vessels, overflow pipe outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund;

 

m)  No materials shall be burnt on the site;

 

Ecology

n)   Notwithstanding the submitted details, within 6 months of the date of this permission, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. Thereafter, the LEMP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details for the duration of the development hereby approved;

 

Highways

o)   Notwithstanding the submitted details, within 3 months of the date of this permission, an updated scheme to prevent the deposit of mud, sand and debris on the public highway, shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. Thereafter, the approved shall be implemented and maintained for the duration of the development hereby approved;

 

p)   All access to and egress from the site shall be via the existing quarry entrance and exit off the A491 Sandy Lane;

 

q)   Signs shall be provided to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority and erected on the applicant's own land, to ensure that drivers entering and leaving the site obey the west to east 'one way' system;

 

r)     All loaded vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be enclosed or covered to prevent dust emission and spillage of materials on to the public highway;

 

s)    The parking facilities shown on the drawing numbered: M11.119(g).D.002  shall  be retained and kept available for staff, visitor and lorry parking at all times;

 

Drainage

t)     There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either groundwater or any surface water whether direct or via soakaways;

 

Permitted Development Rights

u)   Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no fixed plant or equipment exceeding 10 metres in height, shall be erected, extended, installed or replaced on the site hereby permitted;

 

Ancillary

v)    The development hereby approved shall be ancillary to the mineral extraction at Wildmoor Quarry, planning permissions ref: 107104 and 407219;

 

Planning Permission

w)   A copy of this decision notice, together with all approved plans and documents required under the conditions of this permission shall be maintained at the site office at all times throughout the period of the development and shall be made known to any person(s) given responsibility for management or control of activities/operations on the site; and

 

x)    For the avoidance of doubt, this permission does not permit the storage or bagging of salt on the site.