Agenda item

Extraction of sandstone.

Prudham Quarry, Newbrough, Northumberland

 

Extraction of sandstone

Prudham Quarry, Newbrough, Northumberland

 

G Halliday provided a detailed introduction to the application with the aid of a power point presentation.  An addendum report was tabled, along with a late representation and response from public protection, with time allowed for Members to read the information.  It was confirmed that a copy of the addendum report would be filed with the signed minutes and a copy uploaded to the Council’s website.  Additional updates were also provided as follows:

 

·       Following the site visit it was suggested that the monitoring report required by condition 21 could be more regular in the early stages of the site’s operation and therefore the beginning of condition 21 should be amended to read:-

 

A report shall be submitted to the MPA on a monthly basis for the first 12 months after the commencement of extraction and thereafter on an annual basis detailing the results of groundwater monitoring and an assessment as to whether the surface water management scheme has achieved the aims and been effective. The first such report shall be submitted not later than 2 months after the commencement of extraction…..

 

·       For clarity it was proposed that the beginning of condition 12 was amended as follows:-

 

The total number of heavy goods movements shall not exceed 3 movements into the site and 3 movements from the site on any day …..

 

·       At the site visit Members also expressed concern that the road between the site entrance and the public highway might be damaged by HGVs and following discussions with the applicant an additional condition is recommended as follows:-

 

Prior to the commencement of extraction the access road between the site entrance and the public highway shall be repaired and shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority for the duration of the development.

 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policies EP18 and EP19 of the Northumberland Minerals Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. 

 

R Murfin, Interim Executive Director of Planning and Local Services advised that the previous application had been refused, not as a point of principle, but due to the significant weight placed on the three key statutory consultees’ technical objections to the application.  Significant work had been undertaken to address these reasons for refusal and protracted dialogue had taken place with consultees. Officers were now satisfied that the application could be recommended for approval and highlighted that all three statutory consultees had now formally withdrawn objections subject to conditions being attached to any permission granted.

 

Mr D Curry addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  His comments included the following:-

 

·       The last time he had explained his deep concerns about this application, related to a spring at their property ‘Woodlands’, which was connected to the ‘Blue Lagoon’. 

·       The spring suddenly came to life in 2013, after Border Stone Quarries removed ‘sandstone samples’ from the site. Groundwater started to emerge from the base of the spoil heaps, and flooded their garage and workshop every subsequent winter. If removal of approximately 20 tonnes of samples caused flooding problems, what would happen if 5,000 tonnes were removed from the same location?

·       They had deep concerns about instability in the spoil heaps above their house. Groundwater emerging from the spoil heaps seemed to be related to a large Victorian tunnel, about 15 yards from the spring, this was now buried within the spoil and no one had any idea what condition this was in.

·       The previous application was unanimously refused planning permission. Unusually, the Environment Agency had recommended that permission should be refused, based specifically on the adverse effects on the flow and quality of the spring at Woodlands.

·       In respect of the current application, since 2019 new evidence had emerged. He was now even more convinced that this development was fundamentally dangerous. It was discovered that due to a ‘survey error’ the Blue Lagoon was actually 15m closer to the application area than was shown in the original plans. These plans had exaggerated the width of the containment bund for the lagoon. The 1970 Ordnance Survey map attached to the new application showed that the bund did not exist at the time of the survey. This meant that the containment bund for the Blue Lagoon was not solid sandstone, as was claimed by the applicant.  In December 2020 the Council commissioned a Stability Assessment from Wardell Armstrong on behalf of the applicant. This advised that removal of sandstone in Phase 1 of the development could cause sufficient groundwater to be released from the Blue Lagoon to have a significant negative impact on the stability of the spoil heaps behind their house, likely to result in “spoil material moving downslope, potentially directly towards and impacting with the Woodlands property”’. As well as potential injury and loss of life, this would obviously cause catastrophic flooding.  He could not understand how the LPA could receive a report like that and not be deeply concerned about the consequences of approving planning permission.

·       On 22 December he wrote to Mr. Murfin asking that paragraph 9.72 of the revised Committee Report should contain Wardell Armstrong’s assessment of the consequencesof instability, as well as Wardell Armstrong’s caveat regarding the huge uncertainties in the assessment. This request had been ignored.

·       They had now measured the spring flows. On average, 44,000 litres of groundwater from the Blue Lagoon reached their spring every day. Their experience following the removal of samples in 2013 suggested that any increase in these flows would be irreversible.

·       There were still huge questions to be answered such as how far west had groundwater from the Blue Lagoon penetrated the waste bund?  What were the possible effects of ground vibrations from the use of black powder on groundwater flows?  What would be the consequences of groundwater entering the proposed surface water drainage ditch, which would be 1m below the winter level of the Blue Lagoon? No one has addressed these questions.

·       The applicant has repeatedly been asked to provide a Flood Risk Assessment for groundwater flooding but had declined to do so. It seemed that the Environment Agency and the LLFA had been focussed on surface water management issues. There had been absolutely no mention of the above issues in their responses.

·       Only condition 21 could relate to groundwater flooding, which proposed to send an annual (now monthly) report to the Mineral Planning Authority with fluctuations of the levels in borehole 2. However, data over a 2 year period had shown that there was no correlation between the levels recorded in the borehole and the flows to the Woodlands spring.

·       The application was originally in three phases with Phase 3 removed because of concerns about groundwater. Phase 1 had now been removed because of serious safety concerns related to groundwater flooding.

·       Paragraph 9.79 stated that the economic and employment benefits were limited.

·       The application should be refused permission because it was not in accordance with MIN1 of the Northumberland Local Plan, paragraph i).

·       Councillor Gibson was quoted as saying at the last meeting “I’ve walked around the quarry a few times, and you come out shaking your head. Really it’s just a massive spoil heap. You just have to make one mistake and you could be in real trouble”

 

Councillor N Morphet addressed the Committee speaking as the local Ward Member.  His comments included the following information:-

 

·       He had followed this application for the past year and shared the concerns of many of the residents who were opposed to the application.

·       The danger that quarry traffic would pose to pedestrians as it passed through Fourstones.  The laden HGVs would descend through Northbank to the crossroads where they would turn left towards Warden. Many residents already felt that Northbank had a road safety problem due to vehicles descending the hill at speed. Although there would be a maximum of 6 HGVs per day he considered this was 6 HGVs that Fourstones and Northbank could do without. If permission was granted could the applicant be asked to make a contribution to road safety in the area?

·       He had concerns related to cyclists both those using Hadrians Cycleway and those on the Fourstones to Warden road.  Hadrian's Cycleway was one of the country’s most popular long distance cycleways and if this application was granted cyclists would follow the same route as the quarry traffic for one kilometre. Sustrans recently gave this cycleway a very low safety score and this was one of the most dangerous sections without having the extra HGVs on the road.

·       The Fourstones to Warden road was even more dangerous for cyclists and the additional traffic would increase the risk.  The provision of a cycleway along this route was being considered and if permission was granted then could the applicant be requested to provide a contribution to the feasibility study or even towards its creation?

·       He had concerns regarding groundwater flooding and the possibility of this leading to instability of the spoil heaps.  Policy WAT1 in the new local plan stated that development should not supported if it could disrupt groundwater movement and he stated that Members needed to be confident this would not happen.

·       That groundwater flooding had occurred at Woodlands Spring soon after the applicant had taken samples should ring alarm bells.  They had been told that samples might have been taken below the water table and because condition 20 required excavations about 1m above the water table a repeat occurrence was likely. However there were other mechanisms which might affect the flow of groundwater such as the drainage ditches and pipework across the land which could increase the rate of rain water entering the south pond from where it could enter the groundwater.  They had been told that the surface water drainage would mimic natural flow, but how could they be certain of that.

·       Mr Curry was very concerned that quarry activity would lead to groundwater flooding and land instability around his property. Mr Curry used to design drainage systems and had a good understanding of drainage and flood risk.  Mr Curry had spotted that the width of bund to the southwest of the blue lagoon was too wide on the original plans.  Mr Curry had emailed yesterday and had drawn attention to errors he had recently spotted in the plans many with significant implications.   He had fact checked these points and had found nothing to disagree with.  The first point cast doubt that the first collection point would be on sandstone or quarry waste which had implications for land instability risks both at the collection point and in the spoil heaps and could mean that condition 19 became unenforceable.  These points deserved to be answered.

·       Another concern was that the officer’s report stated that the chances of instability in the various areas studied was negligible but did not comment on the severity of the possible consequences of land instability.  He had some experience of risk assessments and considered that a good one considered the severity of the consequences as well as the chances of them happening and asked that Members considered this when making their decision.

·       Wardle Armstrong had made it very clear that there was uncertainty regarding the relationship between groundwater flow and spoil heap stability and that their conclusions were based on the limited information available and this should also be considered.

·       Condition 23 required the operator to commission an independent hydrogeologist to investigate complaints that quarrying activities had affected a private water supply, but there seemed to be some doubt of whether the Woodland spring qualified as a private water supply.  If Members decided to grant planning permission he suggested an amendment to condition 23 to make it clear that it covered the Woodland spring as well as other nearby water supplies.

 

K Wood, agent on behalf of the application addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  Her comments included the following:-

 

·       This proposal was for sandstone quarry just to the north of Fourstones.  As some of you would have seen yesterday the site was within an old quarry void that had been created by previous quarrying in the area.

·        This proposed development sought to win the remaining ‘lump’ of sandstone that projects into this void for use in restoration and construction projects.

·       She appreciated that this application had resulted in strong objections from local residents, including Mr Curry who had spoken to you today, and Warden Parish Council.  These objections were based on a number of issues and all of these were documented in the report.

·       Throughout the planning process the applicant had sought to resolve any technical issues presented to them through the consultation process, and to discuss any identified matters and areas of concerns with the Planning Officer, the Lead Local Flood Area Officer and the Environment Agency.  They were now in the position where all of these Officers were satisfied with the proposals subject to the conditions proposed and set out.  Their view was that there were no technical grounds for refusing the application.

 

In response to questions from Members of the Committee the following information was provided:-

 

·       This was a very small quarry which would be worked on a “campaign” basis when the applicant had won a contract to supply stone needed for the repair or restoration of a building.  When the stone was required the quarry would be worked , however there would be corresponding periods where there would be limited or no activity. This was a different operating model to large bulk aggregate or opencast  coal sites where frequent, high volume vehicle movements were associated with a rolling production basis.

·       The signage in place indicated that there was a blind summit and a minor junction inside a bend and therefore there was currently a junction with the possibility of vehicles coming out. This was acceptable as warning signage to motorists. It effectively raised awareness and to approach it in a manner which was appropriate.

·       The reason why a condition was attached in relation to the access road being maintained to a suitable standard was to ensure that vehicles exiting the site and travelling onto the highway network did not bring anything out which would be detrimental to the network or for the vehicles themselves to have driven through potholes which could make them less roadworthy.  It was considered there was sufficient protection at that location. 

·       There was no routing strategy condition however if it was felt that this was necessary due to satellite systems advising of inappropriate routes then this could be discussed with the applicant. It was considered that the route through Fourstones was the safer route.

·       The concerns regarding the local roads were acknowledged, however there were no restrictions on these and therefore they could be used by any vehicle at any time.  There would a restriction of 3 HGV movements each way per day and therefore it was not expected that any vehicles using the roads would encounter any more than 1 HGV related to the site.  It was considered that whilst the additional movements could make the road slightly less safe it was not at a level to be harmful.

·       It was not known why the water in the lagoon was blue, however it was different colours at different times of the year and was not always blue, however this was not a unique occurrence and occurred in other parts of the UK on sites associated with former mineral activity.

·       It was considered that there was now enough triangulation evidence and that this had been considered in great detail by the consultees.  Just because there was still not 100% certainty that there would be no impacts, this  was not sufficient or a reasonable reason to refuse an application.  In contrast, in 2019 it was not considered that there was sufficient information to make a decision and this view was reflected in the positions of the LLFA, Public Protection and the Environment Agency. 

·       The Council was being consistent in its approach. During the 2019 Planning Committee meeting it had been made clear that, just as  significant weight was placed on the positions of Consultees. The potential absence of consultee objection would need to be afforded significant weight if a new application was to be subsequently made.  What gave confidence to the current recommendation was that the application had been subject to an unusually extensive series of technical investigations and dialogue.  Additional information had also specifically been requested in response to the objections and comments of local residents.

·       The key question now was, any remaining uncertainty now sufficient that a decision could not be made to support the application?  The view of the statutory consultees was that sufficient information had now been provided, however Members were advised directly that they still could come to the conclusion that,  despite the Environment Agency being now satisfied,  they wished to refuse the application as they did not consider the site could be worked safely, although this reason for refusal might be difficult to sustain.

·       There would be an agreement with the landowner/applicant that the access road would be inspected before Highways before any extraction of the stone from the site was commenced.  The access road and track needed to be suitable for use by HG.

·       There was no evidence of any issues with HGVs turning west at the junction of the A69.  As the junction onto the A69 was designed to a suitable standard it would not be appropriate to ask for all HGVs to turn left and travel to the roundabout to go west.   The operation of the junction was suitable to turn right and a restriction could not be made on one operator to prevent this.  If it was considered necessary for all HGVs then a Traffic Regulation Order and consultation would be required.

·       Whilst wheel washes were required on some larger minerals sites where there were large outputs and high vehicles numbers entering work areas, in this instance vehicles would not be entering the quarry area and any issue could be picked up as part of the site management plan.

·       Officers could liaise with the applicant in respect of a contribution to the proposed cycleway if required, however this was a very modest mineral scheme.

·       The general principle when looking at bulk mineral sites was to look for the highest reasonable output in the shortest time to reduce impacts on residents. This site would be worked on a campaign basis with the stone being of a very specific type and would be produced for a specific heritage market, therefore it was not possible to state how long it would be required to be operational as this would depend on the contracts won.  If the site was fully extracted for example, in 18 months, then the site would need to be completed  and restored. 

·       If there were no operations being undertaken at the site then machinery would be removed. The land was in private ownership and anyone accessing without permission was trespassing.  A condition would be attached related to any fencing required and the site would also be subject to legislation from both Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency to ensure that the site was run safely.

·       There were maximum weight limits for HGV and mechanisms were in place should vehicles need to attend a weighbridge.  The access was a private road and conditions would ensure sufficient maintenance.  Concerns were understood regarding the wider road network, but these were publicly maintained and did not have any restrictions on their use by HGVs.  A log would be kept of vehicles accessing the site which would be available for inspection.

·       All types of vehicles travelled through Fourstones already and the impact of the 3 extra vehicles per day would not have an unacceptable impact even if vehicles travelling in the opposite direction had to stop.  Pedestrians and Cyclists now had priority over other road users and if the HGVs had to wait to pass then they would need to do so.

·       Officers had taken a balanced view in coming to their decision to recommend approval of the application with the technical concerns having been addressed.

·       The Director of Planning added finally that, having listened to questions and issues rasied, Members could reflect their concerns in a refusal based upon techncial uncertainty of stability/hydogeological issues and HGV impact on local roads. He added that while this was clearly a locally controversial scheme that officers had carried out extensive work on the application and were now satiasfied that it was suitable for a decision to approve, subject to the amended conditions.

 

Councillor Robinson proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application as outlined in the report subject to the referral to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the satisfactory conclusion of a Section 59 agreement and conditions outlined and as amended above and with the additional condition regarding repair and maintenance of the road from the public highway to the site entrance with the exact wording to be delegated to the Director of Planning in conjunction with Chair.  This was seconded by Councillor Stewart.

 

Members considered that the application was for the re-opening of a very small portion of a former stone quarry for a small amount of stone to be made available for the maintenance and restoration of large buildings some of which would be in conservation areas where the Local Planning Authority insisted this type of material be used.  A lot of work had been undertaken to ensure the safety and protection of neighbours.    A vote was taken on the motion to approve as follows:- FOR 11; AGAINST 2; ABSTENSIONS 0.

 

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission subject to:

 

(a) the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, following referral of the application, confirming that he does not wish to call in the application for determination;

 

(b) the satisfactory conclusion of a Section 59 agreement for the repair of any damage to the highway resulting from the quarry operation; and

 

(d) the conditions as outlined in the report as amended as follows:

 

Condition 12 – The total number of heavy goods movements shall not exceed 3 movements into the site and 3 movements from the site on any day …..

 

Condition 21 –  A report shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority on a monthly basis for the first 12 months after the commencement of extraction and thereafter on an annual basis detailing the results of groundwater monitoring and an assessment as to whether the surface water management scheme has achieved the aims and been effective. The first such report shall be submitted not later than 2 months after the commencement of extraction ……

 

(e) An additional condition to be added regarding repair and maintenance of the road from the public highway to the site entrance with the exact wording to be delegated to the Director of Planning in conjunction with Chair.